1963-11-04

Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielte-L'Assomplion-Monicalm):: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a point of privilege.
Mr. Martineau, a Montreal lawyer who has been appointed by the Canadian government to study the Norris report contradicted the Minister of Justice, who, with regard to Mr. Hal Banks, and in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr), made the following statement on October 31, 1963, which may be seen on page 4215 of Hansard:

A charge has been laid against Hal Banks in Montreal.

Mr. Martineau, as reported by all newspapers, including the Montreal Star, stated that no charge had yet been laid against the chairman of the S.I.U., whereas, last Thursday the Minister of Justice maintained that charges had been brought against him.
To my mind, the statement of the Minister of Justice was ill-considered and irresponsible.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, as you know, the complaint of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm was not a point of privilege because it does not affect the rights of hon. members. The hon. member tried to point out a contradiction between a statement made by a Montreal lawyer and the one I made last Thursday in the house.
Now, as I said last Thursday in the house, charges have been brought against the people concerned.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I am not satisfied with the answer given by the Minister of Justice.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested that it 28902-5-277i
would be helpful to the members of the house if I made a statement at this time on government plans for business during the remainder of this session, which it is hoped will come to an end before Christmas.
It is impossible, of course, to be definitive about business during the next two months, or indeed about the priority which should be attached to business, because things may develop during that time which will require a change in the order we have in mind now, and which indeed may require additional or new legislation to be brought in. But subject to that qualification I should like to make a statement in as great detail as possible about what the government has in mind in the matter of business for the remainder of the session.
The most urgent business is to complete the consideration of estimates. It would not be possible, in our view, to end the session without all essential work being completed. I know that in some respects it is housekeeping work, but it is housekeeping for which this house is responsible to the taxpayers of the country. In addition, the discussion of estimates also provides opportunities for statements of departmental policy. For example, it is our intention that in introducing the estimates of the Department of Agriculture the minister will announce improvements in policy which this government proposes to undertake for the benefit of farmers.
If I may now turn to legislation, the first priority is to complete the bill amending the Income Tax Act. Equally urgent is the bill concerning the surcharge on imports order. We also intend to proceed soon with the very important resolution on the amendment of the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act; and we hope, and I am sure all hon. members hope, that there will not be much delay in getting subsequent legislation on this matter through all its stages.
The next major measures which we hope to bring forward during this session will be, first, that dealing with the redistribution of constituencies in order that the people of Canada should in the sixties have a properly representative House of Commons based on the population distribution according to the last census. It is urgent that this legislation be completed at this session. Then we would propose to press on next with the amendment of the National Housing Act. This may be as far as we can realistically expect to go, before the recess, with our major legislative proposals; but if the house moves faster than perhaps we have any right to expect at the

Business of the House
moment we will be ready to proceed with major railway legislation arising out of the MacPherson royal commission.
The house is aware, however, that in addition to these items in the government's program there is a considerable amount of legislation which, while urgent and important, is, I hope, largely of a non-controversial nature. Indeed, some items are matters held over from the unfinished business of the last parliament. It is important, for example, to complete very soon the legislation dealing with the Northwest Territories and the proposed Nunassiaq territory. The C.N.R. financing and guarantee bill is urgent. So is the amendment of the Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act, the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act, the Canada Elections Act, and the acts dealing with the world exhibition corporation and the national centennial. Then there is the amendment to the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act and the Overseas Telecommunications Act, and of the Railway Act in respect of the grade crossing fund.
Other measures which should be completed, if it can be done quickly-and, Mr. Speaker, some of these measures are now before the Senate-are those dealing with the harbour commission, the Carriage by Air Act, the Bankruptcy Act, the Ontario harbours agreement, amendments to the National Harbours Board Act, the Admiralty Act and the Aeronautics Act. We further hope to bring forward legislation dealing with the continuation of small business loans; with the establishment- and this is an urgent matter-of an Indian claims commission, with statutory salaries, with the amendment of the Citizenship Act and with the Blue Water bridge authority for the bridge between Sarnia and Port Huron. The government also wishes to introduce legislation to implement some of the recommendations of the Glassco report. So no one need be in any doubt that there will be plenty of work before the house.
I have indicated as definitely as it is realistic to do at present, the general order in which the government intends to proceed. There remain, however, five topics to which reference was made in the speech from the throne at the beginning of the session but which I have not mentioned in this list of priorities. I should like to review very briefly the status of each of these. First is the Columbia river situation. As is well known, this has been the subject of lengthy negotiation with the province of British Columbia and then with the United States government. These negotiations are very well advanced now, but they do not appear at the moment to be at such a stage that we will 
be ready to bring the matter before the house this side of Christmas, though this situation may change.
Three of the remaining proposals are certainly ones which will take a great deal of parliamentary time, and there is no realistic chance now of completing them in this session. I suggest that the way to handle them is to leave these items over for next session. They are matters concerning the Department of Agriculture, the establishment of a Canadian development corporation, and the recasting of unemployment insurance in the light of the state of the fund and the recommendations of the Gill committee.
I wish to refer finally to the subject of pensions. The most urgent part of the proposal, having to do with the $10 increase in existing pensions, has now been implemented by parliament. Our contributory pension plan deals with matters for which Canada and the provinces share jurisdiction, and we are proceeding in co-operation with the provinces. There has already been discussion at two conferences. Technical consultations with Ontario and Quebec are now taking place and a federal-provincial conference is being held later this month beginning on the 25th and going through, I think, to the end of that week.
Regarding that conference, I may say I have been in consultation with the premiers of the provinces in connection with the agenda and other arrangements. I wrote to all the premiers over the week end with proposals based on the suggestions they have made and about which we have been exchanging views for some time. The letters will all have been received by tomorrow, and I will at that time table them in the house.
In the circumstances I believe it would be inappropriate to proceed with further legislation on pensions until after the conference, and in view of the limited time remaining to us this clearly means that the legislation cannot be completed by the end of the year. This is complex legislation which ought to be, and will be, thoroughly examined and fully debated. As any discussion before Christmas would be bound to be inconclusive, we will proceed with the pension legislation early next year in the next session.
I wish to make it clear that we are following this course because of the proper requirement of federal-provincial consultation. There is no slackening in the determination of this government that Canada should have a national contributory portable pension plan which is needed for the security and welfare of Canadians. That is going to be done and will be done as quickly as can be.
These are the proposals that I now make to the house. I do not expect they can be

referred to in detail at this particular moment by the leaders of the other parties, though they may wish to make comments on them, but I would suggest that they be used as a basis of discussion with the house leaders of the other parties in case they may have some views to bring forward in connection with them. Meanwhile I put them to the house for discussion.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the house will appreciate the full report given by the Prime Minister respecting the balance of the session. Let me say at once that in so far as the estimates are concerned, I think there will be general agreement that they should be proceeded with in the manner indicated by him. Last February we found ourselves in the position of being defeated before the estimates could be dealt with, and naturally these estimates, covering in the main as they do matters which we had ready and explanations that we intended to make, will receive that same degree of co-operation in securing their passage through parliament that has been evidenced in the case of the estimates of several departments which have already been before the house.
The Prime Minister has said that there is plenty of business. In looking over the order paper I can only conclude that there is not very much business of immediate importance, except two or three matters to which he alluded. I was particularly interested in hearing about the Columbia river project. We were told that arrangements had been made with regard to this matter. All was in a happy state. Agreement had been arrived at with British Columbia. Indeed, with the new era of Canadian-American relations this was one matter that would be ready for this session. However, the best laid plans of mice and men "gang aft a-gley". We now find that the Columbia river project is in a state of suspended animation.
Then there is the Canada development corporation. This was something that represented a great step forward for Canada and its economy. We have not heard much of it lately. It is still on the order paper. It had priority earlier, but it now becomes of secondary importance awaiting the new year.
Then there is the Canada pension plan. It has had its ups and its downs. When the Prime Minister says that the government believes in a national portable contributory pension plan well and securely laid, there is no disagreement over here. The trouble with the plan that was placed before the house and is today on the order paper is that it was not workable and there was no consultation. Indeed, the government have put the cart before the horse. They went ahead with the
Business of the House
plan and they were going to shove it through come what may. The provinces demanded consultation, as did the opposition. But now, after this wonderful plan had been conceived and produced in part, we have to wait until the new year because there have been no consultations.
There is one thing that seems clear. The ill digested and ill considered plan that was brought before the house is now as dead as a dodo, and in its place a plan is going to be evolved, following consultation, which will be well and securely founded. That is the kind of legislation for which we asked, and we are glad that the government at last has seen the error of its ways in this regard and is going to produce this kind of legislation instead of the monstrosity that was laid before the house earlier this year.
In so far as the other matters mentioned by the Prime Minister are concerned, the technical and vocational training, the income tax legislation and the surcharge legislation, those are matters of importance. They have been considered already at some length. Certainly there should be no great delay in the passage of two of them through parliament. In so far as the surcharge legislation is concerned, we shall deal with that matter when it is before the house.
I could make reference to many other items mentioned by the Prime Minister. I simply say it is always helpful to have a plan; it is always beneficial to have an objective. The Prime Minister has given us both, and that has been done throughout the years. As so often happens, other things find their way into the agenda and these plans, however desirous all of us are for the conclusion of this session before Christmas, may not be brought to a conclusion in relation to each and every one of the matters to which he referred. I was glad to see the redistribution measure on the list because it is one that will require co-operation from all parts of the house. Since we gave the lead in this regard, it will be taken out of the realm of partisan politics. In the setting up of the Indian claims committee, the government will be carrying out a project which we had ready.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this session began, as all sessions do, with a speech from the throne. The purpose of that speech was to let parliament know what the program of business was for the ensuing session. We have not made much progress on the speech from the throne that was read to us in the other place so, in effect, today we have had another speech from the throne given to us by the Prime Minister. I hope we get along better with this revised bill of fare than we did with the one with which we started this session. In

Business of the House
fact we welcome the statement of the Prime Minister. I am glad he has taken the house into his confidence by letting us know what the government's plans are so far as the business for the balance of this session is concerned.
We too welcome the fact that redistribution is high on the list so that this important matter, important to the people of Canada, might be dealt with before this session concludes. I was a little concerned, and some of my colleagues were, by the Prime Minister's use of the word "recess". Perhaps he might explain later whether he plans a Christmas recess or prorogation at that time. Perhaps it was a slip of the tongue, but at any rate he may clear that up.
We are dismayed that even at this late stage of the session, the 82nd sitting day, the government is still unprepared to go ahead with two of the major planks in its election platform, the Canada pension plan and the Canada development corporation.
We all remember that in the last election campaign the Prime Minister's cry was that the Liberals had a pension plan that was ready, and that the Liberals could act quickly on this matter. At least one thing is clear as a result of this statement. The Prime Minister can no longer say, as he has said a half dozen times in this session, that the Canada pension plan is being delayed because he cannot get the co-operation of members on this side of the house. It is now clear that it is a deliberate decision of the government to delay action on this important legislation.
This is not the time to debate the Canada pension plan even to the extent the Leader of the Opposition debated it a moment ago. But I wish to say I do not agree with the comments he made about it and I think it is unfortunate for the Canadian people that this plan-some improvements could be made in it but it is basically a good one-has been delayed to next year, especially in the light of the promise which was made that it would be dealt with at this session. I hope this will not be like some of the promises in 1919 which were put off from one election to another.
With regard to the business ahead of us we In this party, Mr. Speaker, will try to cooperate in getting it through.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, we welcome this statement by the Prime Minister, and simply say that this formidable outline of legislation that we have to look forward to will be welcomed not only by the house but by every Canadian citizen. There is certainly a tremendous backlog of work that needs to be completed, and first of all I say it is most important that we get

Canada's parliament in tune with the fiscal year under which the government operates. For the past couple of years this has been thrown completely out of kilter due to elections and it is essential that we have a budget next winter, soon after the new session opens, so that it will be introduced before the end of the fiscal year. In this regard it is essential that the estimates be brought in as quickly as possible.
The second important thing which ought to be impressed on us this afternoon, after having listened to the proposed program, is that we in this house should get down to work.


Mr. Smallwood:: Why don't you do it?


Robert Norman Thompson: It is not only the government which has a responsibility in this regard. It is also the business of the hon. members who sit on this side of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, if you would please ask these people who sit behind the Leader of the Opposition to be quiet, perhaps we could talk a little bit of sense.


Mr. Winkler:: You are talking from the wrong side of the house.


Robert Norman Thompson: In the Canada pension bill we have a piece of legislation which affects the future welfare of every Canadian citizen, but I think the government has learned through bitter experience during the past few months that this kind of legislation cannot be drawn up in a back room, and that it must be carefully brought before the public scrutiny prior to its enactment. The federal-provincial conference which will take place in a few weeks is a good thing, but it is also very important that the broadest possible consultation be had in order that we get the type of pension act that the country needs and which every Canadian expects from the government at this time. It is important that consultation and discussion be held in every part of our social and economic structure so that we do get the right kind of legislation.
Nothing much was said about the municipal loan and development fund, but we hope the problems connected with it will be solved at the forthcoming federal-provincial conference. This reminds us that the most urgent economic problem facing us today is that which confronts our local and municipal governments financially; and in addition to plans already announced I hope other plans are being made at this stage for a full municipal development bank, so that our social capital needs might be met more effectively than they have been in the past, which needs the municipal development and loan fund hardly begins to meet. I might add here just a

remark about the Canada development corporation because, while it is important, it is more urgent that we do something to meet the needs of our local governments in so far as their capital requirements are concerned.
The technical and vocational training program is to come before us during the next few weeks, and I agree with the Prime Minister that this is something so urgent that we should pass the legislation as quickly as possible.
It is of interest that three royal commission reports have been mentioned, reports that have been gathering dust for quite a long time now and upon which no action has been taken. Specifically they are the MacPherson report, the Glassco report and the Gill report, and we would also welcome hearing something about the O'Leary report as well. Royal commissions have more value than just to have their findings shelved away in some dustgathering corner.
Then there is the Columbia river program. We had hoped this might be brought before the house this session. It is one of the greatest development programs Canada has tackled in recent years, and it is urgent that the federal parliament meet its share of the obligations as quickly as possible.
Last but not least is the problem of redistribution, but again this is something that has been put aside for many months. We look forward to legislation being introduced to set up the necessary commission and thus permit a more equitable election process before we come to the next general election. We are very pleased and happy that we have this program before us, and I am sure it gives us new hope and courage to go forward and meet our responsibilities.


Mr. Real Caoueile (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, we have heard with great interest the new plan introduced by the Prime Minister in respect to procedure from now until the end of this session.
Of course, we in this corner of the house, like everybody, are anxious to get to Christmas at the same time as the others. Indeed if this new parliamentary procedure enables us to accelerate the work which is our responsibility, the quicker we will do it.
Now, if slowness has been the characteristic of this parliament to date, I do not believe it is so much because of the opposition as because of the government party, which got somewhat mixed up with its "operation 60 days", promised at the April general election.
The Prime Minister said a little while ago that the government's object is to save the money of the Canadian taxpayers. This is a
Business of the House
commendable end, but the government should come to a decision and introduce its legislation in the most definite and complete way so that it would be acceptable to the opposition.
For example, the Prime Minister just mentioned the Income Tax Act which has to be amended. We all know that, contrary to what the "operation 60 days" was supposed to bring in, that is tax reduction, the government brought in instead an increase in tax. This is not the same thing.
If the promises of the "operation 60 days" had been lived up to, I do not think that we would be facing as many difficulties at this time.
The same remark can be made with regard to the legislation concerning imports. As for the redistribution of constituencies, based on the population of each province according to the last census, that is a commendable undertaking, but that question should be referred to a committee which could later report to the house.
The National Housing Act was also mentioned. Of course, there are still thousands of Canadians who do not own their own homes and that measure should be pressed on in order to make that possible for the small wage earners. We were told that legislation dealing with the Northwest Territories, as well as the bill concerning the world fair, would be studied.
We will also have to consider legislation concerning the Columbia river. I know it is through no fault of the present government that this question is not settled; the Conservatives should have solved the problem when they were in power the first year that the matter was brought up in parliament. In view of the fact that they did not accept their responsibilities and that they are trying to pass on the blame to this government, that proves, in my opinion, that the two old parties are exactly identical.
Another thing that the Prime Minister should have acted upon immediately instead of just including it in the famous 60 days of decision, is the appointment of a minister of agriculture for eastern Canada as the Liberals promised.
I feel this question should not give rise to a debate, because it is up to the government, to the Prime Minister, to appoint a minister of agriculture for eastern Canada. The Prime Minister already has a name on his list. Are people from western Canada or from the maritime provinces opposing the appointment of a minister of agriculture for eastern Canada to help the farmers in our part of the country? The Prime Minister is aware of the fact that when hon. members speak of agriculture, they talk first and last about wheat.

Questions
There are other things than wheat in Canada. I will admit that wheat is an important production, but the farmers who grow other crops should also be represented in the cabinet.
Mr. Speaker, those are supplementary matters which, to my mind, should be solved before the holidays. In any case, our group is ready to co-operate with the government in order to adopt as quickly as possible the required legislation. On the other hand, the government should submit to the house something definite and concise to promote the development, the growth if you will, of the whole Canadian economy.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES FILMS    TABLING OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN FRANCE AND CANADA

Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I ask for leave to table three copies in French and English of the agreement on relations between France and Canada concerning films.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


Stanley Howard Knowles: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-103, to amend the British North America Act, 1867 to 1960, with respect to the quorum of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this bill is based on the generally accepted notion, expressed the other day by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill), that the first duty of members of the House of Commons is to be here. The bill would increase the quorum of the House of Commons from the present ridiculously low figure of 20 members to a more reasonable figure of 50 members.


Mr. Churchill:: We threw this out 10 years ago.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

['Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My question of privilege involves starred question No. 1,349, which has been on the order paper for three weeks now. It asks a very simple question, namely what is to be the site of the Canadian world exhibition, when the decision was made to select this site, who made it, and under what authority. Surely a simple question such as that should be within the knowledge of whoever is the minister responsible, and it should have been answered by now.\nMr. Drury.]']
Mr. Yvon Dupuis (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the house that the following questions are being answered today: 1,172, 1,213,
1,314,	1,333,	1,339,	1,347,	1,348,	1,360,	1,367,1,381,	1,391,	1,412,	1,414,	1,417,	1,439,	1,448,1,451,	1,454,	1,455,	1,456,	1,469,	1,471,	1,477,1,490,	1,491,	1,494,	1,497,	1,509,	1,513,	1,534,1,535,	1,537,	1,539,	1,542,	1,543,	1,548,	1,555,
1,556 and 1,581. 

Mr. Speaker, if question 1,094 could be made an order for return the return will be tabled immediately. If Your Honour would be good enough to call starred questions Nos. 1,443, 1,446, 1,499 and 1,515 I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)



Mr. Douglas: 1.	Has the industrial development hank granted any loans of $100,000 or over since January 1, 1958 and, if so, (a) to whom and in what amounts (b) in each case, who recommended the grant of the loans?
2.	Since January 1, 1958, has any person not a member of the executive committee of the industrial development bank, or not a member of the board of directors of the industrial development bank, or not an official of the Bank of Canada, of the industrial development bank, of the Department of Finance or of the Department of Trade and Commerce, given any advice with regard to whether or not a loan should be granted and, if so, what are the names, addresses and occupations of all such persons, and what advice did they give with respect to each loan?
3.	Has any consideration been given to changing the relationship that exists at present between the industrial development bank and the Bank of Canada and associating the industrial development bank more closely with the Department of Trade and Commerce and, if so, what are the details of such consideration?


Mr. Benson:: 1. The number of new loans made by the industrial development bank in each of its five fiscal years ending September 30, 1958 to 1962, classified according to the size of the loan, is shown on pages 16 and 17 of the bank's annual report for the fiscal year 1962. The size classification shows separately loans over $100,000 to $200,000, and loans over $200,000. In these five fiscal years as a whole the number of loans made over $100,000 was 532, and the total number of loans made was 5,360. In the fiscal year 1962 the numbers were 162 and 2,085 respectively.
It is contrary to public policy to reveal information regarding individual loans.
2.	Yes. The bank secures information concerning potential loans and receives representations on them from a variety of sources, including the interested parties, but it is not considered desirable, in the public interest, to reveal from whom such information or representations are secured or received, or what the content of them is. In any event, records are not maintained that would enable the question to be answered.
3.	Any important change in relationship such as that outlined would be a matter of government policy and would of course be announced as such.


CANADIAN-JAPANESE TRADE
Mr. Scoil: 1.	At the recent Japanese-Canadian trade conference in Ottawa, were representations made by Japan in opposition to the Canadian system of "voluntary" quotas on Japanese imports into Canada?
2.	What was the nature of such representations, and what goods and commodities and products were involved?
3.	What was the total value of exports from Japan to Canada in the first quarter of 1963, and how does this compare with the same period in 1962?
4.	Briefly, what goods, products and commodities make up Japanese exports to Canada, and which of these are under quota?
5.	What was the total value of exports from Canada to Japan during the first quarter of 1963, and how does this compare with the similar period in 1962?
6.	Does the government have knowledge of other countries imposing similar quotas on Japanese exports and, if so, what are the names of the countries?
7.	Does Canada have a trade surplus with Japan and, if so, what was the amount of the surplus in the years 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961 and 1962?
8.	What was the nature of the government's response to the representations referred to in subsection 1 of this question?


Edgar John Benson: 1. The Canadian-Japanese
ministerial committee is not a negotiating body at which formal representations are made. The committee is intended to provide an opportunity for a free exchange of views between the ministers of the two countries on matters of common interest.
During the recent meeting in Ottawa, Japanese ministers explained some of the problems inherent in applying the Japanese system of restraints on exports of certain products to Canada; and they asked that the restraints for individual products should be discontinued as they become unnecessary. Canadian ministers explained the difficulties which had been caused in Canada by sharp and disruptive increases in imports from Japan and certain other countries in recent years. They agreed with Japanese ministers that restraints might well be removed when they had become clearly redundant. Canadian ministers also asked that Japan take all possible steps to remove quantitative and other restrictions being applied by Japan on imports of a number of important products which Canadian exporters might be able to sell to Japan.
2.	See answer to (1). The discussion related generally to the products on which Japan maintains export restraints.
3.	After increasing steadily since the signing of the 1954 trade agreement between Canada and Japan, Canada's imports from Japan have declined somewhat this year. In the first quarter of 1963 they totalled $23.5 million, compared with $26.6 million in the same quarter of 1962.
Questions
4.	Canada's total imports from Japan in 1962 were valued at $125,358,920. Principal imports were:
Value
($000)
Fresh oranges and mandarins	1,884
Fresh fish	1,050
Canned tuna fish	1,932
Manufactures of cotton	1,263
Worsted and woollen fabric	2,055
Fabric of synthetic fibres	3,376
Nets and netting for commercial
fishing	1,429
Cotton fabric	7,657
Wearing apparel	14,169
Lumber of mahogany	1,851
Plywood	5,516
Oil country goods of steel	2,825
Bars, rods, plates, sheets, pipes and wire of iron or steel	7,739
Tables knives, forks and spoons	1,230
Domestic sewing machines	1,816
Tape recorders and parts	1,136
Transistor radios	5,150
Earthenware floor and wall tiles 1,286 Tableware of china and other earthenware	2,389
Mechanical and other toys	3,617
Re-usable import packing	1,829
Waterproof rubber footwear	1,656
Canvas footwear	1,416
Other plastic and rubber footwear 1,031 Jewellery	1,245
Cameras and parts; and other photographic accessories	3,355
Optical instruments, including microscopes and parts	1,587
A detailed list of exports to Canada subject to restraint by Japan during 1963 is contained in an appendix to Hansard of Friday, June 7, 1963. At the recent meeting here, Japanese ministers stated that the products on which export restraints are applied represented 27 per cent of the total value of Japan's exports to Canada in 1962.
5.	First quarter 1963-$64.4 million. First quarter 1962-$49.1 million.
6.	Japan applies restraints on exports to several countries including the United States, the United Kingdom and certain continental European nations. Several European countries apply quantitative restrictions, some of them discriminatory, on imports from Japan.
7.	Canada has a trade surplus with Japan. The amount of this surplus was as follows on the basis of trade statistics published by the dominion bureau of statistics:

Questions
($ Million)
1957	77.7
1958	34.8
1959	37.0
1960	67.6
1961	115.0
1962	89.2
8. See answer to (1).


USE OF GRAIN ELEVATOR, BAIE COMEAU, QUE.
Mr. Smith: Have all necessary steps been taken to ensure that the maximum facilities of the Cargill Grain Company elevator at Baie Comeau will be available for the shipment of Canadian grain to Russia and other European countries and, if so, what were such steps, and on what date were they taken?
Answer: The Cargill Grain Company elevator at Baie Comeau has a licensed capacity of 12,898,000 bushels. They are licensed to use 40 per cent or approximately the capacity for five million bushels to store foreign grain. The remaining capacity of over seven million bushels is available for the handling of Canadian grain.
To date this has proved ample capacity to discharge the Cargill Grain Company's commitments as agents of the Canadian wheat board in the movement of grain under the Canada-U.S.S.R. trade agreement.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD OFFICE, NEW GLASGOW, N.S.
Mr. MacEwan: Is it the intention of the government to close the national film board office at New Glasgow, Nova Scotia and, if so, when will this action be carried out?


Mr. Pickersgili:: I am advised by the national film board that it is not the intention of the board to close its office at New Glasgow, Nova Scotia.


LANGUAGE PROGRAMS ON C.B.C.
Mr. Howard: 1.	Is there a program on the English language section of the C.B.C. which consists of lessons in the French language and, if so, what is the cost of operating such a program, and if there is not such a program, what is the reason therefor?
2.	Is there a program on the French language section of the C.B.C. which consists of lessons in English and, if so, what is the cost of operating such a program, and if there is not such a program, what is the reason therefor?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	Yes, both radio and television services carry programs which seek to instruct English speaking Canadians in the French language.
National English television network: "Chez Helene", for pre-school age children, a quarter hour program five days a week, now in its fifth season. "Speaking French", for

adults, a weekly half hour program at Sunday mid-day returns for its fourth year January 1964.	'
National English radio network: "Time for French", for adults, a weekly half hour program returns Saturday, November 2.
Atlantic region school broadcasts (radio): "Parlons Francais", a weekly program of conversational French for students grades 59, to four Atlantic provinces.
Newfoundland school broadcasts (radio): "French for Beginners", weekly "Junior French", weekly.
Nova Scotia school broadcasts (T.V.): "Cours Elementaire", for beginners, twice weekly. "Cours Premiere", for more advanced students, twice weekly.
Prairie region school broadcasts (radio): "French for Beginners" and "Le Quart D'Heure Frangais"-a total of 13 weekly programs for Manitoba schools. "Ici Le Francais" -weekly to Saskatchewan schools.
Edmonton (T.V.): "En France comme si vous y etiez", weekly series on CBXT.
B.C. school broadcasts (radio):	"First
French", elementary French, weekly. "Ecou-tez", intermediate French, weekly commencing January 6, 1964.
Vancouver (T.V.): "En France Comme Si Vous Y Etiez", weekly series on CBUT.
2.	Yes. The C.B.C. radio network carries a weekly series of school broadcasts of lessons in the English language prepared in collaboration with the Quebec department of youth and the Quebec department of education. It is designed for grade 5 and 6 public school students.
1.	and 2. It is difficult to give a specific answer as to costs since, in the case of the school broadcasts, these are shared with the various provincial departments of education. The latter provide the performers, writers, etc., and the C.B.C. provides the production staff, facilities and the distribution to the C.B.C. and affiliated stations.


RECOMMENDATION OF COMMISSION ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Howard: What action has been taken with respect to the recommendations of the commission of inquiry, appointed on June 25, 1959, to inquire generally into all matters arising out of unfulfilled provisions of treaties 8 and 11 as they applied to Indians of the Mackenzie district?


Mr. Munro:: The recommendations of the committee of inquiry were studied by an interdepartmental committee and the report of this committee is being reviewed.


CANADIAN CHINESE DETAINED IN HONG KONG
Mr. Howard: How many, if any, Canadian citizens of Chinese origin are being kept in Hong Kong and not

allowed to return to Canada because their passports and other similar documents were taken from them during the course of, or arising out of, the investigation into Chinese immigration matters which was announced in Parliament on January 14, 1960?


John Carr Munro: None.


VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Mr. Mather: What is the estimated date for completion of Vancouver international airport facilities?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: It is assumed this question refers to the proposed new terminal building. Given continuing good weather and no delays arising out of labour difficulties, completion should take about three years from the time of start of construction.


RICHARD IIACHEY, MONTREAL  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE CLAIM
Mr. Douglas: Have representations been received from Mr. Richard Hachey of 2102 Vauquelin street, Montreal, concerning entitlement to unemployment insurance benefits and, if so, what is the nature of these representations, and what answer has been made?


Mr. MacEachen:: Yes. Mr. Hachey's representations were in two parts: (1) because he had been deprived of the dependency rate of benefit following the discovery that his wife, whom he had claimed as a dependant, did not qualify as such under the legislation, and (2) having failed to notify his local office of a change of address, benefit was suspended until it was determined if he had fulfilled the availability requirements of the legislation.
With regard to the first matter, he was requested to apply for the dependency rate in respect of his three year old child in place of his wife. This he failed to do.
Respecting the second matter, an investigation disclosed that Mr. Hachey had continued to fulfil the availability requirements despite his change of address, whereupon the suspension of benefit was lifted and all benefit due paid to him on the 10th of October.


EXTENSION OF DOCKING FACILITIES, B.C.
Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to providing added docking facilities at Fraser river and Surrey docks in line with the increased export of grain from Pacific ports?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not according to any information in the possession of the government.


CONSTRUCTION OF AIRPORT, MALARTIC, QUE.
Mr. Caoueite: Has the government received any representations in connection with the building of an airport at Malartic, in the county of Villeneuve and, if so, what consideration is being given to these representations?
Questions


George James McIlraith: On September 17, 1958, the
Malartic chamber of commerce asked for advice and information for use in the development of a municipal airport. On May 21, 1959 officials of the department visited Malartic and inspected a number of suggested airport sites and one of these was subsequently recommended to the chamber of commerce for development. The chamber was informed that if any further technical assistance was required it would be provided upon request.
On March 12, 1962, a delegation from Malartic, including the mayor, the president of the Malartic chamber of commerce and local residents presented a brief to officials of the department which was based on the premise that the Val d'Or airport, operated by the Royal Canadian Air Force would be closed to civil aircraft. The delegation was informed that there was no current question of closing the airport to civil traffic in the foreseeable future.
As long as the Val d'Or airport, which was developed at federal expense, remains available for civil use, an airport at Malartic would be considered a local airport for which the prime responsibility for the development would rest with the town of Malartic. As the town has not requested cost sharing assistance for such an airport, no consideration is now being given to the matter.


R.C.M.P. PHOTOGRAPHS OF POLITICAL SPEAKERS
Mr. Caouetie: 1.	Do the Royal Canadian Mounted Police photograph speakers at political rallies and, If so, were such photographs taken at the demonstration against nuclear weapons in Quebec city on October 12 last?
2.	Was the Prime Minister, Mr. Pearson, photographed by the R.C.M.P. when he spoke about nuclear weapons in the past?


Mr. Macdonald:: 1. No.
2.	No.


SNYE CROSSING, FORT SIMPSON, N.W.T.
Mr. Rheaume: 1.	What is the total amount that has been spent from 1953 to the present on maintenance and repair to the Snye crossing from the island to the mainland at Fort Simpson, N.W.T.?
2.	For each year since 1953 to the present, how many days was this crossing impassable?
3.	What are the estimated annual expenditures to maintain and repair this crossing for 1963-64 and 1964-65?
4.	What companies or agencies carried out the work for each year since 1953, and by whom was such work planned and supervised?
Answer: 1. $56,900.
2.	No records kept; estimates:	vehicle
traffic: 50 days per year average. Boat and pedestrian traffic: 10 days per year average.
3.	1963-64: $3,600; 1964-65: probably about the same amount.
Questions

4.
Planned and
Year	Company	Supervised
by
1952-	53 D.O.T.	D.O.T.
1953-	54 Goodall Contracting Ltd. D.O.T.
F. Simpson
1954-	55 Goodall Contracting Ltd. D.O.T.
F. Simpson
1955-	56 Simpson Service Ltd. N.A.N.R.
Fort Simpson
1956-	57 Goodall Contracting Ltd. N.A.N.R.
F. Simpson
1957-	58 Goodall Contracting Ltd. N.A.N.R.
F. Simpson
1958-	59 Goodall Contracting Ltd. N.A.N.R.
F. Simpson
1959-	60 Arctic Construction Ltd. N.A.N.R.
Dawson Creek
1960-	61 Goodall Contracting Ltd. N.A.N.R.
F. Simpson
Goeson Lumber, Fort N.A.N.R.
Simpson
M. Grosetete Construe- N.A.N.R.
tion, F. Simpson
Arctic Construction Ltd. N.A.N.R.
Dawson Creek
1961-	62 Goodall Contracting Ltd. N.A.N.R.
F. Simpson
Goeson Lumber, Fort N.A.N.R.
Simpson
Don Wetersen, Fort	N.A.N.R.
Simpson
1963 Goodall Contracting Ltd. N.A.N.R.
F. Simpson
Goeson Lumber, Fort	N.A.N.R.
Simpson


DRUMHELLER, ALTA..-CLASSIFICATION AS DEPRESSED AREA
Mr. Woolliams: 1.	Was the city of Drumheller classified as a depressed area so that industry would enjoy the special depreciation and tax benefits?
2.	Was the area removed from that category and, if so, for what reason?
3.	What is the unemployment figure to date as set out by the national employment office at Drumheller?
4.	How many people are unemployed in East Coulee, Wayne, Nacmine, Midlandvale, and Newcastle that are not receiving unemployment insurance benefits?
5.	How much coal was mined in this area in 1961, in the months of August and September, 1961?
6.	How much coal was mined in this area in 1962, in the months of August and September, 1962?
7.	How much coal was mined in this area to date in 1963, in the months of August and September, 1963?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1. The locality of Drumheller, including local improvement district No. 42, is included in the special capital cost allowance program for new products. Applications for accelerated capital cost allowances in

respect of new depreciable property will continue to be received under this program until December 31, 1963, when the program expires. Under the proposed measures of tax and depreciation benefits to new manufacturing and processing enterprises in designated areas, the Drumheller national employment service local office area has not met the criteria of unemployment and slow economic growth in order to qualify as a designated area.
2.	See answer to question 1.
3.	The total of persons registered for employment with the Drumheller office of the national employment service on September 30, the latest date for which data are available, was 197.
4.	Data are not available.
5,	6 and 7.
1962
Drumheller district coal output short tons
August	September
25,566	48,897
18,253	32,539
15,581	27,897


REMOVAL OF STRONTIUM 90 FROM MILK
Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-: Cowichan-The Islands):
In view of the four and five fold increase of strontium 90 in milk reported by the Department of National Health and Welfare, has the department any plans to inaugurate in conjunction with the provinces, a program to remove strontium 90 from milk by utilizing the method successfully employed elsewhere?


Miss LaMarsh:: No. While there has been a substantial increase in the concentration of strontium 90 in milk, this was expected as a result of the extensive atmospheric weapons testing programs conducted in 1961 and 1962. It is also expected that peak levels have already or will occur very shortly and that thereafter the concentration will decrease substantially again. The department has constantly emphasized the importance, in assessing the significance to health, of comparing reference standards with averages for extended periods, such as a year, rather than with individual values. On this basis values reported to date are well within acceptable limits.


* HOUSE CONSTRUCTION IN WINTER MONTHS
Mr. Vincent: 1.	Does the program to encourage house construction in the winter months provide for the payment of (a) $500 in the case of a single-dwelling unit, and (b) $2,000 in the case of a four dwelling unit?
2.	Does the payment mentioned in (b) above apply to five and six dwelling units and, if not, for what reasons?


Mr. Byrne:: 1. (a) Yes. (b) Yes.
2. No. The incentive applies only to residential structures containing not more than four

self contained units since construction of large multiple housing accommodation is normally carried out throughout the year.


* RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Cote (Chicoutimi): Did the Secretary of State recently receive or take notice of a letter from eight federal government employees alleging racial discrimination in the federal civil service, and, if so, (a) has the Secretary of State investigated the allegations and (b) what steps are being taken with respect to such representations?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, a search has been made of the departmental files and the civil service commission files, and no such letter appears to have been received.
Questions


QUOTAS ON IMPORTS FROM CERTAIN COUNTRIES
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,448

 Mr. Scott:
1.	Has the government concluded the negotiations mentioned by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in Hansard, May 23, 1963, concerning the persuading of Portugal, Israel, Hong Kong and Formosa to accept quotas on certain exports to Canada?
2.	If so, in the case of each country, what is the nature and size of each quota, and what goods and/or commodities are covered by the quota?
3.	How long will such quotas be in effect?
4.	How will exports to Canada under these quotas compare with exports to Canada prior to such quotas?
Edgar John Benson: 1. Yes.
2.	See table following.
3.	The present understandings relate to the periods shown in the answer to No. 2.
4.	See answer to No. 2.

Restraints on exports of certain products to Canada Note: Figures are in "thousands"
Level of imports1
				in the 12 months	in the year previous	
preceding the	to the 12 months	MaximumCurrent restraint	current	preceding the current	restraintCountry	Item	Unit	year ending	restraint year	restraint year	level
Portugal
Israel
Hong Kong
Republic of China (Taiwan)
Cotton yarn
Cotton yarn
Woven cotton slacks, shorts, jeans, trousers:
Men's	
Women's	
Children's	
Knitted cotton shirts....
Woven cotton shirts	
Woven cotton nightwear,
Woven cotton shirts	
Cotton nightwear	
Cotton fabrics	
(of which corduroy	
Rubber soled textile footwear.... Cotton trousers, slacks and shorts Knitted cotton shirts	
Pounds	December 31, 1963	2,085	439	1,900Pounds	December 31, 1963	2,484	146	1,900Dozens	September 30, 1964	57	69	70Dozens	September 30, 1964	48	87	56.5Dozens	September 30, 1964	125	123	131.5230	279	258Dozens	September 30, 1964	70	125	134Dozens	September 30, 1964	130	105	134Dozens	September 30, 1964	89	81	88Dozens	June 30, 1964	72	36	66Dozens	June 30, 1964	71	44	66Square yards	June 30, 1964	1,070	50	550Square yards	June 30, 1964	(99)	(nil)	(no more thanPairs	June 30, 1964	380	148	350Dozens	July 31, 1964	31	7	15Dozens	July 31, 1964	24	6	10L For Hong Kong the figures represent the quantities licensed for export by the Hong Kong authorities.	,	..	,	
Estimates have been made for imports from the Republic of China in those cases where the import statistics published by the dominion bureau of statistics
give insufficient detail.
4344	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions


PUBLICATIONS
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,451
Mr.   Scoll@: 1.	Has the government received requests and representations for action to implement the recommendations of the royal commission on publications?
2.	If so, how many such requests and representations were received and from whom were they received, giving date, name and, briefly, the nature of the request or representation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: 1. Yes.
2.	Three. 22 April 1963, Mr. Hugh Mac-Lennan, 1535 Summerhill ave., Montreal 25, P.Q. 18 Sept. 1963, Mr. F. B. Walker, assistant publisher, Family Herald, 245, St. James st. West, Montreal 1, P.Q. 30 Sept. 1963, Mr. C. H. Thorn, managing director, Modern Homes & Publications, Ltd. 96 Kingsway, Vancouver, B. C.
Urging implementation of the report.


PERSONNEL HOUSING, JOINT TRACKING STATION
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	Have representations been received by the Canadian government from the government of the United States or any branch thereof for the construction of houses to be used by personnel associated with the joint Nimbus satellite tracking station project?
2.	Has a decision been reached, and will Canada provide the housing required?
3.	What is the scheduled date of construction of the Nimbus satellite tracking station project?


George James McIlraith: 1. No.
2.	N/A.
3.	There is no scheduled date of construction. The United States national aeronautics and space administration has advised the Department of Transport that the whole Nimbus project, of which the proposed tracking station at Cape Breton is a part, is being restudied in the United States and the Department of Transport have been asked to take no further action until the restudy has been completed.


SALES OF CANADIAN SECURITIES TO U.S. INVESTORS
Mr. Scott: 1.	In each month since President Kennedy's announcement of the equalization tax, what have been the total sales of (a) Canadian bonds, and (b) Canadian stocks to American investors, and how do these figures compare with the same figures in 1962?
2,	Has the Canadian government made representations to the government of the United States of America to have the retroactive feature removed and, if so, what were the responses, if any, received to such representations?


Edgar John Benson: 1. Complete figures for total sales of Canadian bonds and Canadian stocks to American investors are not yet available
Questions
for any calendar month since President Kennedy's announcement of the proposed interest equalization tax.
2.	The nature of the discussions between the Canadian and the U.S. governments concerning the imposition of the proposed interest equalization tax and the results of these discussions were revealed in an agreed press release issued on July 21, 1963, as follows:
Ottawa, July 21, 1963: The Honourable Walter L. Gordon, Minister of Finance, issued this afternoon the following statement which had been agreed between representatives of Canada and United States meeting in Washington during the weekend:
"Representatives of Canada and the United States met during the week end to appraise the impact on the Canadian financial markets of the proposed United States 'interest equalization tax'.
The two governments recognized the need for effective action to improve the balance of payments position of both countries and are both equally determined that such action shall not impair the intimate economic relationships between the two countries, nor impede the growth essential for both economies.
For many years the capital markets of the two countries have been closely interconnected, and United States exports of capital to Canada have financed a substantial portion of the Canadian current account deficit with the U.S. This need continues. A portion of these flows must be supplied through the sale of new issues of Canadian securities in American markets. U.S. officials had considered that ample flows for these needs would continue under the proposed 'interest equalization tax'. However, Canadian representatives stated that this would require a very substantial rise in the entire Canadian interest rate structure. It was recognized by both governments that such a development would be undesirable in present economic circumstances.
In the light of this situation U.S. officials agreed that the draft legislation to be submitted to the congress would include a provision authorizing a procedure under which the President could modify the application of the tax by the establishment from time to time of exemptions, which he could make either unlimited or limited in amount. The President would thus have the flexibility to permit tax free purchases of new issues needed to maintain the unimpeded flow of trade and payments between the two countries, and to take care of exceptional situations that might arise in the case of other countries. U.S. officials made clear that this did not modify their proposals regarding the taxation of transactions in outstanding securiites; over the past year such transactions between Canada and the U.S. have not been a major factor.
The Canadian authorities stated that it would not be the desire or intention of Canada to increase her foreign exchange reserves through the proceeds of borrowings in the United States, and it is the hope and expectation of both governments that by maintaining close consultation it will prove possible in practice to have an unlimited exemption for Canada without adverse effect on the United States.
It was agreed that active consultations would continue to strengthen the close economic relations between the two countries and at the same time facilitate measures for making the maximum practicable contributions to economic expansion and the strength and stability of both currencies."
The conversations which were conducted in the United States treasury on Saturday and Sunday

Questions
included for Canada Ambassador Charles S. A. Ritchie, Louis Raminsky, governor of the Bank of Canada, Wynne Plumptre, assistant deputy minister of finance, and A, E. Ritchie, assistant under secretary of state for external affairs; for the United States Douglas Dillon, secretary of the treasury, George Ball, under secretary of state, Robert V. Roosa, under secretary of the treasury for monetary affairs, and Stanley Surrey, assistant secretary of the treasury.


CIVIL SERVICE COMPETITION 63-P-ID-68
Mr. Bell: Was civil service promotional competition No. 63-P-ID-68 for branch administrative officers in the Department of Industry open only to employees appointed by the civil service commission and, if so, why were these appointments for a new department not made available to other government employees such as those employed in crown corporations?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have been given the following answer by the civil service commission:
Yes. This closed competition was open only to employees appointed by the civil service commission. Before conducting a closed competition the commission, pursuant to section 34 of the act, is required to determine the division or branch of the public service and the class or grade of position, if any, in which prospective candidates must be employed in order to be eligible for appointment. When determining the area of this competition the commission based its decision on previous experience, which indicated that the response should be sufficient if it were restricted to employees who have been appointed by the civil service commission, and on the need for filling these new positions at the earliest possible date.


BANK STATISTICS
Mr. Caouelie: 1.	What was the value of goods and services produced for each of the last five years?
2.	What was the actual cash in the hands of the chartered banks of Canada for each of the last five years?
3.	What was the amount of the bank notes of the Bank of Canada in circulation for each of the last five years?
4.	What was the amount of the deposit liabilities of the chartered banks for each of the last five years?
5.	What was the amount of the general loans made by the chartered banks for each of the last five years?
6.	What was the total paid up capital of the chartered banks for each of the last five years?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1. Gross national product {millions of dollars): 1958, 36,048; 1959, 38,430; 1960, 39,437; 1961, 40,511; 1962, 43,646.
2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. The figures requested appear in the monthly statement of assets and liabilities of the chartered banks published

by the Department of Finance and in the monthly statistical summary published by the Bank of Canada.


R.C.A.P. TRAVEL EXPENSE CLAIMS
Mr. Maiheson: 1.	Are officers of transport command of the Royal Canadian Air Force still subject to the detailed rules with respect to control and review of travel expense claims as criticized on page 166 of volume II of the Glassco commission report and, if so, what specific information is presently required under treasury board rules as defined by the comptroller of the treasury's office in connection with hotel and other travel expense claims?
2.	Has the Royal Canadian Air Force received complaints to the effect (a) that such a method of presenting claims is time consuming and uneconomical, and (b) that in certain foreign eountries R.C.A.F. officers are compelled to seek accommodation unbefitting a serving officer of Canada, if they seek to come within the scale allowed by treasury board officials?
3.	If the answer to (1) is yes, is the government giving consideration to making control of R.C.A.F. travel expense claims a departmental responsibility?
Answer: 1. Officers of transport command are subject to the same directions as all officers of the forces in respect to travel claims. These directions are set out in the Queen's regulations for the Royal Canadian Air Force. Normally the costs of accommodation and meals are covered by a per diem rate. Where this rate is unsuitable the minister may authorize a higher per diem rate or actual expenses for accommodation and meals in accordance with the public service travel regulations. In this case receipts for accommodation must be submitted and costs of meals must be listed. No change has been made since publication of part II of the Glassco commission report.
2.	(a) Yes, as to the necessity of seeking headquarters approval of special rates or actual expenses.
(b) No.
3.	Subject to the directions contained in the Queen's regulations this is now a departmental responsibility. A review is being made of the travel regulations applicable to the public service under the direction of the treasury board and when this is completed, the regulations applicable to the forces will be examined in the light of any changes made in the public service regulations.


COST OF MENTAL ILLNESS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What is the direct cost of mental illness in Canada for the last year for which figures are available including hospital care, medical care, and medication?
2.	What is the indirect cost of mental illness in Canada for the last year for which figures are available as a result of loss of earnings by patients in hospitals and patients from industry?

Answer: 1. The cost of medical care distinct from medical care given in hospitals and of medication distinct from medication given in hospitals for mental illness is not known.
The cost of hospital care given to mental in patients has been estimated at $158,469,000 for 1961. Of this total, $132,206,000 was reported to d.b.s.; the remaining $26,263,000 was estimated to take account both of the costs of public mental hospitals failing to report expenditure data to d.b.s. and of the costs of other hospitals giving (some) mental care but not asked to supply d.b.s. with (separate) financial figures. This latter group is comprised of private mental hospitals, federal psychiatric units and public hospital psychiatric units. The estimates in all cases were based on the days of in patient care provided to mental cases by the institutions in question.
2.	Not available.


BUTTER CONVERTED TO BUTTER OIL
Mr. Peters: 1.	How much butter, in pounds, has been converted into butter oils during the years 1957, 1958,
1959,	1960, 1961, 1962?
2.	What sales have been made for the commodity butter oil, for each of the above years, and at what price?
3.	For what purpose was the butter oil purchased?


Mr. Hays:: 1. 1957, nil; 1958, nil; 1959, nil;
1960,	20,581,225 pounds; 1961,	51,358,428
pounds; 1962, 33,035,777 pounds.
2.	1957, nil; 1958, nil; 1959, nil; 1960, 986,485 pounds at 78J cents per pound, basis Toronto and Montreal; 1961, 709,300 pounds at 78J cents per pound, basis Toronto and Montreal; 1962, 353,437 pounds at 65 cents per pound, basis Toronto and Montreal.
3.	For domestic manufacturing purposes.


RESPONSIBILITY FOR GRAIN EXCHANGES
Mr. Langlois: 1.	What responsibility, if any, has the federal government for the licensing or control of operations of the (a) Winnipeg grain exchange (b) Montreal grain exchange, and (c) Toronto grain exchange?
2.	What are the functions of the above mentioned grain exchanges and, is there any federal control over prices set by these exchanges?
3.	If federally licensed, on what date did each exchange commence operation, and what agency granted the license?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1, 2 and 3. The federal government has no responsibility in relation to the operations of grain exchanges.


PLANS TO ENLARGE OR ESTABLISH NEW MEDICAL COLLEGES
Mr. Orlikow: Is the government discussing with the provincial governments, the medical colleges and the Canadian medical association the advisability of (a) increasing the size of the present medical colleges, or (b)
Questions
the establishment of new medical colleges with a view to making it possible to meet Canadian needs for doctors in the 1970's as a result of the rapidly increasing Canadian population?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Several of the briefs presented to the royal commission on health services dealt with the need for the training of health personnel and the royal commission has instituted a number of studies with this in mind. It is expected that the royal commission will be making recommendations in this regard to which the government will give careful consideration.


AUDIT CLERKS, NATIONAL REVENUE DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,49 7-Mr. Laprise:
How many audit clerks are there to check income tax returns in the taxation division of the Department of National Revenue (a) in Canada (b) in the province of Quebec, (c) in the Rouyn office? [Translation]
Mr. Garland:: The question presumedly has to do with assessors since there are no audit clerks in the taxation division.
(a) At present, the division has 2,254 assessors; (b) 430 in the province of Quebec; (c) 13 in the Rouyn office.


* AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Mr. Fisher: 1.	At what stage is the Auditor General's report for the year ending March 31, 1963?
2.	Has the Minister of National Revenue or the deputy minister (taxation) been shown a draft or any portion of a draft of this particular year?
3.	If so, under what authority (statute, etc.) was the Auditor General empowered to do this?
4.	Does the Auditor General consider it his responsibility to inform a department that it must or should collect revenue, including instructions on how it is to be done, or should he report such matters first to parliament?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I have been informed by the assistant auditor general that:
1.	The first draft of the report has been considered by the Auditor General and his senior officers, and a second draft is now being given consideration.
2.	No. (However, as in previous years, where it is deemed necessary in order to ensure factual correctness and that notice is being taken of all material facts, copies of some draft paragraphs will be shown, in confidence, to the deputy ministers or other senior officers of the departments concerned).
3.	The practice of showing some draft paragraphs of the report, in confidence, to deputy ministers or other senior departmental officers is one of long standing, though not specifically provided by statute.
4.	No, the Auditor General does not consider it his responsibility to inform a department that it must or should collect revenue, including instructions on how it is to be

Questions
done. However, if in the course of the audit it is noted that a department has failed to take appropriate collection action, the Auditor General or one of his officers would bring this to the attention of the department, and request an explanation. In the light of the explanation given, the Auditor General would then decide whether this reporting responsibilities under section 70 of the Financial Administration Act required him to include reference to the matter in his next annual report to parliament.


CLOSING OF FILM BOARD OFFICE, NEW GLASGOW, N.S.
Mr. MacEwan: Has the government received a resolution from the New Glasgow area film council, New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, asking that the national film board office at New Glasgow remain open, and not be closed in November and, if so, what action does the government intend to take in regard to this important matter?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am advised that the national film board has received such a resolution.
As already stated in reply to question No. 1,333, it is not the intention of the national film board to close its office at New Glasgow, Nova Scotia.


TAX EXEMPTION, CANADIAN ECONOMIC FOUNDATION
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Was the Canadian economic foundation given the right to receive contributions which are deductible for tax purposes and, if so, on what date was the right granted?
2.	What reasons were advanced by this organization to the minister in its request that it be granted such a right?
3.	What were the government's reasons for granting such tax exemption status to the Canadian *economic foundation?
4.	What are the principal aims of the Canadian economic foundation and do they include participation in political activities?
5.	Is the government reconsidering the tax exempt status of the Canadian economic foundation?


John Richard Garland: 1. The foundation was advised on January 30, 1963, that contributions would be deductible for tax purposes, subject to review from time to time.
2. The Canadian economic foundation was incorporated without share capital under the Dominion Companies Act by letters patent on March 8, 1962, the purpose of which is stated to be to conduct research and to inform the people of Canada generally in a better understanding of the proper relationship between government, business, industry and labour in Canada operating under a free competitive enterprise system.

3.	The application submitted by the foundation stated the work of the foundation was entirely educational, which is a charitable purpose in law.
4.	To educate the public on how our economy works. The material submitted does not indicate participation in political activities.
5.	Yes.
^MONTREAL OFFICE, PUBLIC WORKS MINISTER


Mr. Pigeon: 1.	What was the cost of providing for the office of the Minister of Public Works in Montreal?
2.	What are the names, titles, functions, and working conditions of the personnel attached to the minister's office in Montreal?
3.	Are these persons appointed by (a) the minister (b) the civil service commission?


Mr. Badanai:: 1. $1,538.00.
2.	Mr. Joseph A. E. Cournoyer-Morin, assistant private secretary, does the usual work associated with such a position, that is correspondence, interviews, etc. Mr. Pierre Dequoy, clerk grade 3, helps Mr. Cournoyer-Morin and supervises the office work. Miss Lucille Saint-Jacques, clerk grade 3, a receptionist, does some typing and office work. Miss J. Robitaille, part time stenographer, does secretarial work. All of them have the same working conditions as other civil servants.
3.	By order-in-council.


CLINTON, ONT., POST OFFICE
Mr. Cardiff: Has the contract been let for the new post office at Clinton, Ontario, and, if so, (a) what is the contract price (b) what progress has been made, if any?


Hubert Badanai: No. (a) and (b) not applicable.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AGREEMENTS WITH AMERICAN STATES
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,535
Mr. Dionne:: 1.	Are negotiations continuing with the four American states which have not yet signed agreements with respect to unemployment insurance?
2.	Are any delays being experienced in such negotiations and, if so, what are the reasons for such delays?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. With Maine only. Efforts have been concentrated with Maine, because the largest number of Canadian woodsmen are employed in that state. New Hampshire requires an amendment to its legislation before it can enter into any agreement with Canada.
The movement of workers from Canada to Iowa and Alabama, and vice versa, is so small that reciprocal agreements with these two states would be of little practical value.
2. No.


ENCOURAGEMENT FOR SUGAR BEET INDUSTRY
Mr. Thomas: Will the government consider additional encouragement and stabilization for the sugar beet industry in Canada, with a view to (a) expanding our domestic production of sugar (b) creating more job opportunities in Canada (c) improving our external balance of payments?


Harry William Hays: At present the price of sugar beets grown in Canada is stabilized under the Agricultural Stabilization Act by a deficiency payment program. This program is based on the relationship between the average declared value of imported raw sugar and the price received by Canadian producers for the sugar in their beets and it is considered that the policy effectively protects Canadian producers against downward fluctuations in world sugar prices. The current level of support is 109 per cent of the base price which is the 10 year average price that Canadian producers have received for their beets. The support program and level is reviewed annually.
It is considered that current sugar prices should be adequate to provide for any reasonable and economic expansion of the domestic beet sugar industry.


REFUND CLAIMS FOR TAX ON BUILDING MATERIALS
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,539
Mr. Ricard:: From June 14, 1963 to October 26, 1963, following the change made to the tax rate on building materials from 11 per cent to 4 per cent, how many persons claimed refunds, and what was the total amount of these claims?


John Richard Garland: Information not available. Refund claims are not filed nor are they tabulated by the department according to commodities. Adjustments made by licensees in the course of business are recorded in their accounts and subject to audit but are not recorded as refunds by the department as they do not involve the filing of claims or payments from the consolidated revenue.


STAMP SALES AND COSTS
Mr. Belanger: 1.	What was the amount paid by Canadians for postal stamps of all denominations during the fiscal year 1962-63?
2.	How much have these stamps cost the government of Canada or the Post Office Department?
3.	To whom have the amounts mentioned in the preceding question been paid?


Mr. Denis:: 1. $91,723,497.24.
2.	$1,286,834.
3.	To the Canadian Bank Note Company, Limited, Ottawa, the British American Bank Note Company, Limited, Ottawa and the International Envelope Limited, Montreal.
Questions


CO-OPERATION IN MANAGEMENT OF MONTREAL HARBOUR
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,543
Mr. Laiulippe:: Does the government intend to amend, in the near future, statutes relating to the Montreal harbour and the national harbours board, in order to promote increased co-operation between municipal, provincial and federal authorities in the management of the Montreal harbour?


Mr. Caniin:: Since this is a question of government policy, any announcement in that connection would be made in the usual manner.


GROUPING OF TOURIST INDUSTRY AGENCIES
Mr. Latulippe: Does the government intend to examine the possibility of grouping under the authority of the Department of Industry all boards and departmental branches which deal with the tourist industry in Canada?


Mr. Drury:: Under the provisions of the Department of Industry Act, the duties, powers and functions of the minister extend only to matters relating to manufacturing industries.


DEPORTATION ORDER AGAINST BARNABE GARCIA
Mr. Martineau: 1.	Was a deportation order issued against Mr. Barnabe Garcia and, if so, for what reasons?
2.	Did Mr. Garcia lodge an appeal against this order?


John Carr Munro: 1. Yes; under section 19(l)(e)(x) of the Immigration Act in that he came into Canada as a member of a crew and, without the approval of an immigration officer, remained in Canada after the departure of the vehicle on which he came to Canada.
2.	Yes.


CHRYSLER COMPANY TENDER FOR STAKE TRUCKS
Mr. Lambert: 1.	With reference to the reply to question number 1,500, what were the names of the four firms who tendered, indicating the amount of each firm's tender?
2.	In what way did the vehicles offered by the lowest tenderer not meet the requirements of the specifications?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. General Motors Products of Canada, Oshawa, Ontario., $3,130,017.20; Chrysler Canada Ltd., Windsor, Ontario., $3,130,600.20; Ford Motor Company of Canada Ltd., Oakville, Ontario, $3,275,252.00; International Harvester Company, Hamilton, Ontario, $3,595,543.80.
2. The vehicles offered by the lowest tenderer were rejected because of capacity deficiencies in the rear axle and rear springs.

Order for Return
SALARY op c.b.c. president	HOUSE OF COMMONS


Mr. Marlineau: 1.	What is the present salary of the president of the C.B.C., Mr. Alphonse Ouimet?
2.	How long has he been receiving this rate of salary?
3.	When did he receive the last increase of salary?
4.	Is consideration being given at the present time to increasing his salary?
5.	Have any of the other executive officers of the C.B.C. recently received salary increases and, if so, which officers have received increases, giving in each case, the amounts of such increases?
6.	Is consideration being given at the present time to increasing the rate of salaries being paid to its executive officers?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1. $20,000.
2.	Approximately 9 years.
3.	July 1, 1954 as general manager.
4.	Yes.
5 and 6. It has not been customary to require crown corporations to disclose information which is basically related to their administration and management. There is the additional consideration that disclosure of such information could adversely affect the C.B.C. in the competitive business in which it is engaged.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Rheaume: 1.	What federal construction projects including roads are planned for the 1963-64 fiscal year in (a) Mackenzie district and (b) Fort Smith area?
2.	How many of these projects, in each of the above areas, will be carried out by (a) Department of Public Works (b) Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and (c) private contractors?
Return tabled.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My question of privilege involves starred question No. 1,349, which has been on the order paper for three weeks now. It asks a very simple question, namely what is to be the site of the Canadian world exhibition, when the decision was made to select this site, who made it, and under what authority. Surely a simple question such as that should be within the knowledge of whoever is the minister responsible, and it should have been answered by now.
Mr. Drury.]



PROCEDURE RESPECTING QUESTIONS ON ORDERS OF THE DAY

Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members may recall that last Thursday I made certain tentative suggestions to the house by way of experiment. Today being Monday it would be very helpful to the Chair if I could have an expression of opinion or have those suggestions adopted for future conduct of business in the house.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, perhaps that could remain until just before the orders of the day are called and could be discussed then, because I think there will be some discussion on your suggestions.


Mr. Speaker:: We have reached that point in our proceedings; I was about to call orders of the day.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, Mr. Speaker, the official opposition has looked into this matter, and while entirely in agreement with the objective cannot accept in their entirety the various suggestions which you made. There was no consultation with the Leader of the Opposition by the Speaker or anyone on his behalf before this matter was brought before the house by Your Honour.
We think that in general these are matters which should be considered by the committee and that an early report, an interim report, could be made by the committee respecting these various ideas and views expressed. The responsibility for maintaining the rules rests on the Speaker. Your Honour has set forth clearly and definitively the rules which apply to questions asked before the orders of the day. We had an experience with the last occupant of the august position you now occupy; he endeavoured to enforce the rules very strictly and definitely, and one just has to read what took place in order to have an answer.
Mention was made by Your Honour of the number of questions which were asked, and I suggested that Your Honour might go back into 1962 and 1961 and have placed on the record something of the experience of those two years. The other day I stated that the trend in recent years has been in the general direction of an increase in questions. Yesterday, casually reading one of the political quarterly reports of 1962, I came upon a reference to a book "Questions in Parliament" by Chester and Bowring, 1962.1 did not expect that volume to be in the library, but it was. That shows the trend in the United Kingdom.
Because, Mr. Speaker, you placed on the record the numbers of questions asked, which

might lead some to believe that this parliament acted differently from other parliaments, I looked up what had taken place in the United Kingdom since 1902, when a change was made.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the hon. gentleman give me the page?


John George Diefenbaker: I should be glad to give the page numbers. I am glad the Secretary of State has this copy because apparently he did not read this particular portion during the statement he made recently. This is page 87, and here he will find set out the change that has taken place in the United Kingdom. We are shocked at the number of questions in this parliament. Well, making allowance for the fact that the United Kingdom house has 630 members, here is the general outline of developments there; the rest can be filled in later. In 1903, following the change in the rules, the number of starred questions was 2,544 and the number of unstarred questions was 110.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the right hon. gentleman has made an error. There were 1,992 unstarred questions.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, the record in 1902 was the record during the period when the changes were made in the rules. That is why I started in 1903. I have no objection to the 1902 figures. Let us go back to the year before that. In 1901 the total number of starred was 6,448. In 1902, up to May 5, the number was 2,917 and, after May 5, 2,415. Then the rules were changed. Let us now take the year 1950. The number of starred questions in 1950 in the British house was 7,971, and it rose all the way to 14,700. In 1959-60, the last date for which figures are available, the number of starred questions was 10,161 and the total number of all questions, starred and unstarred, ranged between 1950 and 1960 from 9,861 to 13,471.
This is a revealing situation. The reasons for the increase are set out at page 90. It says fluctuations of this character are to be expected in most forms of parliamentary activity. In part they reflect the political problems attracting the attention of members at different times and, in part, they reflect the size of the government's majority. It says that a vigorously led opposition facing a government with a small majority will try to harass ministers in all possible ways. That was the conclusion reached. In the United Kingdom, the question period is jealously guarded and zealously preserved. It has been described as the grand assize of the nation.
Now, sir, I come to your suggestions. I do not intend to go into them in great detail. A debate similar to the one which took
Questions on Orders of the Day place here when we were discussing the setting up of a committee occurred in the United Kingdom in 1959-60, at which time Mr. Butler proposed to reduce the number of oral questions which might be asked by any member on any one day from three to two. I should like to deal with the statement you made, Mr. Speaker. First there is the principle:
The form of questions is governed by the terms of standing order 39, section 1, providing in part that in putting a question no argument or opinion is to be offered nor any facts stated, except so far as might be necessary to explain the question.
There would be no argument about that.
2.	Questions should be offered only in connection with urgent and important matters of public concern when, because of immediacy, the regular procedure relating to questions cannot be utilized.
There is no question about that.
3.	An explanation can be sought regarding the intention of the government, but not an explanation of opinion upon matters of policy.
4.	Supplementary questions are matters of grace.
Well, Your Honour refers to Mr. Speaker Michener in that regard. I do not find that in the United Kingdom supplementary questions are in that position. After all, we do not follow the United Kingdom in every way in our parliamentary procedure, though we regularly quote May on that mother of parliaments.
Now, sir, we come to your own proposals:
1.	In placing questions, hon. members seeking information from ministers will be expected to adhere to the rules governing questions as enunciated by my predecessors and as set forth-
And so on. To this I give 100 per cent support, because questions must be within the rules.
2.	No more than two supplementary questions, which must be genuine supplementary questions and which, I remind hon. members, are matters of grace, might be asked.
I think this is one part of your recommendations which could go to the committee.
I would take it upon myself to select questioners in rough ratio to the number of hon. members comprising any one body in the house.
What does that mean? It means that the Liberal party would have 15 minutes and we would have 11 minutes. Sir, the 30 minutes would be used up very quickly if you proceeded on that basis to allocate the time during which members of the parties might ask questions, and the question period would become a simple routine. If members supporting the government started in to ask questions and you called on them in proportion to the total membership of the house, the opposition would find itself in a position where its rights had been greatly curtailed.
No more than 30 minutes would be allowed to elapse from the time on the clock when the first question was asked.

Questions on Orders of the Day
I mentioned the other day that I thought we should be able to cover the most important questions in 30 minutes, but it would all depend on whether they were answered. It would also depend on whether Your Honour was allocating the questions on the basis set out in paragraph 3. In the United Kingdom, where there is a restriction on the right to ask questions which come within the rules, if a member is not satisfied with the answer he gets from the government he has a recourse. But you, sir, in setting forth your plan, say in effect that questions of privilege or points of order cannot be raised during the 30 minutes. On one hand we have a rule that points of order or questions or privilege must be raised immediately; on the other hand, you suggest the substitution of a new formula of procedure.
We want to co-operate fully, but if there were to be any limitation there would have to be a change made so there would not be an automatic adjournment of the house at ten o'clock at night. Whenever a member of the U.K. parliament finds that his question is not properly answered, or not satisfactorily dealt with, he has the right to rise and announce that at the end of the day's sitting he intends to raise the subject. If the time is limited to 30 minutes and the right to raise points of order or privilege is denied, I submit with the greatest deference that a change would have to be made so that we would not be at the mercy of the government in the discharge of our responsibilities. In these circumstances this part of your suggestion should, I think, go to the committee.
Your Honour suggests that though points of order or questions of privilege would not be allowed with respect to any ruling of the Chair, any member who felt himself seriously aggrieved might be permitted to raise a question of privilege about a decision of the Chair at the close of the question period. If that were the course followed, the half hour would not be the length of the question period, and there would be no effective saving of time in this regard.
For my part I offer you the fullest cooperation, Mr. Speaker. Personally I have tried, though I may not always have succeeded, to keep within the rules, as I know hon. members opposite have tried. I regard it as of primary importance in order to maintain the prestige of parliament that we do not abuse the rules.
This being so, I think the various suggestions Your Honour has made should go to the committee, except that one relating to the strong enforcement of the rules. If you follow that you will have my fullest co-operation in every way.
[Mr. Diefenbaker.I


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: It appears, Mr. Speaker, that you are not going to get any help from the Pharisees in driving the Pharisees out of this temple. In these circumstances there is not much point in my comments on behalf of my colleagues, or for this group. The former prime minister has indicated that he does not see eye to eye with your proposals; therefore there is little point in making further comments, except to say that we were prepared to co-operate with regard to the idea of the half hour, though we were somewhat concerned over the suggestion to call hon. members in proportion to the size of the groups to which they belong. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, that can go to the committee now.
We would like to assure you that we will give our co-operation, but we would also like to appeal to you not to be discouraged by the response you have had to your suggestions. If you should get tough and rough, as long as we see the elementary fairness that I think we will see we will be prepared to go along with that. I suggest ihat in view of what has been said, particularly by the previous speaker, the burden is now upon you, Mr. Speaker, and we will look forward to seeing you bear that burden.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the official opposition has gone to great lengths to point out what has been the practice in the parliament of the United Kingdom. I would say there is an ample record of other parliaments, equally based on the traditions of the mother of parliaments that we follow, where they have very successfully limited the question period in fairness to all members of the house, even where there are more than two parties.
I believe the proposition that you have made is a sound one and that we should give it a try. We will co-operate with you, sir, in carrying on the business of the allimportant question period, recognizing that you have the responsibility for the effective and efficient functioning of the house. I believe we should also give our fullest support to the committee, because it is made up of members of all parties in the house, and that we should make every effort not only to co-operate but to work together to make our functioning here more effective.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, as I said Thursday when you brought forth your six-point suggestion, we are ready to co-operate to the fullest extent possible toward the application of the proposals you made last week.

However, we pointed out on that occasion how important it was that we got clear and accurate answers to our questions.
I heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) mention that this new procedure might cut down on the time of the members of his party and prevent them from asking some questions. In my view, many questions are asked that should not be asked, and this applies particularly to the Conservatives during the past several weeks.
Such a procedure would help improve the situation and shorten the time taken up by the question period.
We have been here for an hour and ten minutes already and the orders of the day have not yet been called.
Mr. Speaker, we believe the proposed thirty minutes would be sufficient, provided each group is recognized and has an opportunity to ask questions and the minister concerned answers accurately and does not beat around the bush, so that the house may be well informed when members ask questions.
As I said last Thursday, we are willing to give you our full support and to co-operate with you.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank you for your very sincere, if unsuccessful, effort to speed up and make more effective the work of the house during the current session.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Just plain nonsense.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. At this time I should like to thank the Leader of the Opposition for his helpful remarks. Perhaps he is right. In matters of serious importance such as this perhaps the best method to follow is to make haste slowly. I do hope that the committee on procedure and reform will activate itself within the next few days; then we can consider the matter very carefully. With the cooperation of hon. members, shall we start with orders of the day?



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It has to do with the successful coup in South Viet Nam. In order to ensure that the Canadian decision on recognition will not be a mere formality or an automatic following of other countries
Inquiries of the Ministry in this regard, is he able to say that such recognition when considered will not be done hastily but only after a full investigation of the surrounding circumstances leading up to the revolution?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman that the government will give the fullest consideration to the recognition of the new government when it is firmly established in South Viet Nam. The government does not have before it all the facts which it considers necessary to make such a decision, which will neither be made with undue haste nor lightly.


Robert Norman Thompson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that we do not have any direct diplomatic or trade mission in Viet Nam and also because of the fact that there are a large number of Canadian personnel in the country, not only in Saigon but also in the rural areas, what information can the Secretary of State for External Affairs give us about the safety of Canadian nationals in Viet Nam?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman perhaps has not recalled, we have a representative on the international supervisory commission, a commission made up of representatives from Canada, India and Poland. We have received information from our representative. The events of last week in South Viet Nam were surrounded, of course, by great confusion. However, I can tell the house that according to information so far available, no Canadian lives were lost in the events during the last few days in South Viet Nam.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a proper, brief and urgent question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister any information to give the house-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member was kind enough to send me a copy of this question. May I suggest to him that the first part of the question is in order and that the second paragraph be dropped.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I will willingly sacrifice the 30 seconds involved. Has the minister any information to give the house in respect of the reported walkout of longshoremen employed in the ports of British Columbia?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it appears that arising out of the settlement made last August it was agreed that certain retroactive wage payments should be made to the longshoremen. I am informed that the purpose of the walkout is to speed up the process of payment, and that at the present time Vancouver officers of the Department of Labour are close to the situation and will render any assistance possible in the resumption of work.



CHARGE AGAINST HAL BANKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice arising out of the answer he gave to a member's question on Thursday with reference to the charges laid against Banks. Is the minister sure that a charge has been laid against Banks? If the answer is yes, then I ask him why Banks was not arrested at that time, and why is he not out on bail according to legal practice.


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest to the hon. member that the first part of his question was very good, but the second part was completely out of order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I rephrase the question and put it in this way. Why was Banks not arrested at the time the charge was laid, and why was he not released on bail?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the part that the Speaker said was out of order, but the hon. member got it in. So far as the first part of the question is concerned, my statement in the house on Thursday was quite clear and it stands as it was made.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a question of privilege, surely that is a proper question, and surely the House of Commons is entitled to know the answer. The Minister of Justice stated on Thursday that a proper charge involving an indictable offence had been laid against Hal Banks, and surely the House of Commons is entitled to know what the situation is. According to newspaper reports Banks has now disappeared, and surely we are entitled to know how he happened to disappear before he was arrested and why he was not brought before the bar of justice and a proper application made for bail, so that if he was to be at large he would be at large under a proper bail order.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My hon. friends say
"order". I do not know how many Speakers there are in this house or what colour they are, and so on.


Lionel Chevrier: I am just wondering whether this is a question or a speech by the hon. member for Bow River. I did say on Thursday that on the advice of counsel appointed to consider the evidence in connection with the Norris report, a charge had been laid against Hal Banks in Montreal for conspiracy to commit an assault occasioning bodily harm upon Captain Walsh. Now, this is a fact, whether my hon. friend likes it or not, it is a fact. I do not believe it is the responsibility of the Minister of Justice to give a blow by blow account to the house as to the intentions of the special prosecutor or the police so that those who may be charged will know exactly what the next blow is. I do not believe that is my responsibility, and I have no intention of doing so.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask a supplementary question. Counsel was appointed in the person of Mr. Martineau. Who laid the information? What date was it laid? How was it that the prosecutor himself, specially appointed to look after this, had no knowledge of the laying of the charge?


Lionel Chevrier: In so far as the last part of the question is concerned, I cannot accept that as being factual; because I have before me a statement which appeared in the Toronto Star of November 2, quoting Mr. Martineau as follows:
Today Mr. Martineau told the Star that all he said was, if the minister said a charge had been laid, it must be correct.


John George Diefenbaker: He said it had not been.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg Norlh):: Surely the house is entitled to know whether a charge was laid, before whom the charge was laid, on what date the charge was laid, and whether or not a warrant for Mr. Banks' arrest has been issued.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, Mr. Speaker, a number of those questions have already been answered. The charge was laid in Montreal. It was laid against Mr. Banks. It was laid on October 23, and on October 31 search warrants were issued arising out of these charges. In so far as the last part of the question is concerned, I do not believe it is in the public interest to give that information.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: I wanted to ask the Minister of Justice if a warrant has been issued for the arrest of Hal C. Banks,

and whether any attempt was being made to apprehend him. Apparently, however, the minister takes the view that this information is not in the public interest. I think it is. I think it is necessary for the Canadian people to know this matter is being pursued.


Lionel Chevrier: I have indicated on two occasions now that I do not believe it is in the public interest to answer that question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question. Surely it is in the public interest to ask why Banks was not arrested.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is not in order to argue with a minister who declines to answer a question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I was not arguing. I am asking a supplementary question; why Banks was not arrested?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, you have
already declared that question out of order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. With the greatest respect, I should like to hear from the Chair why that question is out of order, except that the minister is hedging?


Mr. Speaker:: I could take ten minutes to give detailed information to the hon. member, but I do not propose to hold up the house. If he would look at page 147, citation 171 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, he would find a complete and detailed answer.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice. Would the minister know where Hal Banks is at this moment?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Wellington South.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: I will leave my question until tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice?
Is it true that the government does not intend to give effect to the recommendations of the Norris report, because Mr. Banks is a friend of the Liberals at election time and a subscriber to their campaign funds?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question is obviously out of order.
28902-5-278
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice?
Last Thursday the Minister of Justice stated that charges described as charges of assault, therefore criminal offences, would be laid against Hal Banks; how can the minister account for the fact that today it is not in the public interest to disclose whether a warrant for arrest was delivered against Hal Banks?
It is absolutely compulsory, when the Minister of Justice lodges a complaint for assault against an individual-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is repeating a similar question in another way, and is out of order.



REFUSAL OF U.S. WORKERS TO LOAD CANADIAN SHIPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Labour if he is in a position to give a report to the house respecting the picketing of the unloading of Canadian ships in Chicago over the week end; whether there has been any communication with Washington in the last couple of days in this regard, and also whether there is co-operation on the part of Washington in preventing this injustice to Canadian ships.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have not received a report directly with respect to this incident, which I shall attempt to have investigated as quickly as possible. With respect to representations to Washington, this is a matter for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


John George Diefenbaker: Then I ask that minister whether in the last two days he has been in communication with the administration in Washington regarding the blocking of the unloading of two Canadian ships, the Col. Robert R. McCormick and the Mondoc at Chicago where longshoremen refused to cross a picket line.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secrelary of Slate for Exlernal Affairs: I have been in touch with our embassy in Washington, and I am waiting for a report on this matter.

Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION



SUGGESTED CENSURE RESPECTING CERTAIN POLITICAL BROADCASTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
Is the Secretary of State aware of an alleged censorship imposed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation upon certain political matters, separatism for instance, and does he intend to hold an inquiry into this matter? Would other matters be also censored by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, as I have said on previous occasions in the house, it has never been the view of any government, I believe, that the government is an appropriate body to censor broadcasting, and I hope we never have government censorship of broadcasting in this country. Successive governments have appointed eminent citizens to be the governors and directors of the broadcasting corporation and the responsibility for what is broadcast is on their shoulders where it should be. In my view they should be held accountable to the whole of parliament and not to any part of parliament for the discharge of those functions.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Does the Secretary of State intend to convene the sessional committee on broadcasting this year during this session?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I believe there is no sessional committee on broadcasting under our standing orders, and it would appear to me that there is so much work going on in committees at the present time that there would hardly be room for an additional committee at this session. But I do hope to have the approval of my colleagues to recommend that at the beginning of the next session we should have a select committee on broadcasting set up.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clifford Silas Smallwood: Since November 11 is just one week away, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the

Prime Minister whether the Liberal member for Lotbiniere was stating government policy at Drummondville last Saturday night when he said that Canada should end the monarchy, as stated in the report in this morning's Montreal Gazette?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure that this question is in order. If the hon. member were referring to a statement made by a cabinet minister then he would be entitled to ask the Prime Minister for an explanation, but not with regard to a statement by a private member.



REPORTED STATEMENT RESPECTING REASON FOR PRICE INCREASES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice if his attention has been drawn to a statement by Mr. Arthur E. Beeby, executive vice president of Salada Foods, to the effect that the recent series of increases in sugar prices cannot be explained on the basis of supply and demand; that there is no world sugar shortage, and that the rising cost of this staple food item on world food markets is not the result of demand but of speculators. I wonder if the minister would care to comment on that statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member asking a question for information or is he giving it?


Frank Howard: I am glad you asked me that, Mr. Speaker. I am asking a question for information. I do not have any high hopes of getting it from the minister in view of his previous answers to this question, but I will try.


Lionel Chevrier: I have not seen the statement, and in order to comment intelligently upon it I think I should be given the opportunity of seeing it.
In so far as the hon. member's statement is concerned that he has received no replies to questions put to me with reference to sugar, let me tell my hon. friend that this is a matter which falls under the jurisdiction of not one but several departments. In so far as the Department of Justice is concerned, it falls under its jurisdiction in connection with the Combines Investigation Act. In so far as that act is concerned, there must be proof that there has been a combination or a merger to increase the price. There is in existence, as I indicated to my hon. friend some time ago, a court order in Montreal enjoining not only certain eastern sugar refineries but their directors as well from fixing an increase in prices. All that needs to be done is

to invoke that order, provided it can be established that there has been a fixing of prices.


Frank Howard: Is it not a fact that such enjoining or prohibiting orders are not as good as the paper they are written on, because they can be gotten around by any corporation which so desires?


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is just a speech.


Frank Howard: This is undoubtedly what has happened in this case.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not wish to be on my feet continuously giving lectures to the house. Statements should be short, concise and to the point. However, one way not to ask a question is to start with "Is it not a fact?"



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a rather brief question to the Minister of Public Works.
Is it the intention of the federal government to pay to Mr. Dupuy the $275,000 he has requested in a letter to the government in order to meet the expenses incurred, from September to October, for work done on the 1967 world fair site?


Hon. J. P. Deschaielets (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, all requests coming to us from the world fair authorities are considered and when it is possible to carry them out, we do so without delay. My hon. friend can be assured that the same policy will apply in this case as in all the others.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
Does the government intend to invite the 31 countries which are members of the international bureau of world fairs to hold their semi-annual meeting of May 1964 in Montreal instead of in Paris?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Order paper.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker will decide, not you. Take your time.


Mr. Speaker:: This is a reasonably important and urgent matter. If the minister is in a position to answer, let him answer. If not, he can easily take it as notice.
28902-5-278J
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, since I am responsible to the house for the world fair, I will pass on to the corporation my hon. friend's question and provide a reply as soon as I have one.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I wish to thank the Minister of Public Works.



REQUEST FOR RESIGNATION OF MEMBER FOR NOTRE DAME DE GRACE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: I should like to direct a question to-


David Réal Caouette: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Justice?


Mr. Speaker:: Order; the hon. member for
Acadia.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In order to maintain decorum in this house it is necessary that the Speaker recognize one member at a time. The hon. member for Acadia stood up first.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; it is always nice to be recognized, and now I should like to be heard.
I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of what happened in 1953, when the Liberal member for Qu'Appelle resigned because he had violated the spirit of the law, is it the Prime Minister's intention to ask for the resignation of the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace who, according to the Montreal Star-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question is
definitely out of order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I rise on a question of order. It is not out of order. It is a very urgent matter. The Montreal Star points out that according to the MacKay report the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace acted in a way detrimental to the taxpayers, the very people who elected him. I think he has no alternative but to resign.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They want to hide the facts.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the purpose of this question, and I am sure all hon. members will appreciate the situation in which I find myself in having to deal with this question and rule it out of order. However, according to all the parliamentary authorities this is not a matter concerning any activity

Inquiries of the Ministry inside the house, but is a matter which arises outside the house. We cannot go back into the past history of all hon. members at the present time. At the time these events took place the hon. member was not a member of parliament, and for this and several other reasons I must declare the question out of order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I would agree with that, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to point out that at that time he was representing the taxpayers on the city council, which is nearly as bad.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Industry a question?
Since a high position recently became vacant in his department, could the minister state whether he intends to take into consideration the fact that some French Canadians have the required qualifications to fill that vacancy?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



TRENTON, N.S.    REQUEST FOR ORDER FOR RAILWAY CARS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Labour if he is now in a position to answer the question I asked him on Monday last?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes, and the requests that were contained in this communication will receive and are receiving careful consideration.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Is the minister aware that his executive assistant, the former member for Rimouski, is listed in sessional paper No. IB, tabled by the Secretary of State, as having broken the law in that he failed to keep certain sections of the Canada Elections Act? Will the minister look into this before the Minister of Justice or the Secretary of State lays charges against him?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of this.
I am going to inquire and report later on.


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee of supply.



LACK OF MEASURES TO DEAL WITH UNEMPLOYMENT

Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, at this time when there is an opportunity for the opposition to move a motion of nonconfidence, I rise to bring your attention and that of all hon. members to a very serious matter. It may be that the succession of balmy days and unseasonable warm weather of the past few weeks has lulled some of the members of the treasury benches into ignoring this situation, and has dimmed their eyes to the fact that winter is just around the corner. As various members of the government go about their business in the bull ring, down in Washington, or possibly New Orleans and elsewhere-wherever duty calls them-it may be they have forgotten winter brings special problems in this country.
We have waited for quite a number of weeks, indeed months, to see what positive and definite action the government was preparing to take in respect of this matter. We are now in the first week of November, and the government has failed and is not prepared to deal with winter unemployment, or indeed with unemployment as a whole. It has become quite evident that since the government took office it has failed to deal effectively with this very serious problem. It has not brought forward any measure that would have an immediate effect upon winter unemployment, or unemployment as a whole.
During two successive election campaigns members of the government promised full employment. They promised this when they were in opposition also, and I refer first to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who said at Inkster, Manitoba, on February 25, 1963, that, "the biggest domestic issue is unemployment." Again, speaking at Montreal on March 6, 1963, he said:
The first objective of a Liberal government would be to initiate a mass program of economic development to increase income, expand social progress and to reduce unemployment which he described as the most serious problem facing the country today.


Mr. Benidickson:: It has gone down.


Michael Starr: This was one of the prime concerns of the members who now occupy the treasury benches. The Minister of Finance, speaking on this subject at Windsor, Ontario, on February 28, 1963, said:

An average of 250,000 new jobs will be needed annually in the next four years. This figure is 21 times greater than the average provided during each of the last six years.
Again on the same date, in the same city, he said:
One of the objectives of a Liberal government will be to straighten that (unemployment) out.
Some of those who now sit on the treasury benches do not seem to have looked at the subject in the same light, because we have the Minister of Trade and Commerce saying at Vancouver on February 25, 1963:
Canada can never eliminate unemployment.
He went on to say:
People who say that we are going to eliminate unemployment simply don't know the country.
I do not know whether they have since got together on this subject, but since then we have not heard a word from the members of the government, either inside or outside the house, respecting this serious and important matter. In other words, they have lost interest in the situation.
Someone, I think it was the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, interjected a moment ago that unemployment is down. That is right. According to the d.b.s. statistics there were 10,000 less unemployed in the month of September as compared with September last year, but in percentages this means that last year we had a figure of 3.9 per cent of the labour force unemployed, while this year it is 3.7 per cent.
Surely the members of the government are not taking credit for something they have not done anything about? Surely the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys will agree that whatever policies were instituted by the former government are now bearing fruit? It is very brazen on the part of the government to take credit for a very small decline in unemployment, particularly in the face of its inactivity and failure to do anything about unemployment. But we are not in the winter months yet. However, I will deal with that matter as we go along.
What has been done by the government to deal with winter unemployment in particular? First of all, the Minister of Labour made a statement to the house, reported on page 821 of Hansard for June 10 of this year. In the body of his statement he said:
The stimulation of employment and the reduction of unemployment are major problems which the government is determined to tackle vigorously.
Then he went on to show how the government intended to tackle those problems vigorously, and the minister set out some nine points. Let us look, Mr. Speaker, at the bright new ideas which this new Liberal government had for tackling winter unemployment. First, training of the unemployed.
Unemployment Measures Lacking That was an unheard of policy. This had never happened before. They had forgotten that we undertook this policy in 1960 in co-operation with the provinces; that we increased our proportion of the cost from 50 to 75 per cent; and that the number of people trained in Canada had multiplied ten times since that time, owing to this policy. But the government said that this was a new and bold step toward eliminating unemployment, and also seasonal unemployment, and they were to do it by increasing from 75 per cent to 90 per cent the federal share.
Second, training of unemployed workers. That involved an amendment to the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act. This was again something new, bold and imaginative. All the government did was to take advantage of the facilities provided by the former government, which enabled new schools with a 139,000 student capacity to be built in the country to train young people.
Third, re-employment of older workers. The minister stated at the time that the program would be enlarged upon and all the details worked out. Well, Mr. Speaker, the details have been worked out now and those in charge of policing the matter are having a difficult time. The policing of those who hire workers aged 45 and over for a certain period of time, for which they are recompensed at $75 a month, is proving to be an almost insurmountable obstacle to overcome. This is nothing but a gimmick. It is a gimmick which probably will not work and which probably will not give benefits to those who actually need them.
Capital assistance for technical training facilities was the fourth idea. This has been going on since 1960, when we passed the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act, which has had a great deal of success.
The fifth item was technological change and manpower development. We introduced a bill into this house which never passed owing to the obstruction of the Liberal party which was then in opposition. They have now done away with this bill and are going to tackle the problem through agreements with the provinces.
Another new gimmick was number six, the only new gimmick outside of the hiring of older workers, namely the promotion of winter house building. A $500 bonus is to be paid if a house is built during the month of December, through March, inclusive. Well, it remains to be seen how much employment this will bring about.
The seventh measure was supplementary federal government winter construction. What does that amount to? The amount of $7 million is being provided for this. How many new jobs will $7 million provide in this country of ours?

Unemployment Measures Lacking
Then number eight, the extension of the municipal winter works incentive program. Here is a program which the Liberals used to call peanuts, a bagatelle, when it was first introduced in the house. This is the program that stimulated over $1 billion worth of projects undertaken by municipalities. This is the program that, on average, in the last two years gave temporary employment during the winter months to some 150,000 Canadians each and every winter for the past two winters. The government say they are going to extend the winter works program. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) said in Moncton, New Brunswick, on February 27 of this year, when he was vying for votes across Canada:
A new Liberal government would create jobs where they are needed, through municipal winter works, and would have to step in and do more than what has been done in the past in this field.
Well, Mr. Speaker, what have the government done? They have increased the amount of money which could be paid to the municipalities for the construction of a municipal building from $50,000 maximum to $100,000. But what did the government do on the other hand? They cut down the program by six weeks. These are six of the most productive weeks for the municipalities, because of the heavy winters in certain parts of the country. They are six weeks which the municipalities begged for; the former government was willing to co-operate and granted them the six weeks, but now this government cuts them out. This is what they mean by extending the program. This is what they mean by providing more employment. This is not working in the right direction but in the wrong direction. By doing what they are doing they are curtailing the activity of those who might be usefully employed in the winter months. In fact, they are creating unemployment in the winter months as a result of their policy.
This, Mr. Speaker, is just about the gist of the whole program they have put before the people. They played it up, framed it and made a great hullabaloo about it, which actually means nothing more from the point of view of new jobs than that undertaken in the past. In fact, it may have the effect of curtailing the whole program.
The municipal loan fund was introduced in this house, and the government made a great play about it. As a matter of fact, when the Prime Minister spoke to the mayors and municipalities at the time, he said in as many words to the municipalities "Come and get it; we are going to give you $400 million". Well, Mr. Speaker, the provinces came to Ottawa and told the Prime Minister how they wanted to get it. It was not in the way the Prime Minister wanted to give it, but

they told him how they wanted to get it, and they got it. This loan fund, as I mentioned earlier, has been built up as an instrument to create some 30,000 jobs a year. I say to you right now, Mr. Speaker, that this is nothing but a hoax, a hoax perpetrated with the aid of newspapers and periodicals and advertisements. However, this fund is good for the municipalities, not for the creation of any new jobs. This is going to give municipalities loans they would normally get in the conventional market, but for about one half of 1 per cent less than when they issue ordinary debentures. It also gives them an advantage because there is a forgiveness clause. But will they undertake any new projects as a result of this loan? I say that because of their financial structure, their financial position and the per capita debt they have now incurred, they are not prepared to undertake any new projects other than those that are absolutely necessary and which have been planned and are now on the planning boards. I understand the city of Toronto are going to take some $40 million for the construction of an addition to their subway system. This addition to the subway system is nothing new; it is a continuation of a plan which has been in existence for years, and they would have undertaken this work regardless whether this municipal loan fund had been put into effect by the government or not. They would have borrowed the money in the regular, conventional market from which they had borrowed previously. However, they are going to get it at a cheaper rate, and when they have completed the work in a certain period of time, under the forgiveness clause they will get back 25 per cent. But it will not create any more jobs than would have been created in any event. I venture to say that the whole $400 million will not provide more than a handful of new jobs.
The municipal winter works program has stimulated a great deal of work in the municipalities, and it is a program which they welcomed. This program has brought about over $1 billion worth of projects in the last five years, and as I mentioned earlier has provided jobs over a period of some 45 days average, to some 150,000 Canadians in the past two winters. But this program the government has taken upon itself to do away with to quite an extent; it has decided to curtail this activity.
From the statements made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) there is some doubt in the house whether the municipal loan fund will be available to municipalities who will participate in the municipal winter works incentive program. When each minister was

questioned separately he gave a somewhat different answer, but when both were questioned in the house and the answers compared I notice that the Prime Minister had to come to their assistance and make up his mind about this policy. The Minister of Labour stated at that time that those who participated in the municipal winter works program will also be eligible to apply to the municipal loan fund to finance those projects.
The government has gone about this business of applying policies meant to provide employment-in essence our policies-in a way which makes them what is commonly known as Indian givers. Let us take the municipal winter works program as an example. They have increased the building amount from $50,000 to $100,000 but they have cut back the program by six weeks. In addition, they have placed a 4 per cent sales tax on the building materials which the municipalities are to use. They give with one hand and they take away with the other. Another example occurs to me in connection with housing. They offered a $500 bonus for each new structure completed in the winter months. At the same time they have imposed a sales tax on the building materials to be used in the construction of these houses. The same is true with regard to the plan for the expansion of our industry, in which everybody seems interested. In this field they have imposed a sales tax to be used on the machinery necessary before this expansion can take place. Instead of creating jobs hon. gentlemen opposite are doing their best, it seems, to curtail them-and it has all been done by careful planning and by design.
Let us consider another area in which the government has intervened. They adopted the provision we made relating to auto parts and made a few minor changes. Then they tried to sell the idea to the United States. They went to Washington. Not only were they unable to sell their own scheme but they almost succeeded in reversing the results which we had been able to achieve. In this connection, I should like to refer to the Financial Post of November 2 in which it is stated:
Already the first auto parts export incentive program, based on duty remission on imported automatic transmissions and engines has raised exports markedly. The increase was from $26.7 millions last year to $35.3 millions this year.
This program was well on its way to success. It had been accepted by the automobile manufacturers both in Canada and in the United States. There were no protests from the government of the United States. There were no complaints. Why is it that this government, involving itself in exactly the same area as we had explored, should get itself-[DOT] and not only itself, but Canada-into a great
Unemployment Measures Lacking deal of trouble? I think the answer is plain. It is because the present government has been unable to produce a practical, common sense program which would appeal to business, to the provinces and to our neighbours in the United States. They still have the arrogant attitude of past Liberal governments-the attitude that no one knows except themselves. They still think there is no need for consultation, that all they need to do is to issue statements from Ottawa and everyone will jump. Well, everyone is not jumping these days. The provinces are jumping, it is true, but they are jumping in protest. It is time they began to retrace their steps and started it again in a common sense way, as should have been their approach in the first place.
I think the reason for the present situation is that the government are relying on theory and on textbook economic schemes which have little or no relation to reality. This shows everything they have touched. They have rushed in, and then they have backed out, leaving the mess lying around. Some of the most important things on the agenda have been left in abeyance. These are the promises which were made during election. It is true they want to give a little time to them, to show they intend to keep them. But in reality these schemes are unworkable. I say it is time this government got back to common sense in its administration. The provinces have the right to expect this. Business, industry and labour have the right to expect it. And, finally, the Canadian people have the right to expect it.
When we were in office we provided incentives to industry in order to stimulate production and create new jobs. If we compare the figures, it is evident that the things we did, the action we took, paid off. They gave a new impetus to the economy. I suggest the present government is still riding on the effects of that impetus and that it is brazen for any occupant of the treasury benches to say things are better as a result of anything they have done since they took office in May of this year. Nothing that has been tried by them has worked out. Nothing they have done has created new jobs.
Hon. gentlemen opposite criticized us for the measures we took to stimulate the economy and for the deficits we incurred to that end. I say, now, that this government is incurring even greater deficits. In doing so they have imposed, in the short space of time which has elapsed since May, two new taxes on the peole of this country-4 per cent on building materials and, now, 1 per cent on income tax. This has all been done in the space of six months since they took office,

Unemployment Measures Lacking and despite it they will have the biggest deficit of any government since the first world war.
Let us turn, for a moment, to what are known as the slow growth areas. During our term of office certain measures were taken in this field and no complaints were received from any of the municipalities. I understand that the organization which will now be responsible for this situation is to have 35 divisions included within 10 branches designed to promote industry and develop a multitude of measures which are now being promoted by industry itself. I want to point out that as result of Liberal policies between 1945 and 1955 there is now close integration between the economies of Canada and of the United States. This being the case, the present government would be better advised to put forward plans and programs of a positive and constructive nature which would attract the support, or at least receive the acquiescence, of the United States rather than carry out the type of guerrilla warfare we are now carrying on in this country. I invite the government to look at the facts which they themselves were instrumental in creating. I would ask for a return to realism, a return to common sense in these matters.
Finally, in view of the fact that the policies which they have produced up to now, policies which they claim are meant to deal with unemployment in this country, are proving to be self-defeating, abortive and negative, and since they have failed to produce any effective policies to deal with winter unemployment in particular, I should like to move, seconded by my hon. friend from Pontiac-Temisca-mingue (Mr. Martineau):
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"This house regrets the failure of the government to introduce any effective new policies or programs to reduce substantially unemployment in Canada, and in particular to alleviate winter unemployment, so as to achieve the promised full employment as undertaken in the Liberal party election promises."


Douglas Mason Fisher: The amendment moved by the former minister of labour (Mr. Starr) is a familiar one. I imagine there has not been a year since the 'thirties when some want of confidence motion has not been produced in these general terms. As a consequence, this is a topic which has been well thrashed out and kicked around.
It seems to me the former minister of labour was trying to make a distinction along these lines: there has been some amelioration of the unemployment situation this summer, but if there is an improvement the government of which he was a member deserves much of the credit. However, he contends that the basic approach of the Liberal party since

it took power has given no indication that they have any fundamental policy which is likely to solve the unemployment problem in the long term. It seems to me that if I am giving anything close to an accurate paraphrase of the gist of the hon. member's remarks he was, in effect, acknowledging that the government of which he was a member did not have a fundamental approach to this question of unemployment, and its solution. The call from almost everybody in politics, particularly at election time, is for the unemployment problem to be tackled. I suppose everyone, if they are in politics, has gone into a tremendous amount of detail in their thinking, whether it be their thinking about their own particular region or the country as a whole, in trying to respond to this particular problem.
It does not seem to me that it is soon enough to judge really whether some of the things introduced by the present government, or in the stage of being introduced, are going to have a marked effect. For example, the municipal loan fund has been called an utter hoax by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr). I think this is the kind of hyperbole you get in House of Commons debates. It may be an utter hoax, but in his analysis of it I have not really got from him just why it is an utter hoax and how he can be so positive it is an utter hoax. Yet I can appreciate his reason for making that statement. I can remember that when he was on the government side and introduced such things as the winter works program somewhat similar phrases were bandied about as to the contribution it was likely to make to the situation.
The problem that we see in the unemployment situation really relates to something to which the hon. member referred, namely whether you take a piece by piece approach to it or whether you try to make some allout approach throwing all the resources of the government into the solution of this particular problem. It seems to me that our practice has been a very empirical one in Canada. We have tended to take a piece by piece approach. Perhaps in the light of how pieces of legislation relating to employment matters move through the House of Commons, this has seemed sensible.
One of the most disturbing things at the present time is the callousness that exists in the country about unemployment. If one happens to live in an area where there is a good situation, concern tends to disappear very quickly. I am disturbed at the present time over the situation in my own area. We have had an excellent summer. With the prospect of the big grain movement out of the west through our ports, and all the fillip that gives to the transportation industry there is a

relative optimism that I think may be unfortunate in that it is going to cause us to set aside some of our concern and worry. In other words, the edge has been taken off something that we were very conscious of right up until last spring.
In many ways I think that this callousness is bred right into the kind of society we have today. When you have a lot of people with good incomes who are enjoying a high material standard of living and who can see progress in terms of their leisure time activities and the amount of money they have to spend on cottages, vacations and dress, it seems it is very easy to forget the growing number of people in Canada who are becoming almost unemployable. It is also very easy to forget those pockets in the country where it does not seem that any of the existing programs are really going to help.
We as a party have contended for a number of years in the house that some cabinet minister needed to accept the basic responsibility for employment measures that would meet the situation. It has been my argument that it should be the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen). I have always thought it regrettable that this portfolio has been considered a minor post and that the two big posts of power in the government relating to these matters have tended to be finance and trade and commerce.
We have an indication from the new government that the Department of Industry is to play a fundamental role in this field. Here again we are not exactly sure just how much stature that department is going to have, because while it is going to build up a new administrative framework of a very ambitious kind we also know that the Department of Labour is expanding its administration in order to meet other parts of the unemployment problem.
We really have no indication of the government's detailed plan in the field. This is particularly noticeable as far as we are concerned in terms of the analysis of unemployment that one finds made today by economists. They mark out structural unemployment, technological unemployment, cyclical unemployment, seasonal unemployment, short term unemployment, social unemployment, which has existed because of the difficulty in moving and the lack of mobility, and frictional unemployment. It does not really matter how you define or classify these various kinds of unemployment. The point is that it is a complex matter and that because of the regional nature of our economy and the winter season it has to be analysed as a complex. It seems to us that the response of the government needs to be co-ordinated and to be very clear, 28902-5-279
Unemployment Measures Lacking and under the direction of one person who is responsible and can answer to the house.
It is for this reason that we welcome the opportunity to have a discussion of the matter. We hope that as a result of the discussion we will have a statement, not from the Minister of Labour necessarily indicating perhaps that it is his responsibility but from the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) indicating where the government is planning to go. I think that the hon. member for Ontario and the official opposition may be expecting too much too soon in terms of measures to meet unemployment over all. I think that the suspicions he and his party have in their minds are naturally larger than ours partly because they have suffered so recently the frustration of losing power, but nevertheless this is very understandable when we consider the slow pace at which the government is moving with regard to the Canada development corporation.
We have had a disappearance of what seemed to be an indication in the thinking of the Prime Minister when he was leader of the opposition of something that is intrinsic to our approach to the whole problem, namely that the government through welfare services has an opportunity and a responsibility to put the kind of floor or base under the economy, and to extend it, that will encourage the kind of spending that is one of the great factors in cutting down unemployment. One of the remarkable facts that the remaining free enterprisers, who are really basic and very few today, just ignore is that the tremendous swings we used to get in unemployment have largely disappeared. Every reputable analyst I have encountered gives a great deal of the credit to social security systems, and there is no indication that Canada has overspent on its social security. In fact, one of our arguments is that a medicare scheme would be a great stimulus to the economy. We feel that the welfare state is a state that gives a basic assurance that the neglected, the poor and those who are short of talents and opportunities will not only have some kind of a base but will be living in an economy that will have a guaranteed basic level. We have had no indication from the government, however, with regard to where the whole welfare program, such things as the pension plan and medicare, may fit into their total economic approach to the problems of today.
There is another aspect of the unemployment situation that would be funny if it were not so paradoxical. I can point this up best by the reaction to the announcement in connection with the frigate program. Everyone who comes from an area where there is a shipyard that likely would have prospered

Unemployment Measures Lacking from the frigate program is very much concerned over the cancellation of the program. When there were indications that the air base in Prince Edward Island was going to be reduced or its whole role perhaps changed, people got worked up. The other day we had a notation here in a debate about the airport at Penhold, Alberta. From the taunts that were thrown at the hon. member for Red Deer by the prairie members of the official opposition, I would assume they were taking the attitude that somehow he was letting the side down by not going along with the plea that the Department of National Defence had a responsibility to extend its plans along these lines, because of the basic jobs that would be offered in the area, even though the program itself might not be defensible as a defence project.
Now, all of us tend to be guilty of this concern with our own area and the jobs there. But there is a fundamental difficulty that we have not had pointed out to us by the government in connection with this problem. Where does the government figure defence spending fits into its economic plan *'Uid its pursuit of full employment? It is < uite apparent that defence spending gives an underpinning to the economy of the maritimes, and it is very important to the maritimes. The question is, if this defence spending is not effective in terms of defence systems, is it worth while continuing it just to keep that underpinning there? I have heard some dreadful stories about the efficiency of the naval shipyard in Halifax. I have heard some terrible stories about the situation on some of our defence bases, particularly in the maritimes, in terms of the actual work that is carried out. Yet, these bases and these jobs seem to be fundamental to the confidence of the economy in that part of the country.
It seems to me that this is a typical example of our shortsightedness. I think we need these jobs in the maritimes, we need the work for the people there. We should not make the determination on the basis of keeping bases going that might not be useful, but make the determination on the basis of the over-all responsibility of this federal government in this field.
Now, Mr. Speaker, everyone has had the experience, I think, if he has been a member of parliament for a few years, of the kind of pressures that come when the government, or any government agency, indicates that a number of employees are going to be laid off. I know that I get telegrams from Moncton, Transcona, my own constituency, Vancouver and the prairies, in connection with any layoffs on Canadian National Railways, a government agency. This points to the fact that so many people in Canada, including members

of parliament, respond to this feeling that there is an onus on the government of Canada to keep this kind of thing going in order to keep the job situation from getting worse.
I point out to all hon. members that we are caught in a paradox when we do this kind of thing. When I respond to the word that 100 people have been laid off from the shops at Transcona, I want to know why. The fact of the matter is that we are not sure, and we should be sure, what the total responsibility is that the government will accept in matters such as this. I suggest that in the area of defence spending, particularly on bases, and through bases to the jobs they create, as well as government agencies such as the Canadian National Railways, through the direction of government spending on such things as Department of Transport ships and the kind of contracts the government can let for construction, we should have some kind of master plan to indicate that we are going to approach the matter for the good of the whole country rather than just try to meet each little area problem by some kind of short range solution.
One of the other facets of the unemployment situation for which I think the hon. member for Ontario deserves both credit and -I will not say blame, it is not quite blame -relates to the vocational and technical training program. Certainly, the former minister did not foresee what the consequences were going to be when he introduced this scheme which provided for a contribution towards the capital costs of vocational and technical schools across the country. I do not believe the government ever realized that there was going to be such a tremendous response as there was, particularly from the province of Ontario. As I recall the situation, more federal money was taken up in two years by the provinces than the minister had anticipated would be taken up in ten. No doubt this is a mistake in forecasting, but one of the consequences is that all across Canada, particularly in Ontario today, we have a new group of schools most of which are serving students of the secondary age. I say "age" here rather than secondary school field because they do have a concentration upon composite schools and upon shops.
In many of these schools there has been established an adult training plan to educate people both in the evening and during the day. This is supervised to a degree, or at least planned and encouraged by the national employment service in co-operation with the local school boards. But here again, Mr. Speaker, we have no clear-cut plan. No one really seems to know the efficacy of such training as is taking place. I have talked to a number of people who have taken welding.

We now seem to have a surfeit of welders in most parts of the country, largely because this is an easy course to teach. When I say "easy", I mean it is easy in terms of instructors and the cost of teaching. However, no one has come up and set any standards. They seem to vary from one region to another, one community to another and one province to another. There is no clear pattern right across the country as to how we are meeting the challenge of unemployment. These people, when they are taking the courses are provided with the equivalent of unemployment insurance. There is a good response, initially, to many of the courses.
However, we have no indication at all that they are really effective. We have no indication at all that the people who are trained really move off into the field for which they were trained. Many of us have a suspicion that many of the courses are a pleasant form of welfare, and we are not sure that this is a form of welfare that has, going along with it, the real objective that should be part of a program, that is to elevate the skills of our people across the whole country.
Here again, we have not any federal agency of education. It is certainly arguable, in view of the prejudice that exists on this subject, particularly in the province of Quebec, whether we are going to have one. Considering the fact it is recognized now that unemployment is linked with our educational system, it seems to me that we can gain two advantages out of an educational program. The first would be to lift the level of skills across the country, and the second thing we would get from it is the psychological satisfaction there would be on the part of those people who are part of the work force if they knew that the quality or calibre of the training they were going to get was likely to have some recognition right across the whole country. At the present time, nothing like this exists and as a consequence we cannot say there is any educational officer in the federal government who has a picture of what these training programs are doing. There is not any official in the federal government who can tell you what has been the consequence of this massive building program that was followed out under the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act.
I have been involved, Mr. Speaker, in the problems of the railroad community. Over the past decade railway workers have gradually shifted and changed from being one of the most confident and optimistic groups of workers into one of the most pessimistic. They have tried, and are still trying, through their union organizations, to take a number of steps to give people greater security in the face of the technical changes that are 28902-5-2794
Unemployment Measures Lacking occurring such as the master agency, centralized traffic control, terminal runthroughs, and a lot of other different phrases used by the railroads. I understand that on the northern line of the Canadian National they are running some freights with as many as 280 cars, that is 280 box cars. When you realize that a decade ago a 60 car train was quite a sizeable train, you can see the scale of the improvement in productivity, you can understand better the impact upon the railroad workers.
Well, in the past railroaders have tried to meet these things in their negotiations with the railways by a definite fund that v ill, as a result of the contributions of a certain small percentage, help those people who are separated from those jobs. But again this has been supposedly in effect for a year, and it has not been nailed down as yet. We happen to have a discussion going on at the present time in a microcosm of this house on what responsibilities the railways should bear in the separation of people from their employment after many years in it, and the responsibilities for retraining, movement of personnel, and the loss of real estate values to someone in a community whose whole economic basis disappears.
Again it seems to me the trade unions and the railways are approaching this realistically from the point of view of their own interests. The trade unions want very much that the railways should accept these responsibilities, and of course the railways are backing away from this and are saying this would discriminate against them as an industry, and that really the responsibility lies with the government. Of course basically this is what the trade unions come back to, because if the railways are not going to be forced into accepting the responsibility, then the unions say the government should.
If the government should accept the responsibility in this particular case, as I believe it should, then we need to fit that into a much larger picture. The unemployment that has been caused by technological change is the most disturbing of all to the Canadian people. I repeatedly find in areas such as pulp mills, in the woods, on the railways and in shipping, where technical improvements have cut out so many jobs, that the workmen who remain have lost confidence and begin to feel insecure. Those who lose out cannot really understand it.
I might mention I had a letter the other day from a man who said we could solve our unemployment problems by simply forcing the railways to run trains no longer than 40 box cars. This of course is in the spirit of the people who tried to break up looms early in the industrial revolution. Today we have a

Unemployment Measures Lacking more enlightened response than that kind of suggestion, but we have not had any indication that the present government, or for that matter the previous government, has any real appreciation and any real plan for it.
In case my friends in the official opposition object to that, I will acknowledge there was a bill before us last session, which was not passed, but which set out to do something like this. However, I looked at it very closely, and it was a mystery. Indeed the foreshadowing of the debate we had on it was even more mysterious. It did not seem to me that the former government revealed it really had a clear analysis of the impact of technological change on the work force, nor that that particular measure would have done a great deal to meet the over-all problem.
We feel that this is the most crucial part of the unemployment problem today; that the rate of automation and technical change, which is going along almost imperceptibly, particularly in our primary, basic industries, is just tearing the heart out of the old job creation picture which we had. Small communities throughout the country are crying for secondary industry because they think it will work some magic, and each community is willing to outcompete another in terms of tax concessions, free land, and things like that in order to attract secondary industry.
The government has taken its own step through the creation of the Department of Industry, which might do something about this particular problem; but generally it has shown no indication that the problem of technological unemployment, usually caused by the introduction of labour saving and labour changing methods, is of great concern to it. This is the area in which we believe the lead should be given.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre:
That the amendment be amended by inserting therein, immediately after the words "winter unemployment", the following words:
"and also the failure of the government to propose any plans for the fundamental economic and social changes required to deal with the chronic and growing problem of unemployment caused by automation and technological change,"
So that the amendment as amended would then read:
This house regrets the failure of the government to introduce any effective new policies or programs to reduce substantially unemployment in Canada, and in particular to alleviate winter unemployment, and also the failure of the government to propose any plans for the fundamental economic and social changes required to deal with the chronic and growing problem of unemployment caused by automation and technological change, so as to achieve the promised full employment as undertaken in the Liberal party election promises.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake Si. John):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy-this is a way of speaking-that the house is given the opportunity today to deal with the unemployment problem which is prevailing in Canada at the present time. And this opportunity is due to the former minister of labour, the hon. member for the riding of Ontario (Mr. Starr).
While I was listening to the amendment he was moving, I was reminded of this famous sentence which served as a political slogan for the Conservative party during the 1958 election campaign: No one shall suffer. And I notice that the Leader of the Opposition is in the house at the present time.
Mr. Speaker, when I consider that after six years of Conservative administration and six months under the present Liberal government, the situation is still the same, if not worse, I cannot but think that our poor unemployed in Canada have given rise to a lot of talk, but that very few positive steps have been taken in this house to settle their problems,
But, Mr. Speaker, is it possible here, in this house, to take steps to halt unemployment?
As the saying goes:
Grasp all, lose all.
Well, I believe that this government have simply grasped all when they decided to invade fields which are under provincial jurisdiction, and they are now feeling the consequences.
I am one of those who believe that provincial and municipal governments are the administrative bodies best suited to solve the problems of employment and economic development in this country.
Mr. Speaker, we have been told about planning. Well, in that field also, it is impossible for the federal government to implement a successful planning unless they make sure first of the full and complete co-operation of the provincial administration. This is the reason why I say that the federal government should not consider imposing planning. On the contrary, it should consider first giving back to the provinces the sources of revenue which they need, because they alone are in a position to solve the unemployment problem and to provide the economic development needed in our country.
We have seen the Conservative government during the previous six years initiate a winter works program which seemed at the beginning to have a chance of meeting with some success.
Well, after six or seven years of experience, we are now in an absolutely desperate position where the municipalities can no longer

use that process as a result of the heavy debts which they have incurred in that connection.
It must also be considered that the regulations in effect when this system was set up was altogether discriminatory to the various areas of the country, since it did not take into account the climatic conditions and favoured the regions blessed with a good climate at the expense of others.
It should be pointed out to the house that the more northerly areas of our country could not benefit from the same advantages as those located in a better climate.
I think that we are faced at present with a dead-lock and I am convinced, like most Canadian people, that this formula was nothing but a poultice which provided no solution to the problem and did not serve its purpose.
Those who advocate the carrying out of extensive public works as a solution to unemployment may seem to be right, but I feel that this formula is objectionable in that it takes over by means of taxation the taxpayers' money and savings in order to invest them in projects and programs that are mostly unprofitable, and by this I mean that they are not productive nor self-supporting.
Mr. Speaker, in view of the economic philosophy of our two old traditional parties, I feel it was a mistake to believe that deficits and large scale public works would stimulate the national economy. In my opinion, it is only through industrial investments that we will solve the problem.
I feel that the two traditional parties must admit that the formula they both supported has resulted in failure and that they must look for new solutions.
We have advocated the establishment of a municipal development and loan bank but the government has converted that idea into a municipal loans fund which will slightly improve the situation but which will not solve the problem, far from it. It will increase the municipalities' indebtedness even if the government promises to write off 25 per cent of the costs if the work is completed within a certain time.
Mr. Speaker, a short while ago, we heard a summary of the promises made by both the Liberals and the Conservatives during the last election campaign.
Both had pledged and are still promising to settle the unemployment question. They promise full employment through the creation of 200,000 jobs every year.
I think that in order to create 200,000 jobs, they must bring about a drastic change in their concept of the economy of our country and recognize that here, in the hub of the country, they necessarily cannot have a complete view of the needs of the various regions
Unemployment Measures Lacking of our great Canada and that it is very urgent for them to rely on provincial government institutions.
That must be the basis, Mr. Speaker. I believe in it and I am more and more convinced that I shall not be the only one to hold that opinion.
As for us, in the province of Quebec more particularly, we have in the past advocated that the provincial government should have its own sources of revenue, taking into account its inherent responsibilities.
The Union Nationale government wanted its autonomy. We now have a Liberal provincial government and it also wants its autonomy. I think that when the conference is held here in Ottawa, at the end of November, this government will have a rough time with the various provincial governments which will come here, fortified by a clear cut and definite mandate which was recently renewed for nine provinces out of ten and gang up on a newly elected minority government to have their demands granted.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is time, today more than ever, for the federal government to realize that the provinces, 100 years after confederation, have the administrative structure and the qualified people to assume the responsibilities which have been vested in them through the confederative pact.
It becomes increasingly necessary that the federal government should recognize that situation and waive some of the responsibilities that it has seen fit to assume during the past 20 years, when the provinces were not able to assume those rights and responsibilities. The federal government therefore acted for them at the time.
Now the country is developing and the provinces feel that they are able to act on their own. Under the circumstances, the federal government must therefore give them back their sources of revenue along with the responsibilities that go with them. As a result the federal government will be greatly relieved and in a better position to devote more and better attention to the problems which really come under its jurisdiction. It can work more efficiently with all the skills and facilities available to it, if all its efforts are concentrated on those problems that actually and exclusively fall within its jurisdiction.
The hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) has mentioned earlier the technical training given to workers in order to fit them into the new jobs being created in the economy of this country.
It is a very good thing to be willing to spend large amounts of money to give our workers the technical training which is becoming more and more necessary nowadays. But I feel that

Unemployment Measures Lacking we must also remember that if we spend enormous amounts of money-in Quebec, that is what is happening in the fields of education and vocational training

we must also increase the number of jobs, otherwise we will be faced with the same situation that prevailed in the past, that is to say these men with all their qualifications and university degrees will cross the border, looking for higher salaries than those offered in this country, or they will just leave to find a job they cannot find here in Canada.
I think the only criticism that can possibly be made against the Quebec provincial government with regard to education, a field in which it has invested a considerable portion of our savings, is that it has neglected to develop at the same time our secondary industry, which could have been in a position to absorb the qualified people who are being created through education.
I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that if we do not succeed in the near future to promote the development of our industries in Canada, we should be prepared to see our children and our brothers, as well as all the savings that will have been invested in the development of education-we should be prepared to seeing all that wealth represented by our qualified young people go abroad and give other nations the benefit of their skills. I admit that they will be wonderful diplomats, excellent representatives of Canada abroad, but that will not bring us the solution we are looking for now.
To solve the unemployment problem, Mr. Speaker, it is imperative to develop industry. How can we succeed? I recognize that the present government is making endeavours along that line, which the official opposition refuses to recognize, this of course being part of the line it has chosen. But I for one appreciated the attempts made by the Conservative government last year to stem unemployment and I also recognize the attempts made this year by the present government in that direction, for which I thank and commend it.
As far as the automobile industry is concerned, the task is obviously a ticklish one, and it indicates to the government the difficulty of the problem we are facing today. That is due to the fact that in the past no efficient measure was taken to prevent foreign control on our Canadian industries. So, today, we have to beg our neighbour to the south for permission to increase production of automobile parts in Canada.
I think this is an outrageous situation for us to be in-it is a depressing and shameful situation. We should be an independent country; or rather our country is supposed to be independent and, as such, it has no


permission to ask any foreign authority to set up industries, even though these industries might be competing against American industries established here.
The government plans to set up a Canadian industrial development corporation. At first sight, at least, such a project is an attractive one.
According to the resolution on the order paper, the government plans to provide the Canadian industry with a $1 billion fund to set up new plants, to develop existing industries and even to purchase and refloat enterprises which are on the brink of bankruptcy. However, one thing worries me about that resolution. It implies such weakness in our present system that in order to ensure the success of the program, the government has to help industrial development by lending huge amounts of money which brings about still more taxation.
Why were Canadian industries unable to develop without relying on the government's taxation system to secure funds, Mr. Speaker?
This goes to show that our present taxation system is all wrong and that it is urgent for the government to re-examine it from top to bottom, so that the savings or profits made by industry may be reinvested in other fields in Canada to promote greater development of Canadian industries as a whole.
It is not only for the sake of the industries that I should like them to have some protection but because this would enable them to keep their profits and reinvest them in other fields, thereby increasing the number of new jobs and ensuring diversified production throughout the country. Then we would be helping not only industries as such, but especially the people of Canada, since there would be more employment opportunities and, as a result, the government would increase its revenues even though taxes would be lower.
Mr. Speaker, that is one of the means-I would even say it is the only means-we have at our disposal. If we are to respect private enterprise, that is the only way we have to let private enterprise show what it can do.
Since there is a great deal of talk about ultimatums, I suggest that the government should consider the advisability of providing private enterprise, as an ultimatum, with the development possibilities it wants, but on condition that those possibilities would be properly used in the best interests of Canada and the Canadian people. I feel that the government should consider using such a method in order to solve the problem of industrial development in the country.

Of course, this corporation that the government proposes to set up involves a great danger, because we will be dealing with human beings, those who will administer this legislation and will have an instrument for patronage. It is forbidden to speak this word in the house, because while the government claims it does not dispense patronage, the previous government said the same. Yet, we have a right to have misgivings.
I suppose that this system of administration with capital will be most attractive but, on the other hand, it will help to improve the situation, to set up worthwhile industries and even to establish an industrial complex.
But, for all practical purposes, this political party will have to be watched closely because we know what its supporters can do. Certain things happened in the past and we are not ready to be taken in by the good will and the behaviour of the present government. I am willing to trust the government but on certain conditions.
I heard somebody say that there should be additional deficits. It seems that the two old-line parties are competing with one another to see which one will have the largest deficit, which one will be the first to reach a $1 billion deficit.
I remember that last year the minister of finance, who at that time was the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan), said that he did not want to be the one who would have the privilege of reaching the record deficit of $1 billion in a single year. That is why if I consider the economy of the country with respect to deficits, I realize that our situation is fairly desperate.
If tomorrow another political party could replace the two traditional parties and provide a solution, I am sure that if the Canadian people could have that hope, they would immediately demand an election.
Mr. Speaker, we have to support both old-line parties for still some time, only long enough for the Canadian people to realize that there is no hope in any of them. But unfortunately, the people have not yet sufficiently realized it. However, by watching the present government and taking note of the criticisms of the official opposition, the people will realize that neither of the old-line parties offers a solution to our present difficulties.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude by making a suggestion. It is obvious that our suggestions are paid divided attention and that we are considered with some amusement. We are taken for newcomers, for inexperienced people from the north who do not have ten, 15 or 20 years of experience in the house and in the administration; but let me tell you that we come from the people who are now
Unemployment Measures Lacking suffering and who have suffered in the past from the lack of understanding on the part of their administrators. I can assure you that at the present time people are desperate because they do not see the slightest hope of a solution.
I should like to suggest to this government that it turn this municipal loans fund into a bank which would accept municipal bonds as a guarantee for loans; then it would issue credit, but not credit from taxes or from a consolidated fund, but credit based on the production potential of the Canadian people as well as on natural resources contained in the ground.
That is a suggestion, and it is not the only one. Since it applies to a field which is uneconomic, I would add this: let us make the industrial development bank more flexible and get rid of that famous formula which is only a mirage, a cover to hide problems, or a bait offered to the people.
This bank would probably become an agency which would make it possible to solve a part of the problem if the government would change its managing procedures in order to provide for the necessary credits not only for industrial development but also for the establishment of new industries. Better still, that bank should be prepared to take the risk of losing 10 per cent of approved projects, but it would also succeed in setting up new industries which would expand and enable Canada to have a better place in the industrial field. It would be better to succeed in 85 per cent of projects aimed at the establishment and expansion of industries, even if there is a risk of incurring some losses.
A diversified industry would allow us to close our doors to imports and would solve the unemployment problem from which we are suffering.
There is another way which I would like to mention in order to promote the increase of capital investments in industry-and I make this suggestion not without some reserve since I did not have the pleasure of discussing it carefully with my colleagues. But coming from the working class and having worked with many of that group, I can say that it is now an accepted fact that they should not only benefit from industry in the social field, but that they should also invest in those very industries. They recognize it is their duty to share the hazards of capital investments.
Thus, it might be advisable for this government to investigate the expediency of granting a tax reduction on a certain percentage of either the savings or the salary which a worker would invest in industry through the purchase of shares or bonds. It might possibly

Unemployment Measures Lacking be wiser for them to take advantage of buying bonds since the latter would warrant investments.
This suggestion I make with all deference to the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon). In my opinion, they could take such a step to encourage workers to take an active part in the development of industry by investing of their own accord part of their savings.
We wish our industry to become Canadian, and this will be achieved inasmuch as Canadians individually are willing to invest in it part of their savings. But in order to do so they must have work first, they must earn wages and they must not carry a tax load such as the one we are preparing for them.


Mr. Lucien Plourde (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I take part in the debate on the subamendments and amendments that were submitted regarding the question of unemployment and more particularly since I represent a riding where the number of unemployed is high and the unemployment situation is the main problem throughout the country.
My constituents, who are working people, find it hard to make both ends meet; unemployment is really a problem that concerns everyone of us. We should try together to consider the various aspects of that problem in order to find a solution; it is all very well to say that it is one of the main problems we have to approach and that the Liberals have promised to act upon it during the election campaign.
They are being blamed today for being too slow; quite so, but I think all parties should get together in order to solve the problem. It is claimed that the Liberals have no plan whatsoever whereby they could check unemployment in Canada and that they take a long time to find proper solutions.
Mr. Speaker, if we pause in retrospect, we, who have been in this corner of the house last year under Conservative administration, may wonder whether the Conservatives had found a formula with which to put a stop to unemployment. No. They preferred putting the matter off and letting someone else bear the heavy burden that rested with them. Will this government also reject their responsibility by putting off as much as possible the day of reckoning or the time to take a definite stand regarding the unemployment situation?
Mr. Speaker, here again formulae are being suggested that will come to nothing and that will by no means solve the problem we have to tackle.
Let us consider for instance the $500 grant that has been offered for the winter building of houses; that is all very well in the opinion of our Canadian fellow citizens, but when we

are aware of the fact that on account of the 11 per cent tax imposed upon building materials, every new house will cost from $800 to $1,000 more, we wonder whether the grant is something worthwhile.
In fact, who is going to pay once more? Who will have to bear the loss? Obviously the buyer of the house; he will be the loser once more and merely because an effort will have been made to provide some work in order to put a stop to unemployment.
And what about the statement made last Saturday over the radio, in Ottawa, to the effect that contractors were putting off work until December? They lay off their workers in November, making unemployed out of them. Yet, the idea was to check unemployment.
Such measures result in unemployment; they are known as yokes.
Mr. Speaker, it will no doubt be said: "But yourselves, the Creditistes, the members of the Ralliement Creditistes, what can you do?" Only Social Credit has a solution. There is no miracle involved, but we have what is needed to check unemployment, not only to try and check unemployment, but to check it. We are the ones who have this formula. We set it forth in our speeches last year, and we shall repeat it again this year. We shall explain how we would manage to check unemployment in Canada.
Social Crediters are not confused by the progress of automation. Automation does not frighten us. On the contrary, we are happy about it, and everybody should be happy, since, at last, the individual shall be able to live on earth not as a slave but as a reasonable person, as a human being entitled to every respect.
Mr. Speaker, when we look at the animals, at the birds, we find they have no diplomas and they do not worry about their next meal. They do not have to worry for Providence looks after their needs.
But we, who have an intelligence and a cultivated mind, who hold diplomas, who have a soul to save, we have to struggle with the problem of providing for our food, and that problem becomes of such prime importance that we forget why we were born.
Mr. Speaker, we should not dwell on that problem; we, too, should rely more on Providence.
The problem facing everybody today, throughout the country, is a problem of finance. There is a lack of financial means, and, because there are no financial means, there is no work. Now, when there is no work, there is unemployment. We are in a vicious circle, we run around as a dog trying to catch its tail. In brief, we are getting nowhere.

They should tell the people that they are unable to settle this problem. Social Credit has the formula to do it, and I am convinced that at the next general election, the electors of the whole country, who are in a position to judge the present attitude of the two older parties, which cannot find a solution to the problem, are going to make a thorough change and try something new. They have nothing to lose, it is true.
It would be worth while to elect a government which would enact legislation for the benefit of man who should be our prime concern. In fact, we must constantly bear in mind the ideal of our constituents; we must think about it 24 hours a day. All members must think of their respective constituents.
One thing that I cannot stand is that in a country as rich as ours-and no one denies that-we have to live as beggars and as paupers of the worst kind.
When one travels throughout Canada, one sees vast expanses of land and forest which remain undeveloped. On the other hand, certain communities have slums as is the case in my riding. Such a situation is intolerable. Our cities could stand a lot of improvement, if it were not for the shortsightedness of our governments.
Mr. Speaker, it is a fine thing to govern but what must one do in order to govern? One must be provident; that is the first qualification of any government.
Instead of providing work for our carpenters and other workers who have little education, the government has decided to impose an 11 per cent sales tax on building materials. Instead of that, it should have advocated slum removal and provided an 11 per cent reduction on the cost of all building materials to help the building industry.
If the government had acted that way, the economy would have started going again and that would have given temporary work to our unemployed.
Mr. Speaker, the newspaper Le Devoir of October 5, 1963 carried an article on automation. And I ask hon. members to take good note of what is said in it because it is a serious article, one of substance:
Automation would involve the suppression of 40,000 jobs each week in the United States.
Well, they also are affected by automation. Every week, 40,000 more unemployed. What will they have to do to straighten out that situation? And the article goes on:
Protesting against what he called the deliberately blind official optimism-
Unemployment Measures Lacking
That, Mr. Speaker, is the stand taken by this government which sees the problem but still believes or at least hopes that it will solve itself in time.
And I continue:
Protesting against what he called the deliberately blind official optimism and the childish myths, Mr. J. I. Snyder, president of a large industrial American firm and considered as one of the main experts of the nation on automation matters, stated on Thursday that automation involves the suppression of some 40,000 jobs each week in the United States.
Before the Senate subcommittee on labour, Mr. Snyder (whose own concern manufactures automated equipment) challenged the allegations of the department of labour that the improvement of the productivity (of which automation is one of the factors) would eliminate some 200,000 jobs every year in the manufacturing industry.
-200,000 jobs, Mr. Speaker, that is a tremendous figure.
And I continue:
Myths exploded
"I think that would be to dangerously underestimate the real impact of automation on employment development in the United States" said Mr. Snyder who added: "Development of automation involves directly or indirectly the suppression of some 40,000 jobs each week and that means not only 40,000 more unemployed, but much more than that if you take into consideration the workers who, down through the future years, would have occupied those jobs, had they been maintained".
The expert denounced the intellectual laziness and the lack of courage of the public powers and of certain financial quarters who kept alive the myth that "automation will give rise, in other sectors of employment, to opportunities which will largely offset the job cancellations."
There may be a danger that Canada will be facing that same kind of unemployment within a couple of years if we do not make provision against that plague.
Crisis feared
"It is obvious that things do not work out that way. First, the present technological developments involve the creation of only a few new jobs as compared with the number of jobs washed out.
Then, it must be recognized that to rehabilitate workers is far from being so easy and simple as some people have claimed. Finally, workers that have been cast aside by progress are generally, in view of their low degree of education, their temperament, their age, etc., the most difficult to rehabilitate, the least inclined to move to some other town or area."
Mr. Snyder said, in closing: "If we do not want to be up against a terrible unemployment crisis within four or five years, it is important that teams of sociologists and economists be mobilized without delay to prepare drastic solutions to deal with an unprecedented problem.
Mr. Speaker, when I hear statements such as that one, I cannot help but think that, due to unemployment, there are sometimes whole families in extreme poverty just because automation makes it impossible for the head of the family to earn his daily bread and that of his children.

Unemployment Measures Lacking
It is a pity, Mr. Speaker. It is about time that we should stop and think about progress. When I read unemployment statistics, it is not so much the figures which frighten me but the implications of these figures, because the number of the unemployed in the province must be multiplied five or six times if we really want to know how many people live in the most dreadful circumstances.
I think that here, this year, we should face up to our responsibilities, all together without any partisanship, to try and solve the problem without one government wanting to take credit for it more than another. The facts are here, Mr. Speaker, then let us try and solve the problem all together, putting aside the fact that we belong to a party. We are here as the representatives of our constituents and we should be conscious of all the responsibilities which rest upon us.
The Social Credit party will not work wonders once in office but, precisely because respect for man is the basis of its philosophy, it will not consider only figures offered by statistics but will try to give one and all good living conditions, security and freedom.
Today, there is much talk about freedom and democracy. When I see so many unemployed, so many men who would like to work, who do not even think of going to some industry to offer their services. Where is freedom, Mr. Speaker, when a man is not able to work?
I maintain that one of man's first natural rights is the right to earn a living to support his family.
Moreover, to promote our economy also I think that the present problem will again be submitted to the house in January-I hope that taxes will be reviewed in order to find out means to give a new impetus, a new development to Canada, even if this would get our country in debt for the next ten years.
Let us think of the future. Under the present set-up, you just have to run into debt. Then, instead of attempting to get in debt little by little, by keeping people in extreme poverty, put the tiller hard over once and for all, and come January, present us with altogether new legislation. Our farmers, our labourers must find employment in order to earn their livelihood. I am ready to vote for that; I will be backing you.
Under the present set-up, endeavours have been made to take back control of the economy. But you know that the crucial problem is the financial one. The evil should be fought where it is.
First let us admit the complication of the unemployment problem. That is precisely why it is recommended to the members of this house not to try and blame somebody, but rather to suggest solutions.
[Mr. Flourde.l

We, in this corner of the house, are going to put forward solutions for the unemployment problem; we are going to tell you how to act to stem unemployment. You members of the other parties should do the same. You should suggest solutions to the government; then it will be able to develop a program and take a step in the right direction.
Before I conclude, Mr. Speaker, I wish to mention again to the hon. members that they committed themselves, during the election campaign of last May, to stop unemployment once in power, and in my opinion, it is about time that they seriously think that over and introduce an adequate legislation in that connection.
I noticed that the Prime Minister did not talk today about the problem of unemployment. There are still two or three problems which remain to be studied in this house, and the problem of unemployment has not yet been mentioned. We, in this part of the house, expressly make it a point that steps to relieve unemployment should be taken as soon as possible.
There is another thing for which we care and which we would like to be settled as soon as possible: it is the family allowances. By granting the requested family allowances, we would alleviate hardship among the people. That is logical. Let us be generous then with respect to family allowances.
I have been associated with an orphanage which gets $4 a day from the government for each orphan. The state pays $6 per month to the mother of a family in such circumstances. What a difference. An orphanage gets $4 a day to buy shoes, clothing, etc. for a child whereas a family gets $6 monthly for the same purpose.
The family allowance program should be drastically overhauled. Allowances should be $30 a month at least. Mr. Speaker, what is a dollar a day to develop the country and to encourage mothers to raise larger families? The day we have a large population, we will be able to speak of independence and to defend ourselves without relying on the United States as is the case at present.
Where does the strength of a country lie? In its faith in the future. We shall have faith in the future, Mr. Speaker, when the government will promote the welfare of the family which is the basic unit of society.


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine.


Mr. Maurice Sauve (Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that all members of the house in the next two days will turn their whole attention to the extremely serious unemployment problem.

I would like most of all that we try to look into problems with objectivity. I think that members of the opposition, as well as my colleagues on this side of the house, will mostly express their views by suggesting solutions to such a serious problem as unemployment.
I have heard this afternoon several members blaming the government for its inaction and its apparent inability to solve the unemployment problems since it came into power.
I intend in a moment to state more objectively what the government has done and what it intends to do. I could also, perhaps, from a strictly personal point of view, state my opinion on the long term policy of the government in the economic field.


Mr. Speaker:: As it is six o'clock, it is now time to take recess.

At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I think I may start my remarks by paying a particular tribute to the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) who, I think, is held in esteem by all hon. members in this house.
We heard him answer, with great tact and felicity, all questions hon. members wanted to ask him. We heard him discuss the problem of trusteeship for the seamen's unions, and, during the intercession, saw him try hard to find a private solution for that extremely serious problem which might have led to a settlement. We have seen him rise in this house to explain his position at the time of the seamen's strike or during the dockers' walk-out. He took a very firm attitude, and I think that all hon. members here are proud that Canada should have such a Minister of Labour.
I would be remiss, at a moment where an amendment is being discussed in connection with his department, not to take a few minutes in order to stress those facts.
It has been said, this afternoon, that the government had not taken all necessary measures to relieve unemployment. That statement is partly true and partly false. It seems to me, that to be fair and truthful it would be well briefly to list the various measures announced by the government since it came into power. All that legislation was more
Unemployment Measures Lacking particularly aimed at relieving winter unemployment and all unemployment in the near future, and some provisions aimed at putting an end to unemployment over a longer period.
All members will readily agree that unemployment is actually the most serious problem at the present time. It is the source of many of our difficulties as I will show later on.
Allow me to read a list that I put together very hastily showing what the government has done or intends to do in the near future in order to alleviate unemployment. It was never claimed in the house that these measures would altogether solve the unemployment problem.
Some special measures were first announced to help areas called designated areas. Those measures affected 35 areas-10 or 12 were added subsequently-where the federal government will pay 60 per cent of labour costs for winter works and provide an additional sum of $7 million for emergency winter works.
An assistance program has also been announced for new industries in those areas whereby income tax will only be collected three years after the new firms have been established, and special depreciation has been provided for new equipment and buildings.
I think those measures are already producing results in those areas. In my riding of Iles-de-la-Madeleine, for instance, if I may be allowed to refer to it for a moment or two, winter works for more than $600,000, will be carried out which will do away with all unemployment there for seven or eight weeks. Should weather permit, we might be able to extend the projects into January and February.
The government, after much difficulty, had its municipal aid legislation adopted. That measure will help municipalities to carry out immediately certain projects which otherwise would have been delayed.
The special allowance of $500 for those who build houses in wintertime will allow us, I think, to reduce unemployment during winter.
The important wheat sales now taking place will undoubtedly increase employment in the field of transportation and in certain allied industrial areas.
The new government policy concerning the importation and exportation of automobile parts will help the economy of this country.
The new regulation governing technical training will also help.
The new policy pertaining to assistance for older workers will stimulate the re-employment of workers 45 years and over and will likely allow a certain number of those workers to go back to work.

Unemployment Measures Lacking
The Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, by a more generous policy concerning loans, will help the economic development of some areas.
The announcement of an investment of $100 million in the Atlantic development board will help the Atlantic area.
The creation of a Department of Industry and of an economic board will probably, in the long run, enable the Canadian government to solve this problem.
I am not entirely satisfied with the situation and I do not think any of us is. But there are probably a number of proposals which will be brought forward and which will enable us to see the day when there will be in Canada what is called in other countries and has been called here full employment.
We have been talking about full employment for a long time in our country. I have before me a report published in 1945 under the title "Employment and Income". This report has been called the "white paper on full employment". Here is what we can read in it:

In setting as Its aim a high and stable level of employment and income the government is not selecting a lower target than full employment.

As far back as 1945, this was the policy of the government. Since then, there has been much talk about full employment and unemployment. And if the hon. members would look at the House of Commons debates index, they would notice that this has been the most discussed subject for five or six years.
In fact, a special committee on manpower and employment has been established in the Senate and sittings took place in 1960 and
1961.	This committee submitted a voluminous report on the employment problem.
The fact remains, Mr. Speaker, that even though one knows the unemployment problem, its details, its various forms, as an hon. member of the opposition mentioned this afternoon, a basic decision has never been taken, namely whether governments, federal and provincial, should interfere in the direction of the economy.
All kinds of solutions have been suggested, all aspects of the problem have been considered, but when one reads all these reports, one is always under the impression that there was a gap at a certain time and that the government was never able to make up its mind and really step into the economic field. I think that is the crux of the problem.
We could discuss ad infinitum the causes of unemployment and the solutions we think possible, but as long as governments, all of them, will not make up their minds to step
[Mr. Sauve.l
in in order to stem unemployment and apply a policy of full employment, Canada will experience, as she has in the past, long periods of unemployment.
All the reports I studied, especially the Senate report I just mentioned, reflect worry about what the economic situation will be between 1965 and 1975, when there will be a significant influx of people on the labour market.
That is the heart of the problem and it is up to us to decide whether we really want to step in. As long as we go on thinking that private enterprise can solve the unemployment problem all by itself, that important public works, unemployment insurance and assistance will be able to help the jobless for some time, we will never solve definitely the full employment problem.
Everybody admits that a certain level of unemployment is acceptable-although people who suffer from it do not-say 2 or 3 per cent, but a higher rate of unemployment, like ours, is not normal. Now I think that the unemployment situation in Canada is the source of other difficulties which are also very serious.
Unemployment in Canada is mostly rampant in the maritimes, in British Columbia and in Quebec. These are the three areas of this country which are usually hit the hardest by unemployment.
But I will point out, if I may, that it is these areas or these provinces which seem to have always some criticism to make with respect to the action or the inertia of the federal government. It is these provinces which find it difficult to get along with the federal government, and I believe that, as far as my own province, the province of Quebec, is concerned, unemployment and the economic situation of its population are probably the main cause responsible for the uneasiness which prevails in the federal-provincial relations and in the relations between French speaking and English speaking Canadians.
In my opinion, nobody questions the responsibility of the federal government to ensure full employment. It seems that it has been said a long time ago that full employment is at first a responsibility of the federal government.
On the other hand, some provincial governments are willing nevertheless to help relieve unemployment in their section and I believe it is urgent that both the federal and provincial governments agree on the policies which should be implemented in order to solve the unemployment problem.
The problem does not have the same acuteness throughout. Thus it is obvious that in Ontario, unemployment is less critical

than in the province of Quebec, the maritimes or British Columbia, and too many steps are taken by the federal government at the national economic scale, that is they apply indiscriminately to all the areas of the country, thus often creating a surplus of jobs in some areas while others suffer from under-employment.
I am glad that the government has decided to set up so-called "designated areas". It is a sign that the government now recognizes that certain districts are worse off than others in Canada and that certain nation-wide programs will not be as successful there as elsewhere. It still remains that those measures will not be effective unless there is close cooperation between the federal government and the provinces.
I should like to point out that we are no longer in the same situation as we were between 1945 and 1957.
At that time, the central government was powerful and the provinces did not question its jurisdiction in several fields. The provinces have come a long way since then.
Several provincial governments are well aware of local and regional problems. The federal government will then have to take the necessary steps to come to an agreement with the provinces.
In 1963, it is no longer possible for us, in Ottawa, to act as though we were always right.
Mr. Speaker, I could also take the economic council as an example. My remarks will probably be interpreted as a criticism of government policy, but I should like to say a word about that just the same.
I could say a lot of things about the role that can be played by the economic council which was set up recently. In particular, I feel that one of the two major aspects of economic activity has been neglected.
The economic council for the most part takes into account private enterprise which has an important part to play in economic activities, but public enterprise is practically always ignored.
Now, it is the federal, provincial and municipal governments, as well as crown corporations, both on the federal and provincial levels, which are responsible for the economic development of the country. And if private and public enterprises do not meet at the superior economic level to make decisions about economic planning, then public enterprise is being ignored, because the necessary intervention of the public powers in economic matters is being overlooked. This is exactly what I was saying earlier. This course was not chosen. On the contrary, it is still believed that only private enterprise can solve
Unemployment Measures Lacking our problems. Now, it has been proved that private enterprise is unable to do so and that far too much is expected from it. But private enterprise, assisted by public enterprise and co-operating with it, can succeed in reaching this level of economic activity which will ensure full employment.
That is what happened in Europe. The old continent went through the same phases as we did. Before the war, Europeans believed that private enterprise could solve any problem; yet, after the war, even private enterprise realized that it needed government assistance. In my opinion, the European experience is extremely valuable. Why, then, did we not take the same option here, in Canada? Because we refused to make a definite choice in favour of government intervention in the economic life.
I now have to blame the members of the opposition-I think I am entitled to it, since I have tried to be impartial. I would like when economic legislation is discussed, legislation meant to cope with unemployment or to promote the economic activities of the country that, the two main parties, among others, would agree on the urgency of improving the economic conditions in Canada, especially in the province of Quebec. As I said earlier, as long as in the province of Quebec unemployment will be twice as high as in Ontario or as long as the personal income per capita will be 37 per cent lower than in Ontario-and I do not want to continue along on that line-as long as we remain on a lower economic level, we will feel unhappy.
I was greatly pleased with the speech which the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) delivered last Tuesday. I would hope that his party would support him when he states that we, of the province of Quebec, consider ourselves as equal partners. Those are not the exact words he used but we would hope that everybody would have the same attitude towards us. At a time when we are discussing economic matters, I feel that his party should support the government so that we would not have to delay until the next session the adoption of legislation which is essential to the economic development of Canada and of the province of Quebec in particular since, as I said before, that is a basic condition of agreement between French and English Canada.
I did not like at all that part of the speech made by the hon. member for Three Rivers, who came back with the old line on mutual understanding. We heard all that from 1945 to 1960. The period of "bon ententisme", as defined by the hon. member for Three Rivers, is over and, to be perfectly honest, I am surprised that the English speaking press could find his speech praiseworthy.

Unemployment Measures Lacking
I think there they tried to shut their eyes. I could very easily tell you and we could very easily tell you that everything is getting along fine and that there is no problem, but I would be dishonest if I were to tell you that. I believe we should all work together, and that is important, because all members of this house are aware that there exists serious unrest in Quebec. There are in that province people who think it is possible to solve in some other way the problems now facing us.
Incidentally, let me tell you that people often confuse nationalism and separatism. There is certainly a nationalist crisis at the present time in the province of Quebec. We are probably all nationalists, that is we want the situation to improve in Quebec to a point where we shall really become equal partners with the rest of Canada.
We may be nationalists, but we are not separatists, and those who identify separatism with nationalism are doing a disservice to the cause of Canadian unity.
There are in the province of Quebec a small number of separatists. We know them and they have been identified. Maclean's magazine and the C.B.C. have made a survey, the results of which were published last week.
The problem has been set I think but it seems to me extremely important that we establish a distinction between nationalism and separatism.
When it is claimed, in this house or elsewhere, that all nationalists are separatists, direct offence is given to the people of Quebec.
I perfectly realize that most of my colleagues are beginning to understand the problem but I would not want us to put the matter off. On November 25, there will be here in Ottawa, an extremely important federal-provincial conference for the future of confederation. I believe that it is up to the federal government-I have said so outside this house-to take action in order to save confederation.
We want to become equal partners here in this country, but really equal. We have faith in Canada, we fought for Canada on several occasions and has a witness, General Foulkes, not said before the defence committee that the French Canadians, during the last war, had probably been the best soldiers?
We are in our own country, here; we want to be at home in the province of Quebec and in the other provinces of Canada but we want to feel at home everywhere.
We want to do our share, we realize now that in the province of Quebec we have to make exceptional efforts and that may be the reason why, at times, we are asking for a lot.

We shall get along, I think, if both sides have but one aim: keep Canada together, because Canada without the province of Quebec would not survive. And the province of Quebec, without Canada, would not survive either.
There is but one solution to our problems, that is to live together. We shall continue to have misunderstandings, to experience difficulties, that is normal; but I think that if we can overcome the present difficulties, we shall celebrate together confederation and we shall continue, French and English Canadians, to work for a better Canada. In my opinion, there is but one way to achieve this and that is to deal immediately with the fundamental problem, unemployment. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the government has already made an effort and that if, with the help of the hon. members, we can have that measure adopted, then we shall have done a great deal for Canadian unity.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister from Iles-de-la-Madeleine.


Azellus Denis: Minister.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I am sorry. I would not want anything to offend the Postmaster General or any of his colleagues. Please accept my apologies.
Could the hon. member tell the house whether one of the possible means of solving the problem would be for instance, in the course of the federal-provincial conference, to grant to the provinces, and more particularly to Quebec, larger sources of income with which to build sewers, schools, roads, etc.? Could the hon. member tell us if such a method would not help solve the unemployment problems?


Maurice Sauvé: It seems to me that I have insisted quite enough on the need for decentralization, and on the fact that provincial governments might solve certain local problems with greater ease than the federal government.
I feel sure that thanks to the spirit in which it is carrying on business at the present time, the federal government, together with the government of the province of Quebec and of other provinces, at the November 25 conference will come to an agreement of sorts, concerning the sharing of taxation revenues. If I were less sure of the fact, I would probably be rather unhappy in this house; every bit as unhappy for instance as my hon. colleague of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm might be, and as many other members besides.


Hon. Paul Marlineau (Ponliac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to congratulate the hon. member for iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Sauve) on the forceful speech he has just delivered but most of which was unfortunately irrelevant. That is why I shall not try to follow along the same lines. However, I was happy to hear him state in connection with unemployment and the economic situation, that he was not entirely satisfied with the action taken by the government of which he is a supporter. I am glad he said that because, last year, when the number of unemployed was about the same as this year, he bitterly criticized the government for what he called its inaction.
We have today the same situation which, far from improving, has become worse since the hon. members opposite-


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


Paul Raymond Martineau: -have come into power. The hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine dealt with the problem mainly with regard to the province of Quebec of which he spoke very feelingly, and I commend him for it.
If we look at the figures issued by the dominion bureau of statistics and compare statistics for August and September 1962, with the figures for the same months in 1963, we find that in August last year there were
96,000	unemployed in the province of Quebec, whereas there were 97,000 in September.
This year, that is in 1963, in the province of Quebec, under a Liberal regime, in Ottawa as well as in Quebec, we still unfortunately, find Quebec reaching the highest level of unemployment, namely 108,000 in August 1963 and still the same figure in September last, that is 5.5 per cent in August and 5.7 per cent in September.
Then I hope that as a result of his argument, the hon. member for Iles-de-la Madeleine, will find sympathetic support among the members of the government, several of whom come from the province of Quebec, who have been listening in silence.
The hon. member said that our party, that we, of the opposition, should support the government and not cause delays in the passing, to use his own words, "of legislation essential to the economic progress of our country" which are brought forward.
I perfectly agree with that. But may I ask the hon. member where are those measures? What are they? Far from relieving unemployment in the province of Quebec, they only increase it? If he has an answer to that, it is that among those now occupying the treasury benches, there are better economists than those who usually show off.
Unemployment Measures Lacking


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish
to hear the Minister of Public Works now, but if there are a few minutes left at the end of my observations, it will be a pleasure to reply to the hon. minister because that is a matter of courtesy.


Mr. Caron:: It is only to enlighten you. [Text]


Paul Raymond Martineau: I have been looking over the subamendment. I think it would be unfair to say the members of the present administration are not conscious of the problem of unemployment. As a matter of fact, when they were on this side of the house they spoke of nothing else. They could think of nothing else and could find no other subject on which to entertain the house than the subject of unemployment.
Today they do not care to speak about it. It is swept beneath the rug. Unhappily, though, the problem is still with us; it has not been solved by those masterminds opposite. If anything, it is likely to be more serious than ever during the coming winter months, precisely because of the failure of the government to take effective new measures to deal with the situation. When I say hon. gentlemen who now grace the treasury benches have a concern for unemployment, I should have said they had a concern about unemployment when they were over on this side of the house. One of those who expressed the most concern was the gracious Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin). You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that at that time the hon. member for Essex East was the main critic of the official opposition in matters of labour, employment and unemployment. As a matter of fact, he made several contributions on this particular subject which are recorded in Hansard. I cite a few extracts at random from the inspired words of the hon. member for Essex East, now Secretary of State for External Affairs. I might say that he was vastly concerned with the problem, so much so that on the 2nd of February, 1960, as recorded at page 645 of Hansard, he had the audacity, I think, to single out Canada as "the one country in the western world where, in spite of our resources and great industrial capacity and the capacity of our people, there has persisted continuously since the fall of 1957 the most serious unemployment problem of any country in the western world".
Sir, if the situation then was as described by that hon. member, then I say it is every bit as serious now because statistics prove there has been no improvement since. In the course of the same speech the hon. member

Unemployment Measures Lacking said that this situation was an indictment of our society. I should like the hon. member who is now a member of the government, to note these words because they are words he could very usefully repeat to his colleagues in the cabinet now. At that time he said:
I say to this government, the same vigour that it demonstrated in the course of the elections, when it talked of unemployment, it ought now to demonstrate when it comes to consider what should be done about it.
The chickens are indeed coming home to roost, Mr. Speaker. I could use word for word the same flamboyant epithets which the Secretary of State for External Affairs was so fond of using when he sat on this side of the house to castigate the lack of action on the part of the government then. Let him now instigate action on the part of the government of which he is a member, that very government which rode into office on the promise that they would rid the country of its principal problem, unemployment. What have they done? In terms of effects and results they have done just about nothing.
With regard to the winter works program, the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) this afternoon related how that program had been initiated by the previous administration, how it had been ridiculed by members of the opposition at that time, how a great number, perhaps a majority of municipalities throughout the country availed themselves of its provisions, and how it had created year after year since its implementation hundreds of thousands of new jobs for Canadians. This one measure initiated by the previous government to combat unemployment achieved striking and complete success and has borne rich fruit for the citizens of Canada.
Yet at that time the hon. member for Essex East could find no other words to describe that splendid and successful program than "that anaemic child of the government". It might have been anaemic in the mind of the hon. member, but certainly in comparison with some of the measures the present government said they would implement, and never have, it was indeed a vigorous child that produced hundreds of thousands of new jobs. Some hon. members on the other side scoff at that. They do not seem to believe. Let them cite one single measure introduced by them which has produced hundreds of thousands of new jobs for Canadians. They have not produced a single one as far as I know.
I could go on at some length recounting the utterances of members of the government at the time they were in opposition with regard to the measures they would propose when they came into power. Again, on the 2nd of February, 1960, the hon. member for Essex East made certain suggestions. For


instance, he said that responsibility for unemployment must be transferred from the Department of Labour to the government as a whole, particularly to the Department of Finance, including the Bank of Canada, under a vigorous ministerial chairmanship.
I can understand why the government has discarded this proposal when one considers the dismal failure of the budgetary proposals made by the Minister of Finance to resuscitate, as he said, the Canadian economy. That is one proposal which members then in the opposition insisted upon strongly in order to restore our economy; but today there is not the slightest inkling that the government is anywhere near adopting such a proposal.
The opposition of that day said: Let us adopt a national advisory board on economic development. They have established something like that, but it has not produced any jobs yet. I can quote as my authority none other than the speaker who preceded me, the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Sauve).
Another proposal made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs was to set up a special parliamentary committee to deal with the problem of unemployment, and assess the facts. When some of the members now in the opposition propose the setting up of a parliamentary committee to deal with unemployment the only thing we hear is, "No, that is no good, because as the opposition you will use it in a partisan way,"-as if the hon. member for Essex East on that day had any other idea than to use the committee precisely in a political way. The proof of that is that today the government refuses to set up such a committee.
The opposition of that day were very fertile and prolific in proposing solutions to the problem. They said: Let us call a federal-provincial conference on unemployment. I know a federal-provincial conference has been called, but it is not to deal with employment or unemployment. It is to deal with relations between the provinces and the federal government, which have reached a very low ebb indeed since the 22nd of April last.
Here is another proposal made at that time which I commend especially to members of the cabinet. It was proposed by no other authority than the hon. member for Essex East that a leading businessman be appointed to provide leadership in supplying jobs. I think that would be a very good proposal and I have the name of a leading businessman, a chartered accountant by profession, to suggest. He is the present Minister of Finance. In a private capacity I think he could perhaps do a lot better than he has done as Minister

of Finance. 1 am sure of one thing: He could not do any worse, and he has got a lot of help.
The opposition of that time spoke of that anaemic child, the winter works incentive program. They were not satisfied with the
150,000	to 200,000 jobs provided every winter by that program. They said: Let us make modifications to the winter works program. Where are these modifications? I know the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) is looking at me as if to say I do not know very much. I know that in his wisdom and following the dictates of his advisers he has proposed that with respect to the winter works program in certain designated areas-and the subject of designated areas is a very touchy one-the federal contribution be increased from 50 to 60 per cent. As far as I can see, that is the main modification that has been brought forward by the government, which was going to revamp completely that great, successful program initiated by the Conservative government when it was in power and which has contributed greatly to the maintenance of a decent amount of employment throughout the country in the winter months.
These are some of the main proposals. There is one more proposal which is dear to the heart of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He also proposed that the excise tax on automobiles be abolished. Our government did that. It did not require a Liberal government to be in power for that to be done.
These are some of the measures that were proposed by the former opposition members now occupying the treasury benches. As you can readily see from the summary of the measures that I have put before you, Mr. Speaker, none of them has been implemented in an effective way by the present government, which has been noted not for its drive or its constructive proposals but more for its confusion and its dilly-dallying.

The Minister of Justice, when he was on this side of the house, was also quite prolific and proposed means to deal with unemployment.
I remember a brilliant speech he made at the time he was but the member for Laurier, on March 2, 1960, and which is to be found beginning at page 1651 of Hansard.
The hon. member for Laurier had proposed some 25 measures to remedy the unemployment situation. Well, his government has been in office for six months-it is no longer a matter of 60 days but rather of several hundred days-and the proposals the hon. member was enumerating at that time to deal with unemployment have not been
Unemployment Measures Lacking adopted, except those the Conservative government, which was in office until April of this year, did adopt.
I am quite sure the minister has not forgotten that eloquent and vibrant speech, and I do not have to insist too much and set down the proposals he put forth. The fact remains that, the moment these hon. gentlemen are given full authority to act, they seem to forget all about those suggestions, recommendations, measures and means. They hang on to obsolete ideas or extend a recovery program launched by the previous administration.
And even the present ineffable Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets) who was then member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont, ventured to make some remarks on the unemployment situation. As we may see on page 4167 of the official record for May 23, 1960, he was shocked to see such a great number of people at the unemployment insurance office in the city of Montreal.
He had good reason to be shocked, but he might use his camera today and take the same photos-or even let him forget his photographer's talent for a few weeks and try the same experiment the next few months. He will see then that the situation remains exactly the same, because the government of which he is part has been unable to elaborate a program to remedy the present situation.
As we may read on page 4169 of Hansard for May 23, 1960, the present minister said then:
What did the Conservative government do to try and maintain employment at a reasonable level in Canada?
And now we may ask: "What did the present government do to try and maintain employment and jobs in this country at a reasonable level"?
And the hon. member added:
What interest did this government show in avoiding a deterioration of the employment situation to the point I mentioned a few moments ago when quoting the last figures?
Indeed, what interest does the Liberal government show in this problem?
And the hon. member said further:
To what extent did the government listen to the admonitions and warnings which it so frequently heard from the opposition?
Mr. Speaker, why do those gentlemen, who have a good memory and are not without intelligence, not pull themselves together and recall the words and suggestions they made at the time when they were sitting on this side of the house?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member allow me a question?

Unemployment Measures Lacking


Paul Raymond Martineau: When I have completed my remarks, Mr. Speaker.

I think, Mr. Speaker, I should continue along the line on which I started. There is another prominent member of the administration who had a lot to say about unemployment. He was, Mr. Speaker, the golden haired boy of Liberalism, the white hope; he has become a bit gray now, I will admit. I am referring, of course, to that brilliant economist the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon). He had quite a few comments to make before he entered this house, and particularly before he became a member of the administration.
In October, 1960, Mr. Speaker, he published in the Toronto newspapers, as for instance the Toronto Star, what he called a "bold program" to solve the problem with which this country is now faced, mass unemployment. The minister then stated, as an example, that mere talk could only waste time and what was needed was action. Imagine those words coming from that source. He said that what was needed was a concerted policy to attack this evil thing that sapped the will and the spirit, not only of those who have no jobs, but all the rest of us who may become fearful for the future. At that time the minister urged a concerted policy; but what indication has he given to us today of a concerted policy, a comprehensive policy, something that makes economic sense? He has not given us any indication of that. He has given us exactly the contrary.
At this time I believe it would be helpful to table a copy of "Walter Gordon's Solution". This appeared in the Toronto daily Star for Saturday, October 15, 1960. "Twelve Golden Rules to Achieve Full Employment", by Walter Gordon, the then rising star of Liberalism and noted economist, who has now become the quiet and subdued Minister of Finance. I should like to table these rules, because I am sure that they would serve as a reminder to the government of its sins of omission and commission and its absolutely incomprehensible indifference to the admittedly grave problem of unemployment. They talked a lot about this problem in the days before the election, Mr. Speaker, but now that they are in a position to do something about it, what do we get? There has been no action, no sensible action. I wish to table these 12 golden rules which are Walter Gordon's solution to the problem. Well, we know what that problem is.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member realizes, of course, that he cannot table that


kind of document. He can leave it on the table if he wishes, but it cannot form a part of Hansard.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I am satisfied to leave it on the table. I hope that hon. members opposite will go around the table and take a look at it. Possibly it will be impressed upon their minds.


An hon. Member:: Read it.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Yes, I will read it a little later.
I was going to say that in those days, contrary to his present practice, the minister was quite loquacious. He used to make a lot of speeches during the years 1960, 1961 and 1962 concerning what would be required to solve unemployment. For instance, at one time he said that one of the reasons for unemployment was tight money. Well, Mr. Speaker, I seem to recall 1955 and 1956. I seem to recall businessmen in this country complaining bitterly over the fact their sources of credit had been cut off by the banks and the financial institutions, as a result of the policies of the government. It was this same tight money government that was driven out of power, you will recall, in 1957. The Minister of Finance describes tight money as one of the causes of unemployment. Indeed, it was, but he failed to mention the origin of that tight money, Which was the policy of the former minister of finance, Mr. Walter Harris.
The minister went on to say that what was needed to bring about an end to unemployment was really not an end of tight money but it was, on the one hand, the cutting of taxes, and on the other hand the balancing of the budget. He said we had to decrease our deficit, and that if the budget had been balanced in 1958 or 1959, either by increasing taxes or by reducing expenditures, the need for such a rigidly tight money policy would have been greatly removed. Then he added that neither of these alternatives would have been popular, but they would have been wise.
Then, the Minister of Finance made a speech in Quebec city which was reported in the Toronto Star of November 24, 1960. He called for a cure for unemployment, and I quote from the newspaper article:
Temporary cuts in personal income taxes, lower interest rates and a reduction in the premiums on the Canadian dollar are the fastest and most effective cures for unemployment, economist Walter Gordon said last night.
The present government, despite the expert advice freely given by men like the Minister of Finance, when he was outside the house or sat in opposition, has not seen fit to cut the income tax or other taxes. As a matter of fact, we know only too well that, contrary to

the promises it made, there has been an increase in personal income tax. We have also seen the monstrous imposition of a tax on building materials and production machinery, and we have had the Minister of Finance forecast that his budget deficit will be the highest peacetime deficit in Canadian history.
There is the difference between the pragmatists, men like the Minister of Finance, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and a few others, and the theorists, the idealists, the impractical dreamers; and in this government it is the impractical dreamers who have got the upper hand, because how else could the government have got the country into the rudderless mess which the London Economist spoke about some few days ago?
These are some of the attitudes the government has chosen to adopt, and under those circumstances it is not surprising that there has been no improvement in the economic and unemploment situation. To illustrate that, I quote from the dominion bureau of statistics' bulletin of October 25, 1963 where it states:
Employment declined by an estimated 181,000 to
6.565.000	between August and September.
That is the net result, a decrease in employment under a government that was elected to promote and expand economic activity. It is a dismal record.
The Montreal Gazette of September 14, 1963, stated that the Liberals' job rise was off target and that unemployment continues to persist on the seasonally adjusted basis at between 5 per cent and 6 per cent of the labour force. There is no improvement there, and it is no surprise that the Prime Minister stated not very long ago that unemployment was such a fundamental problem that the federal government could not cope with it. It is only too apparent that the present government cannot cope with the problem.
The situation would be infinitely worse if some of the forward looking, progressive measures that were adopted by the previous government had not been implemented. I speak for instance of the winter works incentive program, which has been continued by this administration, and which has provided
150.000	to 200,000 jobs a year since 1960. I speak also of the launching of the vocational and training program on a scale such as this country had never seen before.
We also called a conference of leaders of industry and labour to meet with the government, and one recommendation made by that conference led to the establishment of the national productivity council. What has this government seen fit to do about that council? It has abolished it. That was an instrument which did good and important work to increase the productivity of our
Unemployment Measures Lacking workers, and that is one of the main requirements if we are to keep abreast of our competitors. I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce will agree with me there.
We also set up the Senate manpower inquiry, and through successive budgets adopted sensible, reasonable incentives for industry through tax concessions of various sorts that gave a good impetus to industry in so-called surplus labour areas. Those measures were infinitely more logical and better applied than the hit and miss incentives for designated areas announced recently by the Minister of Finance, and which have caused a great deal of confusion among organized and established industries. The case of Brantford is only one in point. Just a few days ago the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. Greene) pointed out how unjust it was for regions such as Pembroke to get the advantages, when a sister town in Renfrew South did not benefit from them. The same holds true for many other areas throughout the country.
It was our government which also launched the great export drive that pushed Canada's exports to new all time highs. This was due to new, liberal and sensible ways which we adopted to finance trade exports, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce knows that if our exports are showing increasing gains it is due to those types of measures.
One of the measures which was ridiculed by members of the government when they sat in opposition was devaluation of the dollar. Everybody knows that devaluation, adopted by the previous government, was an act of great courage unparalleled in political government in Canada-because it was adopted in the middle of an election campaign-has brought great benefit and was a major incentive to exports.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Adopted? It was forced on you.


Paul Raymond Martineau: The Secretary of State seems to think that is not so, but let him read some of the words of his colleague, the Minister of Finance when he wrote his treatise, "Troubled Canada", in which he advocated devaluation as one of the measures that had to be taken.
The measures now being put forward by this government are weak and anaemic. They do not respond to the gravity of the situation. The Minister of Labour has announced his nine points program, but this afternoon the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) pointed out the weakness of that program. As another masterpiece of economic recovery we had the budget of June 13, the main features of which were increased taxes; and now there has

Unemployment Measures Lacking been evolved, by the brains trust that surrounds members of the government, the municipal loan development fund. This is a measure of doubtful economic impact because it imposes new charges on the municipalities that they can ill afford to bear.
The works to be financed by the municipalities under that fund are works which, by their very nature, will be tremendously costly, and most municipalities have already reached a borrowing point beyond which they can ill afford to go. The government hopes to have the municipalities and their taxpayers finance this plan to cure a problem which, if it is to be cured, must be approached on a comprehensive and co-ordinated basis by the government, and that is why most financial critics do not agree with it. Only today John Meyer had an article about it in the Montreal Gazette, and said he felt the municipal loan fund would not provide the jobs which the government expects it to, and would place new burdens on the municipalities.
Members of the government made a lot of hay, or shall we say, a lot of noise about the national economic council.

I regret, Mr. Speaker, that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lamontagne), the father of the economic council, is not in the house tonight.
I have noticed the well-justified criticism of that measure by the hon. member from the Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Sauve).
With much fanfare, the President of the Privy Council brilliantly introduced that legislation in the house and had it passed. That newly established council is one of the organizations of our country. However, the President of the Privy Council maintains a complete silence on the matter. Is he ashamed of it? Why does he not submit a report on the business of that council?
That council was designed with the idea of co-ordinating all activities and "live forces" of the country in order to achieve full employment. Mr. Speaker, we have not seen anything up to now which could justify such hope.
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, if we want to solve the unemployment problem, we must not aggravate our relations with our neighbours to the south, which is what the gentlemen sitting on the treasury benches are doing now. On the contrary, we must strive to resume friendly relations with that great country so that agreements can be reached, and we have not been given any indication of that so far.
We must also set up a better system of consultations with the provinces about unemployment as well as economic matters. I

would suggest that a conference be called specifically to study and recommend measures to be taken with regard to unemployment and economic development.
To that end, we could propose appropriate amendments to the winter works program, creating thus, as I said a short while ago, many jobs throughout the country.
For instance, instead of having only the designated areas benefit from the federal contribution of 60 per cent towards the cost of labour, that measure should be extended to all sections of the country and thought should also be given to the possibility of having the federal government pay for part of the cost of machinery and materials used by the municipalities in their winter works program. That would surely be an efficient way to fight unemployment.


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


Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, one of the great wonders of mankind is that one never becomes too old to learn. We note today that after six or nearly seven years on the treasury benches, during which period the present official opposition, and particularly their front benchers, took the attitude that there was no unemployment problem in this nation and repeatedly refused to recognize the existence of unemployment as a problem in our nation, they have suddenly discovered now that there is a problem of unemployment.


Mr. Lamberi:: That is a lot of tripe.


Gerald Augustine Regan: There are many ideas on how government should be carried on, Mr. Speaker, and the idea of the previous government as regards the unemployment question was what is known as "government by heads in the sand". We now note, as I say, that hon. members opposite have withdrawn their heads from the sand, as the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) has just demonstrated, and discovered that there is such a thing as unemployment in Canada. Having spent such a long time without noticing this fact, it seems that the hon. member is only now catching up on his reading, because despite what he considers and describes as a very serious problem of unemployment, he used the better part of his 40 minutes to recite and review speeches and books written by Liberals during the past six years.


Norman Platt Lambert: Read the amendment.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I am glad to see that he is at least catching up on his reading in that regard.

I was greatly surprised this afternoon when the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) chose as his topic for this motion of non-confidence that of unemployment. I think it is somewhat ironic that the hon. member for Ontario, who was minister of labour during the years when unemployment was so great a problem, when it grew and grew in size to monumental proportions, should come here after six years of being unable to contain or solve the problem and now criticize the government of this day for not having completely solved the problem in the six months during which they have been in office, despite the fact that each one of those six months has shown a decrease in unemployment in this country.
Unlike those who subscribe to the "heads in the sand" theory of government, we in the Liberal party recognize that unemployment is still a problem in this nation, a problem which we inherited last spring. Indeed, it is a major and tragic problem. In my view there is nothing so important to the dignity of the working man in this country as the matter of finding a job. I can think of nothing more tragic than a man with a family to support who is willing to work, who wants to work, but who cannot find work. I suggest that this government has taken a great number of measures, some of which, as the hon. member pointed out, have not yet borne fruit, because these things cannot all be accomplished in six months. But they have taken very significant steps to curb unemployment and create new employment. Just to mention some of those steps in passing, there is the extension of the winter works program, which has been altered to make it much more effective. We have incentives to new industry, such as the tax holiday and increased depreciation; and I think another very significant step is the municipal loan fund, which can result in a great deal of extra employment in this coming winter. Perhaps the most significant thing of all which has been accomplished by the new administration in this regard is the very coming into power of this government, which has restored business confidence in the country.


Mr. Brewin:: What a dreamer.


Gerald Augustine Regan: There is no question but that the wheat sales have helped create some employment. There is also no question that the wheat sales have helped to create an atmosphere which will encourage business to expand and commence new enterprises, which will in turn create employment. The government of indecision which went out of office last spring was one which did not inspire this business confidence, and as a
Unemployment Measures Lacking consequence we were not able to have an atmosphere wherein new jobs became plentiful.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that if we were to dissect this question of unemployment and analyse it we would find, in looking at the problem as a whole right across the country, that the disturbing thing is that there are large and severe pockets of unemployment. This matter was mentioned by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) earlier today. Unemployment is not spread evenly across the country; there are certain areas in which it is a very serious problem. By the same token there are many non-skilled workers amongst those who are unemployed. On the other hand, there are jobs in some areas going begging for lack of skilled workers. There is also the problem of the worker whose skill has become unusable because of technological change in industry, and who today is unable to find employment.
With reference to this question of unemployment in certain areas, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the government's program in establishing the Department of Industry and area development incentive is of very significant importance. I would further suggest, speaking as a maritimer, if I may be allowed to do so, that the funding of the Atlantic development board and the revitalizing of that organization by enlarging its membership is a very progressive step toward helping create employment in the maritime provinces.
Turning to the question of skill of the workers of this country, the program of vocational training started by the previous government was a good one. I would hasten to point out that it was not a new or original concept, as vocational training had been participated in by federal governments as far back as 1919. Nevertheless I think we need to extend and develop the training and retraining of our workers. It is important to make full use of the national employment service. One of the more significant accomplishments of the present government, something which I hope will merely be an initial step in a new direction, is the assistance which has been granted to older workers in order to encourage employers to employ people over the age of 45. This is new territory for government in this country, and I think this initial step will certainly be helpful. I think the question should be closely studied because much more can be done to encourage the employment of those who as a class, have greater difficulty in obtaining employment. We should attempt increasingly to assure that young people do not enter the labour market until they have

Unemployment Measures Lacking the necessary skills. There is certainly a continuing problem, not only in this country but in every major country in the western world caused to a large extent by changing technological processes, and the fact that fewer workers are needed today to handle machines than in the past. I wish to point out that assistance on a strictly regional basis is no permanent answer because it does not really solve the problem; it merely transfers employment from one area to another. One example is the competition for shipping between the St. Lawrence seaway and the Atlantic ports. I do not see that merely transferring the handling of goods from the port of Halifax, which has handled them in the past, to some inland port will help the over-all economy in any way, particularly when we consider the fact that the goods will be carried from Toronto or some other port to the west by ships which are foreign-owned and that wages will go to foreign seamen rather than to employees of the C.N.R.
Sometimes, of course, the transfer of labour can help, for example when it creates an immediate area market which in turn can create new jobs. Nevertheless, wholesale retraining and the provision of an effective and realistic education program is the only long range answer to unemployment. This should be taken together with the point to which I referred earlier-keeping young people out of the labour market as far as possible until they have acquired skills. I will be the first to admit that this calls for much more investigation and participation by the government than has hitherto been the case because, of course, there are obvious pressures-a young person cannot readily stay at school if his family economic circumstances are such as to make it necessary for him to leave school in order to find whatever employment is available.
I think the answers lie, also, in the field of the export and manufacture of new types of goods. We must export more than we have in the past and, as has been pointed out many times in this house, this is tied up with the foreign ownership of such a large proportion of industry in this country. In addition, we must see to it that we manufacture, here in Canada, types of goods which we presently import from other areas. These measures must at all times be linked with the realization that employment should be shared among as many people as possible. Walter Reuther, who is perhaps the most able labour leader in the United States, has recognized that labour today, both in his union and elsewhere, must follow a policy of less overtime and a larger working force. Employment must be spread, and spending power must be spread.
[Mr. Regan.l

I think it is important that both unions and management in Canada should keep this concept in mind; unions in reaching their collective agreements must try not only to protect those who are already employed, but to recognize the position taken by Mr. Reuther and see to it that the way is open for as many people to be employed as possible.
I wonder if I might turn for a moment to the maritime area and the maritime economy. I agreed with many of the remarks made today by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher). He mentioned that, in the past, military spending has been used to assist financially the economy of certain areas. I think that is true. I think it was done on a large scale under the previous Liberal administration. I will point to the building of Camp Gagetown in New Brunswick at a cost, I am told, of about $40 million. Ever since, that camp has pumped a great deal of energy into the economy of the province of New Brunswick. There is no doubt that the basing of a large portion of the Royal Canadian Navy in Halifax has helped develop the economy of that city. Over the years, this military spending has given Halifax the buoyancy to develop its economy still further. With each passing year the economy has become more diversified and in better over-all condition. The presence of the navy and the existence of other military bases in the area led in turn to the establishment of the Fairey Aviation Company, when the Liberal government was in power, and the Cossor plant, both large employees of labour, and to the modernization of the shipyards. These companies, together with the government, created in turn an immediate market in the Halifax area which enabled that city to reach a sufficient size to attract further industries. Although our economy would be in a sorry state if military expenditures were withdrawn at the present time, nevertheless the development of our economy is such that, with each passing year, it becomes more self-sufficient.
I must say I strongly disagree with the hon. member for Port Arthur in at least one respect. He made some comments about the shipyards at Halifax being inefficient. I believe he attributed those comments to someone else. I suggest the Halifax shipyards can hold their own with any in Canada. They are the shipyards which first built destroyers in this country. They have not only been the leaders in this industry, but in time of war they undertook all kinds of difficult repairs under the most adverse conditions that could be imagined.
Turning from the home area I should like to comment on the remarks of the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Lessard) suggesting that to a large extent the combating of
438S

unemployment should be left to the provinces. At the risk of being branded a centralist, I cannot agree with this notion at all. We have a centralized economy. Workers are transferred by many companies from province to province and from one coast to the other. Goods manufactured in any part of Canada are marketed throughout the entire nation, and to combat unemployment in an economy of this type I suggest we need centralized direction of the measures being taken. I do not say the battle against unemployment should be fought only by the federal authorities. Certainly, the provincial governments have a large responsibility. But the measures taken must to a very large extent be given centralized direction from Ottawa. Unemployment insurance payments and family allowance payments have provided a cushion against recession in the past, along with other measures, and prevented the economy from sinking into depressions such as existed in the thirties. However, we must strive to find new ways of lessening the impact of major employment changes both in Canada as a whole and in specific areas. Whenever it is necessary because of large scale changes in employment and types of employment, it must be the role of government to see to it that we phase out old programs and phase in new ones so that the blow to the economy is not as serious as it might otherwise have been.
I submit that this government has brought forward good new measures and policies. It has begun the monumental task of overcoming unemployment in this country, a task which involves the dignity and security of every Canadian worker. Let us continue this battle until it is successful and place Canada in a position to profit from new sales and expanding trade in an era when living standards are rising throughout the world.


Howard Russell MacEwan: May I ask the hon. member a question? Does he consider the cancellation of the general purpose frigate program has been of assistance to the workers in the Halifax shipyards to which he referred.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I will be happy to answer that question. I do not consider that the expenditure of government funds for military defence should be used as a relief measure. I submit that as long as this government does as has been indicated, and sees to it that new and efficient programs designed to produce appropriate and effective weapons come forth in the days ahead, the nation as a whole and, indeed, my constituents recognize there is little to be gained by manufacturing weapons which are already obsolete.


Mr. Webb:: Would the hon. member permit a question?
Unemployment Measures Lacking


Gerald Augustine Regan: A privilege.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Is it the the hon. member's view that a government that imposes a new 4 per cent sales tax on all building materials, a government that reduces the extent of the winter works program by some two weeks, a government that fires a widow and hires a person who has three other jobs, is carrying out policies that will help to relieve unemployment?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I do not know much about the widow but I will try to answer the first two parts of the question, if I may be allowed to do so. I believe the first part of the question dealt with the establishment of the sales tax. In that regard I would say that sometimes a government is forced to come to very important decisions and in this instance, with the fantastic deficits built up over the years and the shaky situation of our economy, the government recognized that in order to help to re-establish the confidence of business in the government of the day it would be necessary to come closer to a balanced economy, which will be done in due course.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: What is your deficit
going to be this year?


Gerald Augustine Regan: I would also say-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: What is your deficit going to be this year?


An hon. Member:: Oh, shut up.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I would also say in that regard that it is interesting to note that construction this year is up some 15 per cent.


Mr. Douglas:: They are just getting in before the 8 per cent sales tax comes into force.


Gerald Augustine Regan: With reference to the second part of the question-what was the second part of the question?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Stay away from the widow.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I cannot remember it. The question was very involved and I had difficulty in following it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona.


Mr. Terry Nugent (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to cut short a member who was so amusing. I am afraid I have left most of my best jokes at home. However, if my Liberal friends across the way follow their usual habit some of the things I may say favouring the former administration are liable to meet with as much merriment as the last speaker's explanations did.

Unemployment Measures Lacking
To begin with, I should like to point out to all hon. members that the Conservatives have been very restrained with regard to the question of Canada's unemployment problem. I am sure that most of us have a genuine concern for those people who are unable to find work for short or long periods of time, and I have no doubt that over the last several years most members of the house have had this feeling. There is a difference, however, between taking up the subject with the prime objective of trying to add something to government plans which may assist them, and taking up the subject because it happens to be a good political football, no matter what the consequences to the unemployed.
It does not take much memory for those of us who have been in the house in the last five or six years to recall the fact that unemployment was an almost daily subject of questions from the opposite side of the house. At that time the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), now Secretary of State for External Affairs, had his own bureau of statistics which he quoted daily at great length, and every day in one form or another he brought up the question of unemployment. I need not remind the house that the Chair was not exactly strict. The government had an overwhelming majority and we had a Speaker who was very kind and tolerant. The objective was at all costs to avoid any pretence or show that the opposition was being strangled. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that nothing short of strangling would have stopped the hon. member for Essex East bringing up the subject of unemployment every day.
He did not bring it up in a manner calculated to put before the government of the day some helpful solution or hint as to policy, some course of conduct that might aid or ease the situation. Every day his questions were so framed as to try to give the people of the country the idea that there was unemployment in ever increasing numbers and that the government was doing absolutely nothing. In short, if ever there was a prolonged, sustained and deliberate attempt to undermine the confidence of the people in the government, the opposition of that day was responsible for such an attempt. I suggest it would do hon. members a lot of good to look at the present situation and the restrained way in which the opposition has considered this question, and contrast the way the former government used to handle the situation as compared with the attitude of the present government. Because, if they do, they will then have some idea of why the opposition has chosen to bring up the subject of unemployment on a supply motion, so that there can be a full and complete debate.

It can be said of a subject such as unemployment that it is so wide ranging there is some possibility that some of us may miss the target, and that there are so many aspects that some of them will not be discussed in detail. On the other hand, this debate does provide scope for those hon. members who wish to put forward ideas involving positive schemes to help the government in creating more, better paying and longer lasting jobs for Canadians.
If we are to consider whether there is merit in any scheme so brought forward, I think it is not out of place for me to bring to the attention of the house what I consider to be the general scheme and plan of attack that the previous administration had been following for several years. Certainly a little reminder along this line seems to me to be absolutely essential, bearing in mind the speech made by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher). That hon. gentleman has quite a command of the English language. He has a habit of speaking like a college professor, almost humble at times but at the same time seeming to exhibit great authority with regard to the subject, as one who has done considerable research and who is thinking deeply about the problems besetting us.
I confess, Mr. Speaker, that in listening to his remarks today, part of them did seem somewhat like an analysis of some of the problems of unemployment in this country, but I suggest that it was all too shallow. The hon. member made a long speech which touched but gently and very lightly on some of the most obvious headings under which this subject can be discussed, without probing deeply to find out if any of these topics had a bearing on unemployment, which had the strongest bearing, which needed government attention and which had had the most government attention. Certainly the hon. member made a speech which sounded very wise, and I am sure it will be taken to heart for about as long as he spoke; because it sounded good. There was much more of art than matter in his speech.
The question of unemployment can be discussed under several headings. I can only speak of the actions which were being taken by the government at the time I entered the house in 1958. I can well recall when the unemployment situation started to get better. The short term project of pouring government money into housing was the first step taken. Here was a way that jobs could be provided immediately and results achieved at once for government funds spent. At the same time the government tried to press on with public works projects. Some which had been planned before were speeded up, and

every department scraped around to try to find more government projects which could be proceeded with immediately, instead of in the years to come.
I will admit that those are short term measures. There was some unemployment in 1958. In fact, it soon became apparent that as the effects of automation hit this country year after year, we were going to continue to have a serious unemployment problem for some time. Automation was throwing people out of work faster than we could put them to work. At the same time, the new and revised industries in other countries, such as Germany, Italy and Japan, were flooding world markets and pushing us out of our traditional selling places. They were going farther than that. They were making serious inroads into Canadian markets, so that our own manufacturers had a more difficult time trying to hold their own, without considering expansion.
This is the heart of the problem, automation, Mr. Speaker. In order to compete successfully against their competitors, Canadians had to put in that type of machinery and institute that type of process which their competitors had. This required smaller and smaller quantities of labour to produce larger and larger quantities of goods. At the same time, the market was shrinking and we had ever increasing demands for jobs. Certainly, no one in the government of that day took the problem lightly. I sometimes felt that some people did not grasp the full impact of the size of the problem. However, many minds worked very hard on it. I may say, sir, that there were some good debates on the subject and some worth while ideas were brought forth. I can honestly say that I believe every avenue of governmental activity, every method of government assistance to industry that sounded at all practical, was taken up. Some of these schemes were put into force, while others were merely in the planning stage.
While providing this new machinery to meet automation, we had to concentrate on the problems of Canadian businessmen in getting the necessary capital. This was at a time when our country had its balance of payments difficulties. There were new and increased demands, and yet heavier borrowings in world markets. We set up planning boards combining business, labour and government, to study how we could attack the problem. We increased the powers and the lending capacity of the industrial development bank to try to ease the money situation. We provided small loans for businessmen. We instituted a winter works program to try to spread the work around the year. We increased farm loans and brought in various 28902-5-280
Unemployment Measures Lacking extensions to farm legislation in the feeling that if the farm economy is healthy it helps the whole economy of the country. In fact, no avenue of short or long term assistance was overlooked.
The shipbuilding industry was hard hit, so we put in shipbuilding subsidies. The coal mines of Nova Scotia were in danger of closing so they were given rail subsidies. There was a feeling that, the greater the total development wealth of the country the better was our chance of surviving as an industrial nation. A program of national development was therefore instituted. There were roads to the north, new airports, new government buildings to open up new possibilities and fields of wealth. There were the forest access roads to open up new forests.
Co-operation with the provinces was not overlooked. Since this is a federal system and the provinces have their responsibilities, powers and opportunities to take care of so many of these problems, the provinces themselves were given a larger share of tax revenue to enable them to carry out broad, ambitious schemes. We had to attack unemployment, not remotely but in every manner in which it could be influenced by governmental activity, every potential activity in the country.
I should like to refer to the extension and expansion of the efforts of the Department of Trade and Commerce, which was one more cog in the strengthening of this machine. It is no accident that the Department of Trade and Commerce increased the number of its representatives abroad. It was the result of careful planning that brought these representatives home to train them in new roles and send them out to these new countries with a new dedication, a new purpose and a new spirit. No longer were they acquiescent representatives, but active, aggressive salesmen alert to the opportunities for Canadian businessmen.
Along with these opportunities for sales, the government assumed a greater responsibility. It was not a case of saying: Here is your chance for a sale, make it if you can. Certainly some of these potential sales carried a great deal of risk. There was a chance the customer would not be able to pay. You can always find more customers if you can give credit. The government was responsive by helping to give export credits insurance to those who made their own scheme. All of these measures were directed toward the industrial development and expansion necessary to provide jobs.
There were other methods taken. There are other problems to be faced. We had a lot of depressed areas. Special legislation was introduced to try to spread the benefits of

Unemployment Measures Lacking government assistance across the nation in an equitable way. We found that in coping with the demands of automation for new machinery, we had to provide new pools of labour. Canada had been a supplier of raw materials for years, and suddenly we found ourselves in a machine age. We had to buy the new machines and provide the money to do it. Then we found we had to supply the skilled workers, and we did not have them. It came as a bit of a shock to find that Canadians were amongst the poorest educated people in the world. It had always been so easy to make a good living in this country, in this land of opportunity, that there was not the pressure on young people to develop skills. Once we found ourselves in this era we had a call for skilled help, just as they had in Europe. We found we were unable to
provide it. While every day there were long columns in the newspapers for jobs wanted, people searching for work, there were other long columns of employers desperately searching for skilled workers that we could not provide.
This, of course, gave rise to the training scheme. While education is a provincial responsibility, it became apparent that the federal government would have to intervene if we were going to meet this problem. We had to take on that responsibility as part of the job of getting Canada rolling and ready to take its place in this new industrial age.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, November 5, 1963