1964-09-04

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, the duty I am about to perform is not altogether a pleasant one but, having heard on the air that the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) has actually brought an action against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for having authorized the operation of a French speaking station in the city of Toronto, I feel compelled to rise on a question of privilege to say that action is due to narrow-mindedness and fanaticism.
Mr. Speaker, if such an antiquated mentality is allowed to persist in Canada- [Text]


Mr. Speaker:: Order. What is the point of privilege?


Auguste Choquette: My point of privilege is that, as a Liberal, I am humiliated by such an action and that, as a French speaking member, I am shocked and disgusted by such an attitude.
That is why I want to protest.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that on June 10, 1963 and again on October 14, 1963, the Minister of Labour informed the house that it was the government's intention to supplement the federal government winter construction program in order to create greater employment opportunities during the winter in designated areas. The supplementary construction program included a number of small post office buildings.
On April 15 of this year, in reply to a question, the Minister of Public Works stated 20220-484J
that all the buildings originally scheduled under this special program had not been undertaken because of site problems and cost and staff limitations.
I should now like to inform the house that it is the intention of the government to continue the special program consisting of those locations in certain designated areas and areas of high winter unemployment that, while included in the original listings, it was not possible to complete during the last winter season. Approximately 185 locations will be involved as compared with 103 last year.
It must be appreciated, however, that although yesterday I passed the names on to my colleague the Minister of Public Works for construction, it will be subject to his being able to make satisfactory arrangements with respect to the acquisition of suitable sites and to obtain tenders reasonable in cost. One reason names are being forwarded at this time is to afford ample opportunity to acquire suitable sites well in advance of the winter season.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and has to do with the discussions that took place at the Charlottetown conference and certain questions which I asked yesterday and he answered. Has his attention been drawn to the fact that Hon. Ross Thatcher, the Liberal premier of the province of Saskatchewan, said in an interview:
The premier of Quebec was certainly a long way off from the rest of us. If Quebec persists in its present course it will cause real trouble when the attorneys general meet to discuss the formula.
The report added:
Mr. Thatcher said Premier Lesage apparently wanted to secure for Quebec additional fields which are currently federal responsibilities before the constitution was brought home. The Saskatchewan premier gave jurisdiction over Indians as one example.
Is there any foundation for these words of the premier of Saskatchewan, whose affinity
7656	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry to the Prime Minister, politically and otherwise, is so well known? I trust that the Prime Minister will be able to state categorically that there is no foundation for Mr. Thatcher's fears.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to comment on a press report of what the premier of a province is alleged to have said. So far as the report itself is concerned, it would not reflect my interpretation of what happened at Charlottetown.


John George Diefenbaker: Is there any foundation whatever for the statement that the province of Quebec is asking for the right to take over certain fields of federal jurisdiction as a basis upon which agreement will be made for repatriation of the constitution?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, there is no foundation for that.


John George Diefenbaker: That is fine.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister, in this connection, whether his attention has been called to the statement by Professor Bora Laskin, the well known constitutional expert, on the C.B.C. last night, when he described the Fulton formula as an unmitigated disaster. I wonder if the Prime Minister can assure the house that Professor Laskin and other constitutional experts will be consulted before any constitutional strait-jacket is imposed on the people of Canada under the guise of repatriation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I saw and listened to Professor Laskin on television last evening. I have also in the past had the advantage of reading articles by him on this subject and I know his views, as indeed, I think, many members of the house do. Without necessarily subscribing to those views, I think they are to be respected. If the attorneys general when they are meeting-they will also be familiar with his views-feel it will help them to have discussions with him, I am sure that will be quite in order.



NEW BRUNSWICK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister plan to request the Atlantic development board to withhold final approval of the $20 million


grant to the province of New Brunswick toward the Mactaquac development, in view of the request by the premier of Newfoundland that no final action be taken on power in the Atlantic area until they are made fully aware of the final feasibility report on Hamilton falls, as reported in the September 3 edition of the Halifax Chronicle-Herald.?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would have to look into that question, Mr. Speaker.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I have a follow-up question to that which the Prime Minister answered yesterday in connection with the request for food for India. I would like to ask the Prime Minister the same question that I put to the Secretary of State for External Affairs about a month ago, namely, has the Canadian government made any direct contact with the Indian high commissioner here in Ottawa to offer help?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we are already offering help to India and, as I mentioned yesterday, ships with Canadian grain will be leaving for India during the current month. The Secretary of State for External Affairs is in contact with the Indian authorities on this and other matters.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I do not think the Prime Minister quite understands what I am getting at here. About a month ago, when the monsoons were late, the Americans stepped up their assistance, under public law 480, in shipments of wheat to India. Since that time a strike has occurred. These shipments to which the Prime Minister referred yesterday are the ordinary shipments under the extension of the Colombo plan. My question is, has there been a direct government to government approach to India, as distinct from the routine type of thing we are doing, to help in this particular emergency?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We have discussed the current situation with the Indian authorities, and no request has been made by the Indian government for any special assistance in this situation.


EXTENSION OF PERIOD OF COMMIT- MENT OF CANADIAN FORCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the term during which Canadian troops are to serve in Cyprus will soon expire, has there been any request for a further extension? If not, in the event of it being asked for, would the Canadian government be prepared to extend that term and also to finance the Canadian operation there in the event that the United Nations still faces financial difficulties?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there has been, to my knowledge, no such actual request made. The whole situation with regard to a possible extension of the period of service of the force in Cyprus, and the financing of the force if such an extension takes place, is now under consideration in New York by the secretary general. As soon as there is something to report on this matter I will be glad to make a statement to the house.


RECOGNITION OF CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY OVER ARCTIC ISLANDS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Can the minister assure the house that the government of the United States recognizes Canada's title to all islands north of the mainland up to the north pole?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member thinks he is asking a rhetorical question. For some years now the present government and the previous governments have asserted our sovereignty over the islands extending northward from the meridians appropriate to Canada: on the west from the meridian which divides Alaska from the Yukon and on the east from the appropriate eastern meridian, with a sinuosity devised to provide for the existence of Greenland and thence extending to the north pole. Canada has not only asserted its sovereignty there but we are implementing our sovereignty in many places. I have never heard or seen that assertion called in question by any nation, let alone the United States of America.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: May I ask a supplementary question. The minister did not quite answer my question. Can he assure the house that
Inquiries of the Ministry the government of the United States has formally recognized these Canadian claims?


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is the minister proceeding with any policy decision on the role of the navy within an over-all Canadian defence plan? If so, will he withhold his decision until a report on the navy's role is received from the House of Commons special committee on defence policy?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the role of the navy in the over-all Canadian defence plan was set out in the white paper which was tabled in March. What we are considering at the present time is the method by which this role can best be implemented. I am sure the report of the committee will be received before most of the important decisions are reached.


Harold Edward Winch: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask, what is the position of the House of Commons special committee, if decisions have already been reached?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Its terms of reference were set out in the resolution which set up the committee, Mr. Speaker.


CANADIAN FLAG
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. Can he inform the house whether he intends to accept yesterday's request to convene a meeting of party leaders immediately following Labour day, in order that further discussions may take place in regard to an alternative way of dealing with the flag issue, which has now become an urgent and critical national problem of concern to all Canadians?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have already stated that if further meetings of this kind can be useful I would be very glad indeed to participate in them, but unless there is some change from the position adopted at the last meeting it is difficult to see what progress can be

Inquiries of the Ministry made. Nevertheless, I will be very glad to give consideration to the matter.


Robert Norman Thompson: A supplementary question. Would the Prime Minister not think it might be well to call such a meeting in order to find out whether such positions have reached the point where we could come to some agreement?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ascertain, Mr. Speaker, whether there has in tact been any change in the attitude of any of those who attended the last meeting to ensure that a further meeting would be positive in character.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martineau (Pontiac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
Could he tell the house what steps are being taken by the C.B.C. to meet the legal action taken against the corporation by the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) and if that legal action will cause the corporation to change its plans for the establishment of the proposed station in Toronto?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of Stale):: Mr. Speaker, I will try to obtain this information from the C.B.C.
tText]


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS STUDY OF ECONOMIC INTERDEPENDENCE OF PROVINCES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker,
I want to ask the Prime Minister a question. Can the Prime Minister tell the house whether the committee which he announced in the early summer was investigating the economic interdependence of the provinces has completed its work and, if so, can he tell us when we might expect its report?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, it certainly has not completed its work. There is a starred question on the order paper which I will be answering the next time starred questions come up, and
(Mr. Pearson.]

that will give some information as to what has been done.


INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry. Can he tell the house at this time where Peugeot and Renault industries coming from France will be situated in Canada? In which province?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, in the province of Quebec.


Raymond Langlois: A supplementary question. Have negotiations gone far enough for the minister to give us the approximate locality in which either one will be situated?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Speaker. The choice of location will be made by the General Investment Corporation of the province of Quebec in the event that it is practicable to go ahead with the proposal.


Raymond Langlois: A further supplementary
question. Did the federal government make any recommendations as to where they would prefer to have such companies situated?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, negotiations are still in progress, so I do not think it would be helpful either to the parties or to the country to discuss the matter any further.


Raymond Langlois: One last supplementary question. Can the minister tell the house approximately when he expects these negotiations to be completed?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Soon, I hope, Mr. Speaker.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Postmaster General whether he has received a protest from the postal employees in Fort William on the ground that his department has ordered construction of peepholes in washroom facilities in the new building in the city through which postal employees can be spied on?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have received such a communication, and I think it has been replied to.


David Orlikow: I wonder whether the minister can tell the house what was the nature of his reply.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will put his question on the order paper I will give the reply.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that Canada has the highest rate of radioactive fall-out in the world, and in view of the dangerously high levels of radioactive caesium 137 recently found in Alaskan Eskimos, has the government considered testing Canadian Eskimos for similar danger?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the radiation protection division of our department has been making a special study of the problem in Canadian Eskimos in co-operation with the northern health services of the department and with the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. We published preliminary reports in the October, 1963 and April, 1964 issues of our monthly publication "Data From Radiation Protection Programs". These reports include data on caesium 137 content of samples of caribou and reindeer meat and of urine samples obtained from residents in the north whose diet contains appreciable quantities of caribou meat.
This data indicates that ceasium 137 levels are higher for persons who eat caribou meat than for the general population. However, preliminary estimates of the total amount of caesium 137 in the bodies of these people, based on the amounts measured in the urine specimens, lead to the conclusion that in general the maximum permissible body burden of caesium 137 has not been reached. The highest levels noted are slightly below the amount recognized as permissible for continuous lifetime exposure. Levels are expected, I am very pleased to be able to say, to show a gradual decrease provided, of course, that nuclear testing is not resumed.
Inquiries of the Ministry BROADCASTING


APPROVAL OF TRANSFER OF WINDSOR RADIO STATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the interest expressed in the house by the Leader of the Opposition and other members I want to ask the Secretary of State whether he has any information on the application that Mr. Frith has made to unload the radio station for which he was granted a licence last year.


Maurice Lamontagne: No, Mr. Speaker.


Douglas Mason Fisher: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the reasons given by Mr. Frith I want to ask the Prime Minister whether Mr. Frith approached him to be relieved of his duties as one of the commissioners on the biculturalism and bilingualism probe?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.


SEARCH AND RESCUE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. McBain (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, but in his absence and the absence of his parliamentary secretary perhaps the acting minister can take it as notice.
My question is based on information just received by letter this morning concerning the operation of the coastguard vessel Spume, at present moored at Port Stanley, Ontario, to serve the lake Erie district. Before this coastguard vessel can take part in any search or rescue work orders have to be received from the Trenton headquarters, which slows up rescue operations. Will the minister intercede to ascertain why Captain McLain cannot use his own good judgment as to the necessity of the Spume engaging in search and rescue operations, thereby speeding up the service with the possibility of saving lives?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Acting Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take the question as notice.

Inquiries of the Ministry HOUSE OF COMMONS


INQUIRY AS TO HOLIDAYS FOR STAFF
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this question is supplementary to one asked yesterday by the hon. member for Royal addressed to the President of the Privy Council. The question yesterday inquired as to what arrangements were being made for members of the House of Commons staff to have holidays. The President of the Privy Council replied that this did not come directly under his responsibility. In view of the fact that the President of the Privy Council is an important member of the internal economy commission and also is chairman of treasury board, does he not at least share some responsibility for this matter, and does he not feel that something should be done about it at an early date?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I hesitated to give any information yesterday because the responsibility does come under Your Honour, and for that reason I did not deal with the matter fully. I have no responsibility in this regard as a member of treasury board, but in my capacity as one of the commissioners of internal economy I do have knowledge of what is happening.
The whole matter of holidays for the house staff has been receiving very thorough consideration and I expect will be receiving more consideration in the immediate future. The matter has been receiving quite active consideration and will be up for decision as soon as a meeting can be arranged.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the fact that this matter is receiving consideration by the body of which the minister is a member, will he take note of the fact that both in Ontario and in Canada there are laws requiring that there be annual holidays; and in view of the fact that many members of our staff have been working for over a year without holidays should not one or the other of these laws be observed?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I think the desire is to have better laws for our staff than are ordinarily applicable in either of the jurisdictions to which the hon. member has referred. However, the problem is not just as simple as the hon. member has stated it. It is a little more complicated. Parts of the staff have been receiving regular holidays in the usual way. There is no question so far as they are concerned. With regard to other


parts of the staff, the nature of their duties is such that they are very closely related to the actual sessions of the House of Commons, and a problem arises since these employees were all hired on the basis that they would not have holidays while the house was in session.
The difficulty has arisen because of the fact that due to the situation this year the normal policy or practice no longer was practicable. The problem is to find a method that will fully and adequately provide for the situation bearing in mind the former practice and which will not result, of course, in a cutting off of the services necessary for the functioning of the house while it is in session. It is a rather complicated matter, but it is receiving very close attention.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the commissioners of internal economy not take note of the fact that sessions have become more or less year round and that in the view of hon. members our staff should not suffer from that fact?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, that is the whole reason why this question has arisen at all. It would never have arisen except for the sharp increase in the continuity and length of sessions. This is the whole point that requires attention.


Harold Edward Winch: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister understand that we are referring to holidays with pay, not holidays at the employees' expense?


George James McIlraith: Quite. There is no confusion in that regard at all.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice but in his understandable absence I will do so to the Prime Minister. Has he received a communication from the F.L.Q. regarding the homicide of Mr. Leslie McWilliams committed by that organization, according to this document? In view of the fact that this organization is openly threatening the law officers of our country and boastfully describes itself as an instrument for the attainment of freedom in Canada, as well as its claim that the alleged wrongdoers in the homicide are entitled to

the benefit of the provisions of the Geneva convention, would the Prime Minister consider making a full statement as to what action is being taken by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in association with other police officers to round up and stamp out once and for all a group which is placing in disrepute the administration of justice in our country by a course of violence and terror repugnant to the instincts, traditions and feelings of the people of Quebec, within which province this organization is operating?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not agree that the administration of justice in this country is being placed in disrepute by, to use the right hon. gentleman's phrase, "a course of violence" in the sense that there is any general violence of that kind which has brought the administration of justice into disrepute. So far as the specific question is concerned, I will be glad to take it into consideration and if it seems desirable for the Minister of Justice or myself to make a full statement it will be done.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the Prime Minister received a letter containing the communique?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sorry; I do not recall having received that letter, but I will be glad to look into the matter as soon as I get back to my office.



POSSIBLE REDUCTION IN EXPORTS TO JAPAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. I do this because of the statement made last night on television by a representative of the western Canadian coal industry to the effect that the industry was losing markets in Japan because of government red tape. I ask him if the industry has requested the assistance of his department in maintaining and expanding their portion of the coal market in Japan.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. I imagine such an inquiry would more properly be directed to the Department of Trade and Commerce, but I shall be glad to inquire into it.
Supply-Labour GRAIN



INQUIRY AS TO DELIVERY QUOTAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I have had complaints from my constituents regarding slow wheat deliveries to country elevators because of the lack of delivery quotas. When will the Minister of Trade and Commerce return to parliament so that he can be asked to take action on this pressing farm problem?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Minister of Trade and Commerce, as my hon. friend no doubt knows, is out of the country on very important government business. He is attending a meeting of the commonwealth finance and economic ministers at Kuala Lumpur and the Japanese-Canadian ministerial meeting in Tokyo. As soon as the latter meeting is over, and I think it finishes today, he will be back in his place in the house.

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



DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

[Stage Direction]
1. General administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates; the expenses of the International Labour Conferences; the promotion of labour-management co-operation; the promotion of a program for the employment of the older worker; the promotion of a program for combatting seasonal unemployment; the organization and use of workers for farming and related industries; and the manpower consultative service, $4,243,000.
Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Chairman, in introducing the estimates of the Department of Labour I do so against the background of the fact that about a month ago the committee of supply spent a full day discussing the activities of the Department of Labour, and in the following week I made a rather lengthy statement on the activities of the department, especially relating to those points that had been brought up by hon. members in the course of the discussion.
However, I should like to highlight in this statement a number of the activities in the Department of Labour which I trust will anticipate some of the questions that might be asked by hon. members of the committee, and contribute to a better understanding of the numerous and indeed increasing activities of the Department of Labour.

Supply-Labour
I should like to begin, Mr. Chairman, by saying a few things about the current employment situation. During the past year hon. members will be glad to learn that employment has shown a marked increase while unemployment has registered a noticeable de-ciine. Improvement in the employment situation was particularly marked during the first half of 1964. Manufacturing employment showed great strength, a larger than seasonal increase being recorded during recent months. Construction employment held up better than usual last winter, but more recently it has shown less buoyancy than last year. Government measures to stimulate house building activity during winter months have helped to reduce the incidents of seasonal unemployment.
Between September, 1963 and February, 1964, the seasonal high and low points for the year, the unemployment total increased by some 217,000. The average seasonal swing over this period during the past five years was 322,000, so we conclude that the seasonal impact of our special winter employment program has been in the vicinity of 100,000 jobs. While construction employment is currently at somewhat lower levels than last year, the prospects for the coming months are very good. Housing starts are once again running above last year after registering a decline in May following an unusually strong first quarter. Non-residential construction can be expected to show more buoyancy during the second half of this year.
Total employment in the second quarter of 1964 averaged 261,000 higher than in the corresponding period last year. This represents a gain of 4.1 per cent, which was a substantially greater rate of advance than in any recent year. Unemployment has remained at a relatively high level even though more new jobs were created during the past year than in any previous year, with the labour force increasing by some 217,000 between the second quarter of 1963 and the second quarter of 1964. The net decrease in unemployment over the year was about 45,000.
The rate of labour force growth was well above the long term average. A little over one third of the increase in the labour force over the past year was made up by the addition to the labour force of younger workers under the age of 25 years, while almost all the remainder of the increase in the growth of the labour force was made up of women between the ages of 25 and 44 years. The comparatively large number of young workers added to the labour force was the result in

part of the population increase, but there were also changes, and significant changes, in the pattern of labour force participation amongst young people in the community.
Among the more encouraging developments of the past year was the improvement in manufacturing. In the second quarter of 1964 manufacturing employment averaged approximately 90,000 higher than the corresponding period in 1963, and almost all parts of manufacturing contributed to the advance in output and in employment during the past year. Thus far in 1964 the most marked improvement in employment has been in durable goods. The service producing industries have been expanding at an accelerated rate during the past year. During 1962 and the early part of 1963 they experienced a relatively slow rate of growth. Since the beginning of this year service employment has been running well above 100,000 higher than last year. The increase in numbers has been constantly in excess of 40,000.
Despite the impressive decrease in unemployment during the past year, Mr. Chairman, in many parts of the country it is still relatively high. In July the unemployment rates varied from 2.2 per cent on the prairies to 5.1 per cent in Quebec. The disparity was somewhat less marked than a year ago. In July, 1963 unemployment rates varied from 2.4 per cent on the prairies to 5.7 per cent in Quebec. Hon. members will be interested in noting the duration of the unemployment of those currently unemployed. Of the 265,000 unemployed in July, three quarters of the total were unemployed for three months or less. The remaining 60,000 had been seeking work for four months or more. This group accounted for a smaller proportion of the total than a year ago. The shortages of certain skilled and semi-skilled workers were becoming fairly widespread in Ontario and Quebec. During the second quarter tool and diemakers, machinists, welders, electricians and loggers were in very short supply in a number of areas. Engineers, draftsmen and miners were also reported to be in short supply in certain parts of Canada.
Turning now, Mr. Chairman, to our specific activities for the current fiscal year, the committee will be asked to provide $228,079,800 in the main estimates and $263,004 in supplementary estimates (A). Of this total of $228,342,804, and amount of $114,491,504 is required by the Department of Labour proper and $113,851,300 for the unemployment insurance commission. This represents a reduction of $105,786,850 from moneys totalling

$334 million made available in the fiscal year
1963-	64.
To account for this substantial decrease I should explain that in the main estimates for
1964-	65 no provision has been made for the continuation during the coming winter of incentive programs to reduce seasonal employment, for which over $55 million was provided in the 1963-64 estimates. There is also a substantial reduction, approximately $62 million, in our anticipated need this year in meeting our commitments for training facilities under the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act. This is offset somewhat by increased provision for the operating aspects of the training program. There is also an increase of over $8 million for the operations of the unemployment insurance commission.
At this point I should like to assure the committee that although no provision is being made in these main estimates for our winter works incentive program, it is the government's intention, as already announced, to continue it during the coming winter, and money provisions will be made in supplementary estimates at a later date.
As hon. members will have observed, one of the items in the supplementary estimates provides authority for the transfer of payments connected with the operation of the national employment service insurance commission to the Department of Labour, and for the transfer of the duties, powers and functions related to this service. This transfer, which was recommended by the Gill committee, has been widely endorsed by national employer and labour organizations, as well as by others.
Hon. members will note that provision of funds for the economics and research branch of the department is also included under the principal vote in the estimates, and I would like to say a word or two about the activities of this important branch of the Department of Labour. As the central federal agency for economic and social analyses and research in the labour field, this branch conducts on a continuing basis studies of employment and unemployment, skilled and professional manpower resources, wages and working conditions, union organization and collective bargaining. The results of these studies are made available not only to the federal government but also to labour and management, to international agencies and to the general public through the Labour Gazette and various regular and special reports issued by the branch.
Supply-Labour
I would like to mention a few of the branch's specific activities over the past year. Studies on seasonal unemployment were given further attention during the year. An important part of this work was concerned with assessing the effectiveness of the winter house building incentive program as a means of reducing seasonal unemployment.
The development of special manpower information continues to be an important aspect of the work of the economics and research branch. In co-operation with the dominion bureau of statistics, a study of multiple jobholding was completed during the year. The report sheds light on the magnitude of multiple jobholding or moonlighting, as it is frequently referred to, its regional concentration, the characteristics of multiple jobholders and their work patterns.
The continuing work of the branch in reviewing local labour market situations in all parts of Canada was helpful in designating the 35 development areas. The Department of Labour has the responsibility of designating areas that might qualify for special federal assistance under the area development program. The economics and research branch at present is engaged in a study which is aimed at evaluating the appropriateness of the present system of selecting areas.
The branch is continuing its studies of the manpower effects of technological change. Consideration is being given to concentrating research on major new technologies in the early stage of use in industry. Particular emphasis will continue to be given to occupational trends studies. In addition to the report published early this year which deals with occupational trends on a national basis, work is now proceeding on the changing occupational structure of specific industries.
May I now say a word on a subject which has been discussed frequently and at some length by hon. members during the current session of this parliament. I have myself referred at some length, during recent statements in the house, to the work of the board of trustees, and it may be that hon. members will wish to raise points that I can deal with later today. Hon. members will recall that the trustees submitted their first report, as required under the legislation passed last October, on March 9, 1904. Since this report was submitted the trustees have taken action with respect to the president of the S.I.U. Mr. H. C. Banks was removed from office and replaced by one of the members of the staff of the board of trustees.

Supply-Labour
The trustees have been able to develop a joint approach in bargaining which is now taking place between the employers representing the companies and each of the individual unions coming under the trusteeship.
The principal accomplishment of the trustees, to date, however, has been the removal of the harassment on the great lakes and the St. Lawrence seaway which has plagued this water highway for many years. It is still too soon, of course, to say that all the problems besetting the maritime unions in Canada have been solved or removed, but I do feel the trustees have made a substantial beginning in this important task. The Department of Labour and other government agencies have endeavoured to co-operate with them fully in carrying out the difficult task they have been asked to undertake.
Hon. members know there has not been an opportunity for the full exercise of democratic rights on the part of many Canadian seamen in their union activities for some years. This was one of the main reasons for establishing the trusteeship, and is one of the basic objectives which the trustees have in mind. The trustees have initiated steps to ensure that proper procedures are developed for the election of officers in the S.I.U., which will be taking place over the next few months.
Steps are also being taken to encourage separate union organizations for officer personnel including engineers and other seamen as recommended in the Norris report. These proposed steps I understand have the support of the unions concerned and of the Canadian Labour Congress. Proposals have been made to reduce initiation and assessment fees in the S.I.U.
These are all important steps which the trustees have taken and which should help them to accomplish the over-all task which parliament has assigned to them. Later this session members of the House of Commons will have an opportunity to meet with the chairman of the board of trustees, and I am sure will be able to secure more detailed information which will be helpful to them in assessing the work of the board of trustees and in restoring democratic practices and democratic attitudes in the seafarers union. It is obvious that the development of democracy, after the kind of regime that has existed in this union for a long period of time, will not be an easy task and will not be undertaken overnight.
Later on today I would like to make a statement on the larger question of automa-
[Mr. MacEachen.l
tion, if this would meet with the approval of the committee, but at this stage I wish to refer briefly to the new manpower consultative service which is also provided for in the first vote of the department. This service was set up this year to assess the implications of industrial change on manpower in industry, and develop measures to alleviate manpower dislocation attributable to technological change. It will administer the program of research incentives for investigations at the plant level into the manpower effects of technological change and will also administer the program of financial assistance for relocation of employees displaced by technological change. The director and three officers have been appointed, after cross-country competition. Two additional officers will be appointed as soon as suitable candidates are found.
The special services branch's main functions relate to the stimulation of winter employment. It is charged at the present time with the administration and the development of the municipal winter works incentive program; the winter house building incentive program; the supplementary federal government winter construction program. This branch also administers the federal-provincial farm labour program.
Some changes were introduced into the municipal winter works incentive program last year which were designed to further increase the program's effectiveness. The maximum federal incentive payment on municipal buildings was increased from $50,000 to $100,000 to encourage the inclusion of larger buildings under the program.
In respect of projects carried out in designated development areas and areas of high winter unemployment, the federal incentive payment was increased from 50 per cent to 60 per cent of direct payroll costs. The period of the program for 1963-64 was reduced from seven and one half months to the six month period November 1 to April 30, so as to concentrate more work in the actual winter months.
During the course of the 1963-64 program 7,320 applications for projects were accepted. These were submitted by 2,755 local authorities, including Indian bands. The total estimated expenditure on projects undertaken in 1963-64 is $282,000,000. The program this year provided an estimated 165,000 men with approximately 6,875,000 man days of work. The figures in 1962-63 were 146,000 men for 6,200,000 man days. The federal government's contribution to direct payroll costs for 1963-64 has been estimated at better than $52 million,

while in the previous year the amount expended was approximately $31 million.
The winter house building incentive program was introduced during the winter of 1963-64 to increase winter employment in the house building industry. It provides, as hon. members know, for the direct payment of a $500 incentive to the first purchaser or owner-builder of a house substantially built during the period December 1, 1963 through March 31, 1964. As evidence of the success of the program, representations were made by the industry for an extension of the inspection date because of shortages which occurred due to the heavy demand on materials and skilled labour. The extension was granted to April 15, 1964.
Under the program 32,647 applications for the incentive payment were received. Of these approximately 3,400 were cancelled and 4,700 were rejected at first or final inspection because they did not meet the conditions of the program. This leaves approximately 24,529 active applications which covered 28,213 dwelling units. The total amount of incentive payments will be approximately $4 million.
This program was successful in creating additional employment for construction workers last winter. The program also created additional employment for workers in the manufacture, transportation and sale of building materials.
As announced in the house on June 23, both the municipal winter works incentive program will be continued next year. It may be possible for me later in the day to tell hon. members of certain changes we are contemplating with a view to increasing the effectiveness of both the municipal winter works program and the winter house building program for next season.
May I report to the committee on the experimental program for the employment of older workers. The older worker employment and training incentive program was initiated by the federal government on an experimental basis last winter. Under its provisions the Department of Labour pays 50 per cent of monthly wages or $75 per month, whichever is less, to employers hiring workers aged 45 and over who met certain conditions for new jobs in insurable employment. Payments are made for a total period not exceeding 12 months. It was recognized that breaking in a new employee, particularly one who had been unemployed for six months or more, could be costly to an employer. Therefore it appeared reasonable to share these
Supply-Labour
costs with an employer until such time as the worker had become fully productive. Twelve months was considered to be an adequate period for this purpose.
The program resulted in some 1,948 older workers obtaining employment, all of whom had been unemployed for at least six of the previous nine months. The program has, in my judgment, been reasonably successful. It has led to the employment of approximately 2,000 older workers, and it will provide the Department of Labour with better insight into the whole problem of the employment of older workers. At the present time the department is continuing an evaluation of this particular program and I hope this evaluation, which we expect to be completed very soon, will allow us to plan future action on behalf of older workers. This obviously was an experimental program, and I hope it will continue to be possible in the department to take the risk of experimenting in providing opportunities for the employment of older Canadians.
May I say a word about federal assistance for technical and vocational training, which is having a substantial impact on the development of a skilled labour force. Since April 1, 1961, when the new technical and vocational training agreements with the provinces came into effect, Federal approval has been given to sharing in provincial expenditures for 572 projects to build and equip new schools and to make additions and alterations and provide equipment for existing schools. The estimated total cost of these projects was $583.4 million; the estimated federal contribution was $352.5 million; the projects will provide 159,417 new student places. Enrolments in all programs have increased. There has been a dramatic increase in the number of vocational high schools; technician training programs have enrolments to capacity, apprenticeship continues to increase, and training classes of unemployed have continued to increase in the face of much improved employment conditions.
Under agreements which provided for sharing at the rate of 75 per cent in capital expenditures incurred by the provinces before April 1, 1963 there was an initial year largely devoted to the planning of new facilities. The following year, 1962-63, was a period of incentive construction. By year's end the accumulated total of federal contributions toward buildings completed and equipment installed had reached $197.5 million. In 196364, as previously approved projects reached

Supply-Labour
completion, the amount of capital assistance claimed by the provinces fell to about $102 million for the year. The December, 1963 amendments to the Technical and Vocation Training Assistance Act extended the period for sharing at the rate of 75 per cent in capital expenditures for most of the provinces, and the planning of additional facilities has been resumed.
In the current planning of training facilities and programs, considerably more attention is being paid to the training of adults. The new legislation provides increased incentives for the development of training programs, in co-operation with industry, for employed workers. These programs will provide the worker with the basic knowledge of mathematics, science and communications necessary for him to enter training for a skilled occupation. It is a fact that one of the obstacles facing certain classes of workers in acquiring needed skills is their lack of a basic knowledge of mathematics and science which would enable them to acquire the skills which would allow them to take on gainful employment. This training program covers industrial apprenticeships and programs for the retraining of employees who without such training would be displaced because of technological or other industrial changes.
Another program for adults which is receiving increased attention is the program for retraining the unemployed. Experience has demonstrated that the most effective way to permanently remove many of these workers from the ranks of the unemployed is to upgrade their basic education to the point where they can proceed to training for occupational skills, either in school classes or in industrial courses while employed. Though the severity of unemployment has lessened, the long run advantages of this type of training warrant the additional expenditures incurred to support it. Certainly the training programs that have been developed, and the capital expenditure program with which the hon. member for Ontario was associated, have had a very marked impact in upgrading the labour force in Canada.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks in introducing the estimates of my department. I do apologize to the committee for taking up some time in outlining the activities of the Department of Labour. Before I conclude I should like to anticipate a question that might be asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre especially, having to do with the matter of labour standards.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It had better be good.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As I indicated when the estimates of my department were discussed last year, the development of a comprehensive piece of legislation in the field of labour standards was a prime target or objective of the Department of Labour. In the speech from the throne this year we indicated that it is our intention at this session to introduce this legislation for the consideration of the house.


David Orlikow: Where is the resolution?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has been pressing for further information with respect to the precise date when this particular legislation will appear on the order paper. I am looking at the date today, Mr. Chairman, and I feel reasonably confident that this legislation will be on the order paper before the calendar turns to the month of October. Perhaps I will exceed my own expectations by having it on the order paper well before the calendar turns to October.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What year?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Oh, 1964.


The Chairman:: Order. I have to bring to the attention of the committee that the minister's time has expired. Is it agreed that the minister may go beyond his allotted time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If he has any more promises to make, let him go on.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I wish to conclude my remarks by referring to the fact that this is a very appropriate occasion on which to discuss the estimates of the Department of Labour, because on Monday next all Canada will pause to pay tribute to the great contribution that the labouring people of Canada have made to the development of this country, and to the great role that organized labour has played in the development of ever increasing participation by the working people of Canada in the wealth and welfare of our country.


Mr. Starr:: Mr. Chairman, in his opening remarks the Minister of Labour mentioned the fact that we have already devoted one day to the estimates of the Department of Labour, and he is quite right; one day was devoted to this subject when we discussed interim supply. However, one day may not be sufficient, in view of past experience with the estimates of this department and the fact that the Department of Labour has played

such an important part in the economy of our country in recent years. Bearing in mind previous discussions of the estimates of this department, many more days have been taken up in dealing with these estimates than perhaps those of any other department which have been brought before the committee for their approval.
It seems rather strange, Mr. Chairman, that this appears to be a new approach by this government, namely that ministers warn the House of Commons and its members that they are prepared to bring in legislation provided the promise is made that there will be no debate or that there will be debate for only one or two days. This is a condition that always seems to be placed on any needed legislation being put before the house. Then, of course, the Minister of Labour, in a mild way, reminded us of the fact that we had already spent one day on the estimates of his department when we considered interim supply. In view of the fact that we have spent only one day dealing with this matter, I believe some hon. members will wish to express their opinions with respect to the many matters that are involved in these estimates, but I hope we may be able to pass them during today's discussion.
The Minister of Labour has repeated statements he has made on previous occasions, and has pointed out with some satisfaction that employment is up, unemployment is down and there is a marked improvement in this respect. I remember very well that beginning with the year 1961 that condition began to show itself, namely that employment was rising and unemployment was showing a marked decline. When I pointed this out with some satisfaction on a number of occasions in the House of Commons, those who now claim there is a marked improvement in this connection were very critical and spent many hours pointing up the fact that unemployment was a very serious problem. Of course it still is, Mr. Chairman; because how can anyone say with a straight face that there is a marked improvement in the employment situation in this country when there were only 28,000 fewer unemployed in July of this year than there were last year?
However, as I pointed out during the discussion on interim supply, this points up a very important aspect of the employment picture in this country, in that not sufficient jobs are being created to take care of the teen agers who are entering the labour force; because in this respect the figures show an increase-I might say a marked increase, to use the same words as the minister-over
Supply-Labour
the same period last year. The Minister of Labour has not treated this as a serious matter, nor has he told us what is being done to create jobs for these teen agers who are entering our labour market.
The minister made reference to what he termed the special programs this government has introduced to deal with seasonal unemployment. Are they new programs he is talking about, Mr. Chairman? I ask this question because at the moment I can think of only one program that has met with success, and that is the winter-built homes program. Even here it remains to be seen whether success will be achieved this coming winter in the same way that the programs introduced by the previous administration in 1958, 1959 and 1961 met with success.
The other program mentioned by the Minister of Labour was the employment of older workers. It seems to me that if a program is not successful it is termed experimental. There seems to be a tendency to make statements that sound as though something is actually being done. I take as an example the Postmaster General's statement in a press release today. He said it is his intention, in co-operation with the Minister of Public Works, to help the winter unemployment situation by building a number of small post office buildings throughout Canada in designated areas. This is a program that was started back in the time this party was in office, and it met with a great deal of success. However, Mr. Chairman, an excuse is being offered in this release by saying that many of those buildings under the Post Office Department were not proceeded with because of site problems, cost and staff limitations. We also had the announcement today that some 185 locations were involved in the post office building program, subject to satisfactory arrangements being made with respect to the acquisition of suitable sites and to obtaining tenders reasonable in cost.
All this is very fine, but I would ask, in view of the failure during the past year to undertake any part of this program, whether this is only a fine sounding statement which is being put out, or will any actual developments take place as a result of the announcement. We must take things as they are presented to us and hope that some steps will be taken.
Mention has been made of the municipal winter works program, in which I realize the Minister of Labour takes great pride, as well he should. The municipal winter works program was not looked upon, when it was

Supply-Labour
first introduced in 1958-59, as something which would be of a permanent character. As a matter of fact it was looked upon as something that would fail, as a puny effort. Yet it has been a successful program in that year after year there has been a marked increase in activity and a greater participation in the program on the part of the municipalities. It is a program that is here for many years to come.
We should like to know, with regard to the experimental program for the employment of older workers, what was the total cost of this experiment. I am not critical of this program in this respect, because we are all interested in the welfare of the older workers; certainly I have been interested in them in the past. I should like to know whether the cost is so great that the experiment is not worth while. I realize that the policing of the program must be a terrible headache, and whether it can be carried out successfully in view of the stringent regulations which are applied to it is something the Minister of Labour should tell us today during the discussion of his estimates.
The minister did not touch upon a number of matters about which I think we are entitled to know, particularly matters on which action has continually been promised. We would like to know what is the state of the unemployment insurance fund and whether this fund will be sufficiently strong to carry itself in the coming winter months, or whether more loans have to be made to bolster it. What has happened to the report of the Gill commission on which the government has been sitting for over a year and a half? The only action which has been taken is the announcement that the national employment service will be transferred to the jurisdiction of the labour department; and I understand that change is now in the process of being brought about. But what has happened to the rest of the report of the Gill commission? It is a report on which the present government said they would act immediately on assuming office. Where is the labour code? The Minister says he will have a resolution on the order paper before the calendar changes to October. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre queried that and wanted to know in what year. Time has dragged on and no action has been taken in this regard.
What about the promised legislation on hours of work? What about the promised legislation on minimum wages? What has been done about these matters? Nothing has

been done to our knowledge. Certainly nothing has appeared on the order paper to show that the government wish to carry out the promises they have made. What about this most important subject now being discussed and which has been discussed for a number of years-a matter which has been looked at with some apprehension by those who may be affected-automation and technological change? We endeavoured to do something about it through the introduction of a bill in the House of Commons. We planned to call a conference between industry and labour to work out regulations and details respecting such a co-operative plan with the provinces. Today we hear that all that is being done is some research and study on the subject. Although that may be necessary, I venture the guess. that research and study of this problem has been carried to the point where some action could now be taken by the department to see whether an alleviation of this problem could be brought about.
We made a start on labour-management cooperation with the setting up of the productivity council, and I think one of its most important achievements was in being able to bring about better understanding between management and labour for the first time in the history of this country. But with the elimination of the productivity council by the government nothing further has been heard about labour-management co-operation. The meetings which used to be held under the jurisdiction of the productivity council now seem to have been discontinued altogether, and we hear no more about the worth-while effort which was made at that time.
As far as the trusteeship on the great lakes is concerned I might say that no one- at least not I-has any intention of trying to upset or interfere in the affairs of those who work on the great lakes, because I think it is necessary to bring about some peace on the great lakes in order not to jeopardize our economy. However, I am not satisfied with the manner in which trustees have proceeded, and I am far from satisfied that they have brought about a solution, in the long run, to the problems on the great lakes. It seems to me that the trustees, who were appointed as a result of the recommendations made in the Norris report, have ignored the report completely. As a matter of fact, on reading the summary of the whole situation we find that Mr. Millard never even read the Norris report; he felt he could proceed on his own.

In my opinion the trusteeship was set up because of the Norris report; indeed, one of its main recommendations was the setting up of the trusteeship. It seems to me as though the trustees are trying during their term of office to create an atmosphere on the great lakes in which there will be no disturbance of Canadian ships in United States ports. That seems to me to be their main objective. And that they have done, by whatever methods they have used to arrive at an agreement with Mr. Paul Hall, the head of the S.I.U. in the United States. It seems obvious to me that some satisfactory arrangement was made to him, because we have had no harassment of Canadian ships in United States ports during this present season.
What is going to happen when the trustees, who seem to be anxious to get rid of the undertaking that parliament gave them, move out of the picture? Is the whole situation going to revert to what it was originally? I cannot see how the problem has been solved by the trustees in any way so far as the days ahead are concerned. We read that a democratic vote is to be held, but we also read with some apprehension that those who would oppose the present incumbent in office are being shifted around to get them out of the way so they cannot participate. The trustees only act when public opinion brings these matters to their attention. Then they endeavour to rectify the situation and do so, but some doubt is left in my mind with regard to whether the trustees are really on the job and actually know what is happening.
It is fine for the trustees to say that many of the people who were associated with the former president have now atoned for their sins, have gone through purgatory and are prepared to lead a new life.


John George Diefenbaker: They have gone through a whitewash.


Michael Starr: That is all to their credit, but certainly their actions with regard to the holding of a democratic vote on the great lakes would lead me to believe they have not spent enough time in purgatory. I am worried that the trustees are too anxious to finish the job and leave the situation in the same position it was when they came into the picture. I see no reason why this will not be so, because I can see no great changes in the situation. There has been a temporary lull only, and when the trustees move out I think the situation will revert to what it was previously.
Supply-Labour
With Labour day coming on Monday, when all of us pay tribute to those who have left their mark on the Canadian labour movement, I wish to add my words to those of the Minister of Labour and say how much we appreciate those men and women in the labour force who have dedicated their lives and energy to the betterment of conditions for those people engaged in the building of our country, those engaged in the labour movement and the protection of our democratic way of life.
It is with a great deal of regret that I refer to the passing of William Jenoves who was called "Mr. Labour" in the Toronto area and who played such a tremendous part in the labour movement in Canada. He passed away recently, and I understand his funeral will be held in Toronto on Tuesday. It is men such as Billy Jenoves who have worked unselfishly in the interests of the men and women of our labour force in years gone by and who have laid a firm foundation and created a truly good reputation for the labour people of this country. To such men we are thankful, because it is through their participation and co-operation that we are now able to enjoy the Canada that we have today.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, it would be easy for me to make a speech of the labour estimates simply by referring to last year's Hansard and looking at the speeches which members made then, because really nothing of any importance has been accomplished since the minister made his introductory remarks last year and members commented upon them in discussing the labour estimates.
It was good to hear the minister say today in his concluding remarks that he expected to bring in a resolution or bill dealing with a national labour code before the end of the month. It is good to hear this, but we in this group have been hearing such statements by other Liberal cabinet ministers ever since Mackenzie King made such a statement in a speech in 1919. It is probably just as well that the hon. member for Hamilton East is not here at the moment, in that I expect he would be on his feet interrupting me as he interrupted the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre last year, because he would construe my approach as a partisan one.
In recent years members of various parties including our own have presented private members' bills calling for the provision of fair wages, a maximum work week and holidays with pay. When the Liberal party were in opposition they supported us, of course, but now they say we do not need such

Supply-Labour
legislation because the government is going to introduce a national labour code which will provide for all these things. I was glad to hear the minister say that it would at least be on the order paper before the end of the month. When the government will proceed with it is, of course, a very good question. I hope the minister will not be too surprised if I say I am from Missouri and am even a little sceptical about his promise it will be on the order paper this month.
So far as fair wages are concerned, I hope the code will provide a minimum of $1.25 an hour for all federal employees. In case the minister and other members of the house do not know it, I direct their attention to the fact that there are people working for the federal government who still do not receive that much an hour. The charwomen who clean the offices in this building are prevailing rate employees, and they are paid the munificient sum of 95 cents an hour. I wish the minister would not only bring in the new code but would also use his influence on his colleague, the President of the Privy Council, who apparently is in charge of this matter, to get him to undo the zipper on his heart and take some action for the benefit of these people. It is long overdue.
Surely it is also time something was done about establishing a maximum work week. Surely we do not have to wait for the new labour code to be introduced. The same applies to the provision of holidays with pay. Certainly we need a national labour code which will provide that everyone is entitled to holidays with pay after working for the greater part of the year, but do we need that kind of law before the government lives up to the spirit contained in such a law? Surely it is time every person working for the federal government should be protected in this way.
This includes the secretaries who work for members of parliament. They are human beings like everybody else, and are entitled to the same rights as everybody else. Since they have now been working for well over a year without holidays, surely they are entitled to holidays with pay now. I hope the rumours we have heard that treasury board has turned this down are false. If they are true, I hope treasury board will reconsider its recommendation and come forward with a favourable decision very quickly. I am sorry; I am wrong. It is the internal economy commission, and I hope they will reconsider this matter and come

in with a favourable recommendation very quickly.
I know, Mr. Chairman, that the matter of collective bargaining for government employees does not come directly or exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour. However, I want to say that personally I am very disappointed that the Liberal party, having announced several years ago that it favoured the extension of collective bargaining to federal employees, has failed to implement that promise. I recognize some of the difficulties in implementing this kind of principle. I recognize that the organizations which represent the employees overlap, and that there are large problems of detail in implementing this promise. It would seem to me, however, that the difficulties could have been and should have been overcome by now. I hope it will not be too long before the promise made by the Liberal party that federal government employees would have the right to bargain collectively with regard to wages, salaries and working conditions, will be implemented.
If this promise had been implemented, as I think it should have been by now, we would not be faced with the present hassle with regard to the salary increases recently granted to group B employees. Here we have
65.000	employees working for the government and I am told that 10,000 of those, even after the latest increases have been approved, will still make less than $3,000 annually after they reach the maximum of the salary classification to which they belong. If you take into account all those who have not reached their maximum the figure of
10.000	would probably be doubled. This means that we have clerks, typists, office equipment operators, messengers and clerical assistants who are still making less than $60 per week. I wonder how those of us who are interested in the welfare of the ordinary citizen can believe these people are able to live on any decent standard. It seems to me obvious that something ought to be done now.
I do not know whether the rumours are true to the effect that the civil service commission recommended a substantially greater increase than the government finally approved. Nor do I know whether it is true that the President of the Privy Council was one of those who opposed the increase which the civil service commission recommended. I do know that if the government had implemented its promise that civil servants would have the right to bargain collec-

tively, this kind of difficulty which we are now facing would have been overcome; because it would have been settled in the normal and proper way in which all employee problems should be settled, that is by collective bargaining.
I should like to say something very briefly Mr. Chairman, about the comments of the minister with regard to the unemployment situation, with regard to the programs which the federal government implemented for retraining and to deal with such problems as automation. I am not at all satisfied that we have licked the problem of unemployment. It is standard procedure for the old parties, when they are in opposition, to say that the rate of unemployment is too high; but when those parties become the government they say the situation is much better, that the number of unemployed is less than it was. Of course the number of unemployed is less than it was this time last year. However, the rate is still one which is of great concern, and it should be of great concern to all of us The rate at which unemployment is dropping has decreased very sharply in each month recently.
I should like to point out to the members of this committee that as respected and as conservative an economist as Dr. Firestone has predicted that unemployment will increase rather sharply in the next couple of years. I have heard nothing from the minister or from any other government spokesman which would indicate the government really has any plans for dealing with this basic problem. I think to a large extent the reduction in unemployment is an accident for which this government should not take any credit. The minister shakes his head. This is my opinion, and I feel that if we have a chance to discuss the problem in detail we can demonstrate this very clearly.
The minister referred in some detail to the programs the government has introduced to take care of retraining. Certainly we are doing more than we have done in other years, but I suggest to the minister and the government that the programs really only go a small way toward meeting the problem. It is not my intention to deal with this aspect in any detail today, but there have been some very disquieting reports in newspapers like the Toronto Star, which is not noted for its hostility to this government. These reports have referred to the large number of people who begin the training program but who drop out before their training period has been completed. They drop out because the amount
Supply-Labour
of money they are given to help them maintain themselves and their families while they are taking this training is woefully inadequate. I suggest to the minister that he give consideration to arranging for the industrial relations committee to meet so we could discuss in detail these training programs which the government has begun or is planning. We could also hear representatives from the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and other organizations interested in labour problems.
I want to deal with a question which has concerned this house for the last couple of years, Mr. Chairman, and with which the minister dealt very briefly today. I refer to the situation on the great lakes. I want to try to do this is a non-partisan way. What I say will to some extent be my own personal opinion. It is no secret that there were and are differences of opinion in all parties about what happened in the past on the great lakes, about what was done when we passed the legislation establishing the board of trustees, and about how well the trustees have succeeded in accomplishing the job entrusted to them.
I begin by saying I view with a great deal of scepticism the criticisms, comments and questions which have been raised on this issue by members of the official opposition. Listening to them one would think all the fault lies with the government, but the fact is that Mr. Banks was head of the S.I.U. of Canada for a long period of time, including the six years during which the present official opposition was the government. That government was acquainted with some of the things Mr. Banks was doing.
I remind members of the committee that on one occasion the president of one of the large shipping companies wrote to an official of the Department of Labour, Mr. Wilson, enclosing a copy of a letter from Mr. Banks in which he asked the company to ignore the provisions of Canadian labour legislation, to ignore decisions of the Canada labour relations board, and to recognize certain members of the S.I.U. as being entitled to employment even though the Canadian labour relations board had ruled these people were covered by an agreement with another union. In his letter Mr. Banks promised to indemnify the shipping company if it were sued for damages.
That was an obvious breach of the Canada Labour Relations Act but the former minister of labour, who is now sitting on the opposition benches, did nothing about it. When the

Supply-Labour
opposition talks about Mr. Banks it must accept part of the responsibility for not having taken any action while it was in power. I have noted members of the opposition patting themselves on the back because they appointed Mr. Justice Norris to inquire into the situation, but the fact is that they did not establish the Norris commission until the Canadian Labour Congress and the unions affiliated with it tied up the St. Lawrence seaway.
In discussing this matter of the great lakes I wish to say I was amazed and shocked that a member of the House of Commons, in the year 1964, would make the kind of speech which was made by the hon. member for Athabasca in the house on July 25 last. I wish to quote a couple of lines from his speech on that occasion, and members can find his words recorded on Hansard at pages 6044 to 6048. This is one of the things he said:
"I do not believe we need labour unions at all, if we do our job in this House of Commons."
There is not a democratic country in the world which does not have labour unions, which is not proud of the labour unions it has, and which does not encourage their growth; but I have not heard a single member of the hon. member's party repudiate his statement. Further on he said:
This is still a jungle and the labour bosses are
the biggest apes in the jungle__We should put
these labour bosses with criminal records out of business for five years at least.
There have been very few labour officials, let alone labour leaders, convicted of any crime in this country. Further on the hon. member enumerated some of the things of which he accused labour leaders of being guilty:
-sedition, violence upon the person, organized murder, conspiracy to maim-
I am sure hon. members in all parties who are interested in labour will agree with me when I reject completely the allegation that labour leaders in this country have been guilty of these kinds of crimes. The hon. member ought to list the number of labour leaders who have been convicted or even charged with such crimes. I say this is false and has no truth at all in it. I also say I am surprised that the former minister of labour in the Conservative government did not make mention of this when he talked about Labour day and the importance of labour.
Returning to the question of the S.I.U., I am one who voted for the legislation which established the board of trustees for the

maritime unions. I recognized then, and I recognize now, that the trustees would not have an easy job. After all, the United States government has indicated its support for as few changes as possible. The United States labour movement has supported Mr. Paul Hall and the S.I.U. of North America.
During the years Mr. Banks was in power the Canadian shipping companies, especially Canada Steamship Lines, were happy to go along with Mr. Banks to the mutual advantage of both. I recognized the fact that the legislation was a new departure and that the job of the trustees would not be easy. I was quite happy with the members who were appointed to the board. I had great respect for the contribution which Mr. Millard had made to the labour movement. I knew of Judge Lippe's activities as a successful arbiter of labour disputes, and we had heard good things about Mr. Justice Dryer.
I have not discussed this with other members of my party or members of other parties; I speak for myself alone, and I must say that I am disappointed with the progress which has been made. It is true that harassment of Canadian ships in United States ports has stopped, but I wonder how much credit the trustees can take for that. After all, there was no harassment of Canadian ships so long as Mr. Banks was in power. Harassment of Canadian ships did not start until steps were taken by the Canadian labour movement and by the government, through this legislation, to clip the wings of Mr. Banks. If all we wanted to do was stop the harassment of Canadian ships we would not have got involved in the legislation; therefore I do not give the trustees very much credit for this situation.
What else have the trustees done? Well, Mr. Banks is out. I do not know why they finally removed him from the presidency of the S.I.U. Stories in Canadian newspapers which continued until a day or two before he was removed indicated that on the whole the trustees were not unhappy with him. I do not know whether the fact that Mr. Banks apparently arranged for the tapping of the telephones of the trustees was responsible for the decision.
The point I wish to make is this. The officials who worked with Mr. Banks, the officials who were part of the conspiracy in the gangster empire he built up, are still in power. A good public relations job has been done-I do not want now to discuss who has done it-to try to convince the Canadian people that the S.I.U. was not so bad, that

Mr. Justice Norris was prejudiced, that he had exaggerated, and so on. I do not wish to repeat what Mr. Justice Norris said about Mr. McLaughlin, Mr. Heinekey and Mr. Swait, because members of this committee who are interested will have read the Norris report. I wish to quote just a couple of paragraphs from the Globe and Mail of May 2, 1964 under the heading "Court found It Impossible to Believe Testimony of Banks". This is a summary of the judgment by Judge Wagner, now attorney general of the province of Quebec, the judge who sentenced Mr. Banks to five years in prison. I want to read a couple of paragraphs to make clear what Judge Wagner had to say about Mr. McLaughlin.
Leonard (Red) McLaughlin, SIU vice president and heir apparent to the union presidency under the federal trusteeship-Judge Wagner described him as Banks' trusted adviser and the man who endeavoured to come to Bank's rescue during the trial. He referred to Richard Greaves' evidence that McLaughlin in August, 1957, "has appeared with the daily report referring to the doings of Capt. Walsh" and said this was the signal of an explosion.
"The court wishes to state that it entertains very little regard for the conduct in this respect of Mr. McLaughlin who more than any other member of the union was familiar with the sentiments of the man at the top," the Judge said.
"This Mr. McLaughlin in his testimony before the court gave us the definite impression that he was bent on favouring the accused by attempting to minimize the motives which had prompted the beating of Capt. Walsh."
I could go on, but I think this indicates clearly that Judge Wagner at least shared the sentiments of Mr. Justice Norris with regard to Mr. McLaughlin. Yet the trustees have obviously decided that despite the voluminous testimony relating to Mr. McLaughlin and other top officials of the S.I.U. of Canada they should be permitted-indeed, I would go further and say that in my opinion they are being encouraged-to continue as leaders of the union. Speaking for myself-and I wish to make it clear I am speaking only for myself-may I say that if the total accomplishment by the passage of the legislation establishing the board of trustees will be the removal of Mr. Banks as president of the S.I.U.; if this is to be the total accomplishment which we shall see from the trustees, then I for one shall be sorry I voted for the legislation setting up this board.
I know the trustees have been faced with a difficult task. It may be that I am wrong. It may be they have done a great deal more than we know about. I hope the minister can prevail on the trustees to come to Ottawa and appear before the industrial relations
Supply-Labour
committee, not next November or December or in January of 1965, but now. They should appear now, because if they are doing a job as claimed this is the place where they can tell us what they are doing.
I wish to mention some of the questions I should like-


Lucien Lamoureux: I have to interrupt the hon. member because his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


Lucien Lamoureux: Does the committee give unanimous consent for the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Orlikow: Just five minutes. I should like to know from the trustees why union elections are being held now. I have carefully examined the constitution of the S.I.U. of Canada, and I suggest the Minister of Labour should do the same. I read it in the presence of one of the most eminent labour lawyers in Canada.


An hon. Member:: Mr. Lewis?


David Orlikow: Not Mr. Lewis. As I read the constitution, the election should not have been held until 1965. I suggest to the Minister of Labour and to the trustees that if they wish to develop the democratic forces of the S.I.U. the constitutional provisions calling for elections in 1965 should have been adhered to, so there might have been another year for the rank and file democratic, clean forces to develop and organize. It seems to me that what you have now is an election as between two slates of officers each intimately connected with the Banks machine.
I should like to know why the do not ship list is in fact still being enforced at the present time, despite all the protestations of the trustees that the list was destroyed and no longer exists. A number of people have applied for readmission to the S.I.U., people who were placed on the do not ship list. They applied to the board of trustees, and my information is that they were referred to Commodore Robertson who heads the appeal committee set up by Mr. Banks and continued by the trustees.
A number of people, 25 or more, have applied for readmission. In the last issue of the Canadian Sailor published by the S.I.U. under the supervision of the board of trustees there appears a report by Commodore Robertson on his work. He lists the people who have applied for readmission and the disposition of their cases. One of those who applied for readmission was a Mr. Carmel

Supply-Labour
Deguire. Mr. Deguire was turned down by Commodore Robertson on the ground that he could not prove his membership in the S.I.U. and that the S.I.U. of Canada has no record of his membership. Mr. Chairman, Mr. De-guire's name appeared on a do not ship list which was filed with the Norris commission as exhibit 0-269 and attested to by Mr. Banks on the witness stand as being a correct extract from the do not ship list.
Similarly, Mr. Chairman, a Mr. Ken Lewis was turned down on the ground that there was no record that he had been a member of the S.I.U. Mr. Lewis' name also appears on the do not ship list in exhibit 0-269. The transcript of the evidence which Mr. Justice Norris heard and all the material which was filed with Mr. Justice Norris is under the supervision and control of Mr. Justice Dryer and the trustees. Aren't they interested? Don't they care? Aren't they going to take the trouble to look at what those exhibits show?
Here is another man, Mr. Donald Swan. He appealed to Commodore Robertson for readmission to the S.I.U. Commodore Robertson turned him down, and I quote from his report which is published in The Canadian Sailor, which says that the applicant was unable to produce evidence of membership and, further, that the S.I.U. could not trace membership.
If the Minister of Labour will take the trouble to look at the report of Mr. Justice Norris, the second part entitled "Schedule", at page 569, in a section of about 20 pages which lists people whose names appeared on the do not ship list, he will find the name of Donald Swan. How much more, I ask, do the board of trustees need?
Then there is David Bath, who applied for readmission and was turned down on the same ground by Commodore Robertson. His name appears at page 537 of the Norris report. Here is a really difficult one. A Mr. Henry Ranta appealed for readmission to the S.I.U. and was turned down on the ground that the applicant was unable to produce evidence of membership in the S.I.U. Well, Mr. Chairman, his name appears on page 564 of the Norris report. It may be that Commodore Robertson and the trustees have difficulty in this instance because instead of his name being spelled "Ranta" it is spelled "Ranto". I realize there is a tremendous difference between "Ranta" and "Ranto" and intelligent people who read might have difficulty in making that connection.
I do not wish to take up the time of the committee, Mr. Chairman; I think I have

indicated enough to show that there is a great deal which the trustees need to look at and which in my opinion and in the opinion of many others they have not yet looked at.
I wish to close by referring to just one other case. This concerns a Mr. John Wood, a former official-I think a vice president-of the S.I.U. of Canada. He was expelled-he was not on the do not ship list-after one of the kangaroo court trials which the S.I.U. was so prone to hold under Mr. Banks. Mr. John Wood tried to get back to work. After all, like the rest of us, he has to eat. After he failed in various other ways he wrote to the president pro tern, Mr. Charles Turner, asking for permission to go back to work. Mr. Turner wrote a letter to Mr. Wood, and in this connection I might say I am personally ashamed that any official of a trade union would write such a letter. The Minister of Labour knows about this letter because I sent him a copy. He said to Mr. Wood, in effect, "Yes, we will let you go back to work under certain conditions".
What were those conditions, Mr. Chairman? I wish to just read a couple of them. One was that Mr. Wood would tender to the union, in a form suitable to S.I.U. counsel, an agreement not to participate in union affairs, and another was that he would not engage in activities hostile or harmful to the status of the union and its international in any areas of union interest. In other words "You can come back to work if you keep your mouth shut and never do anything to disturb the status quo; never say anything that will get members of the S.I.U. to vote for somebody other than Mr. McLaughlin" and the rest of the thugs who are still in control of the S.I.U.
I wrote a letter to Mr. Justice Dryer asking him if this was not a violation of the provisions of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. I had no answer except an acknowledgment. There may be a legal question as to whether this action comes within the provisions of that act. But, Mr. Chairman, how can any reasonable person, how can the board of trustees justify this action in any way on the basis of equity or justice?
I hope the board of trustees will appear before the industrial relations committee next week and give us information which will indicate that the things I have said and which other members have said are wrong. I want to say now that if they do; if they can show they have done the work which was entrusted to them in accordance with the pro-

visions of the act, and have done the things which I think they have not done, I will be the first to commend them and to apologize for making the kind of speech I have made today. However, I say that until they do that -and the sooner they do it the better, and I would again urge on the Minister of Labour that he appeal to them to come before the industrial relations committee quickly-I for one am, to say the least, disappointed with the job they have done. I do not believe they have moved quickly enough or that they have dealt with the basic problems that were with us when we discussed the legislation which the minister proposed and voted for the establishment of the board of maritime trustees.


Mr. Lessard (Lake Si. John):: Mr. Chairman, the estimates of the Department of Labour are rather interesting, because they enable us to deal with extremely sensitive points of our economy, especially with one which is now giving rise to most of the problems and requires most of our attention, unemployment.
When the minister introduced his estimates, he pointed out the progress made during the past year in that particular field.
Of course, we can only be delighted with him at the progress generally accomplished by our economy and as a result of which unemployment has been considerably reduced throughout the country.
However, Mr. Chairman, we must recognize that even though the situation has improved in certain parts of the country, it remains that in the province of Quebec and in the maritime provinces, unemployment is still a nightmare. Indeed, hundreds of thousands of workers are unemployed and have to rely only on unemployment insurance and social assistance benefits to provide for their needs.
For a few years, we have noticed on many occasions that in certain areas, unemployment seems to be a more serious problem than elsewhere in the country.
Last year, when the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen), together with the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury), decided to designate in our country areas which would receive special attention from the government, we witnessed the recognition by the government of a regional problem. In fact, the government recognized implicitly that our unemployment was regional in character and that the solutions which had to be applied had to be based on the fact that it was a regional situation. Solutions could no longer be applied from
Supply-Labour
coast to coast. A solution taking into account regional characteristics was needed.
Of course, when those areas were designated, like several others 1 was a little disappointed to see the yardstick which had been followed to designate them.
We therefore have made representations to the effect that other criteria be used when the list of those designated areas is revised.
I hope that the Minister of Labour, in cooperation with the Minister of Industry, will be able to say, when a decision is announced in this regard, that he has taken into account the representations and remarks we have made, and I hope the decision will be to everyone's satisfaction.
However, we must admit that the designation of those areas has not solved the problem entirely. Even if the Minister of Industry did state that in 23 out of 35 areas, new industries had been established, we are nevertheless deploring the fact that it has been many years now since a new industry has settled in the Saguenay area. I can only draw the attention of the minister on this very special situation in my area.
I believe that the activities of the area development agency, which I admit, is under the Department of Industry, but in which the Minister of Labour is surely interested, should be enlarged. It should be given more definite work to do because, in my opinion, this area development agency offers real possibilities for bringing solutions to the problems.
At this time, I should like to strongly urge the Minister of Labour to put pressure on his colleague the Minister of Industry, and stress the point with him so that this agency might be given more latitude and a very definite policy, in short a certain authority in that field which apparently is going to be given to it.
A while ago, the minister mentioned the large technical training program, the vocational training schools, as they are called. That program was introduced in 1960 and 1961 by the previous government.
Of course, we must be all satisfied with that favourable development. But I sometimes wonder whether we really consider the problem as a whole, since as late as last week, I had an opportunity to read the report of an American sociologist who had carried a detailed investigation on the future implications of general automation and mechanization in industry.
That same sociologist claims that in the next 50 years, workers will have to change trade or profession at least four times. I

Supply-Labour
think that is a phenomenon which will certainly cause a great upheaval in the general labour situation and in the economy, and which will create tremendous social problems.
It will not be easy for a man who worked in a precise field for ten years and who made all the necessary sacrifices in order to get the technical know-how required in his trade, to qualify in a new field, since the work for which he had qualifications no longer exists.
I feel that if we contemplate the development of manpower in this light, we will have to prepare today the education of future workers, and to prepare it at school, in order to give them a sufficient basis to enable them to acquire very quickly the varied knowledge they will need to cope with the economic development of their future work.
Of course, all that illustrates the need for labour in order to achieve production.
I cannot help thinking of some of the ideas advocated by Social Credit supporters on this question of labour requirement versus production. I must say that, in time, it will be proved that this first idea was good and justified. I think that some of the solutions which have been advocated will have to be applied.
We produce for consumption. Man does not work merely for the pleasure of working; he works in order to obtain the things he needs. If, in future, automation allows us to produce without resorting to labour, I think that we will have to reconsider all our economic, financial, monetary and social philosophy, which will have to undergo far reaching changes.
I would now like, Mr. Chairman, to refer to the winter works program. The minister mentioned earlier today the thousands of man days made possible by this program. Obviously, when I refer to the discussions which took place in 1957 and 1958, when the project was launched by the former government, I can only laugh to myself when recalling the objections from the Liberal benches with regard to that project, when they were still in the opposition. And now that they are in office, they seem to find this formula a successful one, which makes me smile. When in opposition, people have not the same ideas than when they sit on the treasury benches with regard to the same legislative program.
That concept was a happy one under the circumstances, but considering that the great majority of Canadians want to be sincere in this field, it remains that this is only a porary measure, a poultice, so to speak, and that, in the end, the unemployment problem
[Mr. Lessard (Lake St. John) .1
has not been solved. Indeed, I believe that this formula to encourage winter employment should be entirely reconsidered, because it has become a permanent measure.
If this program designed to alleviate winter unemployment is to be made a permanent fixture, I think it should be established in such a way as to be applicable only to works considered useful, since fantastic amounts are paid to carry them out. In my opinion, it would be logical that this program be reconsidered so that instead of being a winter works program only, it will be a program of year-round municipal works, so that the country and its people can draw the maximum benefits possible, considering the sums invested.
We must all recognize the geographical situation of our country.
The climate in which we live, the millions of dollars we spend during December, January and February to carry out certain municipal works, must be considered. Since these are all municipal works requiring social capital, I believe that 50 per cent of this money is at present being spent unwisely. Moreover, the municipalities cannot do otherwise because of the public pressure they have to bear. In my opinion, the government has given up one of its greatest responsibilities, shifting it upon public managers, our small municipalities. It merely said to the municipalities: You will solve the unemployment problem.
Of course, the municipalities can contribute, but I believe that at this time the full responsibility is put on their shoulders in that field, We put them in a kind of strait-jacket, in the sense that they must complete such works during the period provided for winter works. We make their task doubly difficult, on top of the fact that they are unable to carry out works they feel necessarily useful, sound and suitable. Unfortunately, they are compelled by public opinion, due to pressures brought to bear by citizens, to undertake works that are not always justified.
I believe that, at present, our municipalities are piling up debts while we are squandering public funds by carrying out projects which do not serve, in any way, the general interest of the country.
I suggest that Canada, if it wishes to achieve a reasonable economic status, cannot-in view of its population, its economic position and the burden of its present debt-afford to invest one single dollar of its future credit in an uneconomic project. This is implying a lot, as I believe we are obviously making an

uneconomic investment, and we have practically had to make it for five years. I would even say that, for more than five years, we have invested hundreds of millions in uneconomic municipal works.
I maintain that Canada cannot afford this luxury any more.
We must use all our past, present and future savings, as well as all our credit, for investments in productive fields. We must produce.
Services are not the most desirable thing, at the present time, in the country. We certainly need services, but what we need most, is to develop the field of production, and unless we make such change in our philosophy, we shall continue to face the same economic problem, for that problem is linked with unemployment. The present rate of unemployment may well decrease in a given year, but it will inevitably rise acutely subsequently. An economist forecast recently a forthcoming and quite marked increase in unemployment in this country. This is very encouraging.
I wonder whether we are not in the process of hiding our heads in the sand by encouraging the winter works program in fields which do not create any jobs or production, in fields where investments cannot be recovered.
In saying this, I am thinking of something in particular. In carrying out works under the winter works legislation, productive municipal investments in such fields should be authorized. Obviously the government is unable to create jobs everywhere, to build plants in all sections of the country to create production, but if the government allowed municipalities, within the framework of the winter works formula, to build plants or buildings that could be sublet to small organizations able to undertake some production, I believe this would be a step forward. There are many people with imaginative ideas, who could undertake the production of some articles we presently import; unfortunately, they cannot afford to tie down large sums in a building at the present time. If such a formula were adopted, and if municipalities were allowed to erect buildings they could sublet at so much per square foot to such organizations, I believe that part of our investments could be recovered. We could thus hope to offset the steady increase in our imports.
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I would like, within the framework of the winter works program, to make a remark on another small problem our municipalities are facing.
Supply-Labour
This small problem, in the end, becomes a major one. When our municipalities undertake winter works, they start by borrowing. Why? In order to finance those works until both federal and provincial subsidies are paid. Since the works start in November and are completed in April, municipalities have to bear this rather heavy burden for six months. I am told that the federal and provincial governments have not yet paid all the money to municipalities for works completed last year. As a result, municipalities must finance the entire cost of winter works for a whole year, and in the long run, after six or seven years, this burden is beginning to be heavily felt in the budgets of our municipalities and to such an extent that I think the saturation point has been reached. Our municipalities will soon be unable to continue to operate under the winter works program.
Last year, Quebec had a remarkable year, but I think that next year there will be a tremendous reduction. Such a reduction or a decrease would neither reflect a lack of needs nor full employment, but the impossibility for administrators to find the necessary financial means for those projects. The only solution would be an increase of municipal taxes which are already excessively high. It is generally known in Quebec as in other provinces that municipal and federal taxes have considerably increased. We are bound to draw the following conclusion: If municipal and school taxes had to be boosted, it was in direct proportion to the increase in municipal expenses under the winter works program. That formula was good up to a certain point but it was only a temporary solution, and I think its best years are over. I feel it will have to be replaced by a more adequate formula. Otherwise, Mr. Chairman, we will find ourselves in the same situation as in 1957-58 when we had three quarters of a million unemployed, if not more, in Canada.
I should like to deal with another point, the $500 bonus for wintertime house construction. The minister seemed quite happy with the apparent results. I say "apparent" because I cannot do otherwise than think that the houses built in winter will reduce summer construction. That is self-evident. Therefore, it means that in the course of a whole year there will not be one house built in excess of those which would have normally been built. I wonder on what evidence the minister has based his statement that the $500 winter house construction incentive has increased the number of houses built.

Supply-Labour
I think the increase is entirely due to normal growth and had nothing to do with this $500 incentive; the only reason is that there was a need for so many family units. Unless you want to build houses which will remain unoccupied, there is no logical reason to state that that grant contributed to the increase in the number of houses built. Statistics will show that the number of family units built in a year will decrease within a certain period of time.
Now, still about the bonus, I wonder just how fair it is. I have a brother who built himself a house last year. He could not benefit from this $500 subsidy, but if I were to build myself a home this winter, I could get it. How can the minister maintain that this is fair and just? After all, that amount of $500 was taken from the pockets of Canadian taxpayers through the levy of taxes in general. Is this really fair? It may have encouraged housing construction over a longer period and a spread over a 12 month rather than an eight month period, but that program does not change the problem at all and in no way increases the number of days or hours of work in the building industry. I had a look at the results it was able to achieve in the Saguenay area, and I could prove to you that those houses built during the winter were merely projects which would have been carried out in summer and were undertaken a few months ahead of time.
Therefore, not a single additional hour of work was provided by this formula in the area. I believe the same thing goes for many other regions.
Another matter I should like to deal with is unemployment insurance. In our capacity as members of parliament, we are in some way the father-confessors of people who come to us with their problems. In regard to unemployment insurance, I must in all fairness pay tribute to the majority of the employees of that department, especially to those of the local office in my riding, for the manner in which they discuss things over with those who consult them.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, there is a rather sensitive point I would like to deal with. Workers are not lawyers in general. It would be uncommon to find lawyers among them. Therefore, they do not know how the act is applied. They cannot interpret all the regulations of an act and I would even say that the great majority of workers know nothing about the Unemployment Insurance Act.

Obviously, the government should not be blamed for that, and I do not intend to blame them. Nevertheless, I wonder whether it could not be possible to undertake some program to educate the working class through unions, the employment office or unemployment insurance offices. I wonder also whether or not a way could be found to publish a pamphlet summing up in language workers would easily understand, how the act is applied, what are their actual rights and how they can assert them. The procedure to be followed in connection with the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act could then be explained to them in a simplified manner. For my part, I have read two or three times the Unemployment Insurance Act and I must admit that it is not easy to understand its clauses. Therefore, as is the case with any other act, it is hard to interpret.
It refers us from one section to another and finally we have to read three sections at the same time to try to understand part of a section.
In short, it is extremely complicated, and that is why the worker does not understand the act and does not try to understand it in many cases. Consequently, I wonder if the government could not undertake an advertising campaign along the lines I suggested.
What happens, Mr. Chairman, is that the worker who applies for unemployment insurance benefits is unaware of the basic conditions required and fills his application in a way that disqualifies him completely. Two or three weeks later, he receives a letter telling him that he is not eligible for such and such a reason. Of course, he goes to the unemployment office and says: That is not what I meant. And he is answered: But that is what you said.
Thus, because he did not understand the law and was unable to interpret it, the worker is disqualified, sometimes after having paid his unemployment insurance contributions during quite a long period of time.
A case has even come to my knowledge where a man who had paid his contributions to the unemployment insurance fund since its creation was disqualified the first time he applied for benefits. He had paid his contributions through the years, ever since the operation of unemployment insurance, but he was unable to get insurance benefits because, in his application, he made a statement which simply disqualified him.
In short, Mr. Chairman, it seems that one has to be either a lawyer, to know the legisla-

tion and use it, or a liar and be able to get away with giving a more or less honest answer to the questions that the officials of unemployment insurance offices ask, as they have to-I do not blame the officials for asking those question; they have a job to do and that is their responsibility-because of the drafting of those questions and because of the situation in which the worker who is not used to report to offices finds himself. That is how it happens that the worker gives answers which disqualify him.
That is why I ask the Minister of Labour whether it would not be possible to undertake an education program concerning the applications for unemployment insurance benefits.
Mr. Chairman, that was about all the remarks I had to make on the estimates of the Department of Labour.
To sum it up, I should like to point out to the minister that there is still much to be done in that field to meet general requirements.
I think that improvements have been made. The minister indicated that there is a labour code being prepared and that very soon, we will have to discuss a revision of the whole labour legislation.
This is of course a very complex field. We must take into consideration quite a large number of economic or psychological factors. But I think it would be a good thing if the government, as soon as possible and with the co-operation of all organizations involved, were to see to it that this code which will govern the administration of labour legislation within the framework of federal jurisdiction is drafted in clearer terms.


Mr. Perron:: Mr. Chairman, my remarks on the estimates of the Department of Labour will be brief.
First I want to congratulate the minister for the huge task he has achieved.
I know that he endeavours with all his might to solve problems which today are facing the whole country, and other nations as well. Indeed, the labour problem is one which requires a more and more serious and thorough study, so that definite solutions might be found, which seems impossible within the present structure of our economic and political system.
I know that various programs have been developed, especially in the last ten years, to solve the problem of winter unemployment. By various publicity campaigns and the application of some legislation, there have been endeavours to remedy as far as possible the plague of winter unemployment.
Supply-Labour
There were agreements made with the provinces to promote winter works at the municipal level. This experience has been going on for a few years.
Several municipalities experienced this method and they have come to the conclusion that this was certainly not the most efficient formula, because it created rather complicated financial problems for them. Some municipalities no longer dare resort to this method to help their people, because they encounter too many complications and the burden in the final analysis falls on the shoulders of taxpayers, and property owners, in turn, complain that this situation is not for the best.
Of course, they tried another formula, last year, in order to encourage home building.
They maintain, according to the report that was issued, that out of 32,000 applications, more than 24,000 were accepted, whereby the owners building during the December-March period qualified for the $500 bonus. I am wondering whether they can really boast about the efficiency of the $500 bonus. I am sure that out of the 32,000 applications, thousands of homes would have been built during the winter, even without this legislation. Employment possibilities may have been increased or facilitated, but I do not believe it was really a performance to boast about as regards the solving of the winter employment problem.
On the other hand, in the field of home building, it must be admitted that, during the summer, according to builders and suppliers of building materials, there has been a decline in the building of private homes compared to the increases of the past years, because the demand is being held down not by the lack of a real need for new homes, but by the financing capabilities of various institutions established in order to assist in the building of homes, such as the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and of the prospective owners themselves.
Therefore, it cannot be said that those palliatives are a solution to the problem we have to face, and which will become more and more difficult, if we go on, in the context of today's economy, linking the rights of the consumers, and of human beings to obtain the essentials of life-like food, clothing, housing and even those things that are considered a luxury in certain cases-to the sole criteria of work. Those days are gone forever.
Automation was briefly mentioned by the Minister of Labour, when he said that he will make another statement later today on

Supply-Labour
the subject. As regards this problem which baffles us today, economists serving the presidents or economic organizations in the United States alleged, a lew months ago, in a statement to the press, as well as in recommendations to the American congress, that automation should be studied in a concrete and precise manner, because the American economy will have to meet problems still more serious than the post-war ones.
We are going through a century of rapid development, where production techniques are forced upon us to such an extent that we sometimes hardly know where to turn to find a solution. In order to do this, we try enacting legislation, for instance with regard to the rehabilitation of the unemployed by technical training, but people do not seem to realize that, in the twentieth century, it becomes increasingly possible to produce essential goods, services and even modern comfort while liberating more and more people from manual labour.
The tendency is rather to multiply the positions, to try and create new jobs by all possible means, while more and more efforts should be made to free human beings, in this technical age which can produce faster and better, with the quick production we experienced in the twentieth century, besides meeting human needs.
It is mostly along those lines that the remarks I intend to make must be considered.
Our universities now graduate experts in the fields of space development, technical methods and applications, in all production fields. Even large corporations, the powerful economic interests, under the leadership of private enterprise, hire experts, pay bonuses to their own employees in order to find solutions likely to improve the means of production in their own plants. This will necessarily bring about after a few years, when those suggestions are implemented, the dismissal of their own fellow workers.
Under the pressure of labour unions, working hours have been reduced. As recently as 25 or 30 years ago, the labour class had still to work 60 or 65 hours a week, while today the burden of factory workers has been reduced by approximately 50 per cent, as far as working hours are concerned.
The same thing happens in the field of farm production. Through commercial farms, the setting up of larger and larger farms, new production techniques are continually developed. In that same field, production techniques were also developed by all kinds of technical, scientific and progressive proce-
[Mr. Perron.)
dures in order to free human beings from work.
Therefore, I wonder whether the time has not come for the Minister of Labour to ask the government to set up a commission especially instructed, in co-operation with other departments, to seek the development of programs that would provide, not full employment, but especially security for all, a well thought-out security, consistent with the tremendous production capacity of this country.
We are fortunate in having as neighbour a country where science and modern techniques are developed to the highest possible level. We, in Canada, have access to the scientific know-how of that country. Our young nation, Canada, with a population of barely 20 million people, with almost infinitely diversified resources, in the ground and underground, with an industrious population, as we proved it during the last war, had no unemployment problem during the years 1939-45. All those who were able to fill some kind of a job, civilian or military, were given work. There was no problem. There was no need to set up a Senate committee made up of members of parliament to study the ill effects of unemployment in Canada during those years.
So now, in peacetime, is it not abnormal to find such a large number of people deprived of the necessaries of life for lack of a job, while warehouses throughout the country are overflowing with consumer goods?
I suggest, therefore, that we must turn to solutions other than devices such as winter works as applied to housing or post office construction throughout Canada.
I do not think this can really provide us with a worth-while solution to deal with the problem now facing the Canadian parliament and hundreds of thousands of Canadians.
Time and time again, during those last ten years when the two governments have been in office, we have been given statistical data on unemployment.
Let us examine the unemployment figures for Canada. Quebec still leads the rest of the country with over 100,000 unemployed, and this in a province claiming to be in full development, supposedly going through a quiet revolution, in short, in a province where some ministers are paying lip service to cooperative federalism.
No solution has really been found to the problem of poverty amid plenty, to the problem of workers who are unemployed today.

Whether it be through lack of technical training, the trained or untrained unemployed is nevertheless a human being who, in many cases, is head of a family, with three, four, five mouths to feed; he does not believe in those far fetched formulas causing him to be idle over the last ten or 15 years, from the end of the war until now.
Is it not time a social security program were considered, conceived and implemented, in order to meet the needs of the Canadian people, in accordance with the opportunities provided by the economic potential of Canada?
Mr. Chairman, there is not a single minister or hon. member here who sincerely wonders whether, in six or 12 months from now, we will have enough consumer goods to meet the needs of a population of 18 or 19 million. Nobody worries about that because we are all convinced of our tremendous production potential and, at the same time, of our possibilities in the field of foreign trade. In fact, we can easily sell to other countries the consumer goods we produce, but nobody worries about our surpluses in various fields.
Yet, Mr. Chairman, in spite of the efforts made by all of us here to find solutions to our present problems, thousands of Canadians are wary about the future and wonder if we will be able to meet our obligations, considering the lack of employment opportunities in our industries. In fact, it must be remembered that numerous Canadian workers are being laid off on account of new production techniques.
In the province of Quebec, certain plants which formerly employed 800 to 1,000 people can now double their output with a staff of 300 only.
Of the 600 or 700 people who were laid off, there are maybe 300 or 400 who have been able to get new jobs because of new needs but the 200 or 300 others remain unemployed. The latter may get temporary employment for four or five months in the year. In fact, many of Quebec's unemployed work four or five months a year because they are unable to find jobs which would keep them busy all year round.
As was pointed out by the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Lessard), all possible efforts are being made, in certain quarters, to find answers to those problems through very complex laws, and it is thought that the needs of the unemployed are thus being met. Perhaps those efforts would be successful if it were not necessary in this field, to cope with reserve funds that are always depleted and
Supply-Labour
have to be bolstered by yearly $50 million grants by the Canadian government. It seems that we try, as far as possible, to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds, as the party in office is wont to do.
Attempts are made to save money and to prevent abuses by those who are not entitled or who would be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits, by passing complicated laws, and by creating situations whereby the applicants practically disqualify themselves from unemployment insurance benefits.
Formalities are getting more complicated than ever and investigations upon investigations are being made. At first attempts are made to obtain and even to suggest to some extent an answer from the person being investigated.
The unemployed is asked whether he would like to work in his own locality to which he answers "yes", which is quite normal. So, it is jotted down on his card that he wishes to work in his own locality.
Subsequently, a suggestion is made to him, and the answer to the following question is practically put in his mouth: "What salary would you accept? About $40 or $50 a week?" The applicant of course will not reply: "I am prepared to work for $18 or $20 a week". He will say: "Yes, $45 or $50 a week would be fine".
And then, after two or three weeks, he receives a notice to the effect that his application was rejected under section 52 of the Unemployment Insurance Act because he has stated that he would work only in his own locality. Of course he can appeal to the court of referees; he is even entitled to secure counsel, but at his own expense. More often than not, the poor labourer does not know anything about the numerous regulations which today are no longer a summary of the act as it was passed and which has been consolidated in 10, 12 and even 15 volumes. In fact, the act is so complicated that unemployment officers have to get legal advice in order to interpret every section of the act or its regulations which today are consolidated in a certain number of volumes and which baffle the layman.
Then the poor unemployed gets a notice of suspension because his eligibility to unemployment insurance benefits is limited since he stated that he wanted to work in his own locality.
Four weeks go by and then another reason is found to refuse him benefits. It is claimed that he limited his employment opportunities by requesting a higher salary than the average salary paid in his locality or region,

Supply-Labour
since he stated that he wanted $45, $50 or $60 a week. A way is found to stop his benefits again for another period. And when that is not done, he is offered a low paid job so that, in most cases, after paying some essential expenses out of the weekly salary he could earn in a given locality in his region or county, he would not even be left with $18 or $20 a week.
He is offered a job which, because of the cost or the lack of transportation will require him to keep two homes, that is his home in his locality and room and board which will cost him $25, $30 or even $40; in the end, that job will bring him much less than the unemployment insurance benefits he is entitled to and would normally get. And we are satisfied with increasing the complexity of the various existing acts or to pass new ones.
Much was made of the winter works program and the great number of jobs it would create but we seem to forget today that there are between 250,000 and 300,000 summer unemployed in Canada. As I said many times, summer unemployment, just like winter unemployment, is a serious problem which creates hardship within the family.
Those unemployed people are unable to provide for their family's essential needs. Therefore, is it not about time for us to face the unemployment problem from another angle and to consider employment as a means to cope with abundance, to solve the private or public charity problem or the distress problem, at a time when want and insecurity which are prevailing in many Canadian homes are not due to the lack of production of consumers' goods or of services meant for Canadian citizens?
Mr. Chairman, it is often said that "one must live by the sweat of one's brow". But when the bread is on the table, when it is delivered to our homes, I am wondering whether enough sweat was not accumulated already to enable the human being to eat this bread at least with a little dignity.
Is not the real purpose of production to meet human needs? Also, is not the real function of industry, that of creating employment or producing adequate quantities of goods to satisfy human needs?
Let us stop requiring private enterprise and crown corporations to create employment, since the real function of any human activity should be to allow human beings to live in dignity within society.
We could even make a comparison on this subject. If a man who owned five dogs gave them only one bone to chew on, we can well

imagine the most tremendous dog-fight ever seen. The same situation applies to human beings. Why attempt to create jobs, why centre upon the finding of jobs all our efforts to solve the problem of insecurity in Canada, when work should not necessarily be considered nowadays as essential to ensure adequate production.
If the human mind succeeded in developing methods of producing more easily and more quickly the goods necessary, not only to meet our essential needs, but also to provide comfort to the Canadian people in this twentieth century, those goods should serve a useful purpose.
Our universities have found a way to produce scientists who have not only conquered space but who also know a lot of other things. But the same universities failed to form economists able to set up a system of social security which would meet the needs of human beings.
The field of economics includes also financial and monetary matters, and it is said: "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread". In this regard, economists have become theologians and, for 35 or 40 years, those theologians have tormented us with this sentence: "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread".
Yesterday, I read in the newspapers of the province of Quebec a letter from the Canadian bishops warning legislators and those who look after the problem of labour management relations to prepare for tomorrow a social security program for the Canadian people and not merely create jobs, because automation is here and we must face it seriously in order to improve the situation for the years to come.
If to manage one must anticipate, I feel that it is time more than ever for the minister to urge his colleagues, especially the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh), to set up a commission which would prepare plans for the uplifting of human beings, by enabling them to benefit more widely from our wealth, instead of being offered a stopgap. It is imperative to set up a commission which will plan for the years to come the distribution of wealth to each and every Canadian citizen.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to go into detail respecting the estimates of this department; the hon. member for Ontario, a former minister of labour and a successful one, dealt and has already given a general outline. However, there are

one or two observations that I would make with respect to the general position of unemployment. I recall, when hon. gentlemen opposite were sitting over here, how often the very walls of this chamber shook with the condemnation that was heaped on us because there was unemployment.
They promised an end of unemployment. They promised a new heaven and a new earth in the field of human relations. The minister now gives a statement to the committee in which he has to admit grudgingly that the problem of unemployment has been little improved in the last year and a half; and in that year and a half there has been an expansion, as there was during the days we were in office from 1961 on, when our policies started to work. Those policies which were condemned by the hon. gentlemen who sit opposite, now having been adopted by them, become the cornerstones of the economic development of this country.
They have brought into effect one or two measures-one of which I shall refer to-to meet the unemployment problem; but generally speaking they have taken no action whatsoever in this connection. The legislation placed on the statute books between 1957 and 1963, including the vocational training schools act, has been carried on. Despite an economic improvement in North America, we still have a very large measure of unemployment. We were told they had the solution. No longer does it appear in the press as being a serious problem, despite the fact that hundreds of thousands are still unemployed.
Those who sit in the front benches today had the answers during the period 1957 to 1963. It was folly, they said, on our part to compare unemployment in Canada with that in the United States, where the same situation prevailed, where unemployment ran very high, and where, despite all the efforts of economists and leaders in government, unemployment mounted and was approximately on the same level as Canada's, with the exception of course that we have peculiar and serious climatic conditions in the winter.
They were unable to place before you, Mr. Chairman, anything which they had done; they merely adopted the policies of the former government which they had condemned. I am not going to go into the pegging of the dollar, but I can never forget the counterfeit currency which was distributed across Canada to indicate a serious economic condition in Canada and to draw attention to the claim that what we had done was detrimental
Supply-Labour
to the country. Today it is the cornerstone. The heresy of yesterday is the Liberal orthodoxy of today in this connection.
Now, what has the government done? True enough, there has been economic change for the better in North America. One has only to read the United States press. There has been a very considerable economic development in the last year and a half. But we have problems which this government refuses to face. They are problems which must be faced if the question of employment is to be met and assured and Canada's national growth is to continue. These problems face us and we find our trade position with imports exceeding exports. With bankruptcies greater than they have been for many years, with agriculture, at least in the central and maritime provinces, suffering very severely and thereby detrimentally affecting not only our economy but also the employment situation, the government spends its time trying to secure passage of a resolution to provide for a flag. Last night they had the opportunity to bring in legislation, which is not ready and has not been prepared, but they chose to vote against being given that opportunity.
One matter which was boasted about was the $500 bonus for winter building. We are told that was a success. We are told that it brought unusual development, and therefore jobs. We have said it was not a success. We have said that what it actually did was to transfer building construction from one part of the year to another, to the detriment of the consumer or householder. I should like to quote as a supporting witness in this connection the hon. member for York East. He is an experienced builder. He was of those, along with the hon. member for Essex South, who in a recent television program revealed their thinking, exposed their hearts and spoke with frankness. I should like to refer to what the experienced builder had to say. He deals with the fact that a number of private members of parliament are not being considered by the present government. Both of these hon. members to whom I have referred said that. Then he said something to this effect: "We are all considered as privates and they think they are colonels". Mr. Chairman, I have never seen that relationship but apparently it exists. Then the hon. member for York East spoke of the difficulties under which these hon. members operate. Take, for example this question of the $500 winter bonus. He said:
-let us suppose that I had something to do with national housing and that I was on the committee
to advise.

Supply-Labour
He has not and he was not. but he said "suppose". He went on:
I would have advised them-
I think that must be the Minister of Labour.
-immediately that the $500 winter bonus is absolutely useless-*
When the evidence is given by an experienced member supporting the government, Mr. Chairman, its importance cannot be overemphasized.
-because having been in the business and knowing what the cost of winter construction is, knowing that most builders would rather give you $500 than to build a house in the wintertime. I could have told them that and saved embarrassment, because with the great boom of construction, $500 purports to be the reason. It is not the reason at all.
I think the Minister of Labour, when he is looking around for experts, might just have a whispered conversation with the hon. member for York East, who is experienced in such matters. He goes on:
It is not the reason at all. The reason is that there is a feeling of expansion.
I need go no further, Mr. Chairman, to answer the minister and any other ministers who speak so fulsomely of this $500 winter bonus scheme, than to quote the words of the hon. member for York East, who tells us on the basis of experience that he knows what he is talking about, but that the minister does not.
It is an amazing revelation, Mr. Chairman. Those two hon. members were away from the whip on that day and spoke with great authority. I was amazed to hear one hon. member say that so difficult is it for these ministers to carry on that the minister of defence, when he produced the white paper, wrote it in longhand.
Then he said:
He did not even trust It to be typed by the establishment.
These are not the revelations of members of the opposition, Mr. Chairman. These are the considered opinions of members supporting the government, men who have had experience. The hon. member for Essex South said that he has had long experience, but that he is no good down in Ottawa because that government there would not listen to experience.


Mr. Whelan:: Would the Leader of the Opposition permit a question? Is he aware of the fact that most congratulations which I received on how accurate I was came from members of his party?
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member ever got commendation for anything I do not mind his boasting about it, because I have never seen any reason why he should. I say that in the kindness of spirit to one who at all times is the essence of affability.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: You have not heard him in caucus.


John George Diefenbaker: If the hon. gentleman has a question, I do not mind.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: No, I am sorry; I should not have interrupted. The right hon. gentleman said that the hon. member is always the essence of affability, and I could not resist the temptation to say: "You should hear him in caucus".


John George Diefenbaker: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I did not get the interruption, but I know it was a semi-judicial pronouncement and one with which I am sure I would not agree.
I am simply pointing out that the $500 bonus scheme was no good, and the only member on the other side of the house who knows anything about building, according to what was said on this broadcast, says that it was worthless and he would not have established it if he had had anything to do with the matter.
What has the government done to meet the unemployment situation? Simply continued the policies of the past, with one or two stunts such as the $500 bonus; but I am not going to deal with that any more because it was dealt with so well and effectively by the hon. member. How are we going to meet this problem? When we said that automation made greater unemployment inevitable and that it would take time in order to produce the necessary skills and training for men and women to be able to operate modern machinery, we were ridiculed. The plan that was brought into effect by the hon. member for Ontario when he was minister of labour will be a monument throughout the years to the wisdom and the capacity of that hon. member. He brought into being a plan that provides for the training of over 100,000 Canadians a year to enable them to carry out the responsibilities of operating difficult machinery.
That brings me to another phase in connection with this department. Mention has already been made of the Norris report. I was amazed that one of the trustees admitted he had never read the report in full. One of the maritime trustees, whose responsibility it is to carry out the principles inherent in

that report, had not read the report in question. The rest of us have read that report and it is a report that will be a must for all who would understand the developments in the S.I.U.
What has the government done about it? They appointed a board of trustees. That board of trustees has not yet been brought before a committee of parliament. Questions are asked and we are told the committee is to meet at some time in the future. I want to get the assurance from the minister that these trustees are going to appear before a committee now, not next fall, not next winter, but now. Many questions have related to the administration of the maritime board of trustees. Answers have not been given. The attitude of the minister has simply been that ultimately the members of the board or a member will come before a committee of parliament.
One of the recommendations had to do with Hal Banks and also with McLaughlin who today occupies the top position in the S.I.U. Read that report. Imagine Mr. Millard saying he had not read it. Is that the reason that McLaughlin, who was condemned in almost as strong terms as Banks, still occupies the number one position, the controlling position, in the S.I.U.? Is it because a member of the board has not read the report that the same old list still exists, with the result that from time to time decent, respectable seamen come to members of parliament and point out that they cannot break through the wall, that they are on the no ship list? What is the reason for this? Why does the board of maritime trustees permit these conditions to continue? Why cannot we have any information about the arrangements that were made between Mr. Hall of the S.I.U. and the Canadian government or the board of trustees?
What about Banks? One cannot speak of him without referring to his absence from the demands of justice. Recently much was made by the minister of the fact that the government had prosecuted Banks pursuant to the report to the Department of Labour by the Norris commission. They prosecuted him. Yes, they prosecuted him for conspiracy.


An hon. Member:: And kissed him goodbye.


John George Diefenbaker: Over the years he had been one of the pally boys of the Liberal party. Whenever he was in difficulty somehow or other an order in council could be passed to relieve him from being removed from our country. When he was prosecuted 20220-486
Supply-Labour
and convicted he then disappeared. He supplied a bail bond.
Sir, the record of the government in connection with Banks is one of the highest negligence, and worse. They prosecuted him. He was let out on bail. Your Honour knows that one of the first principles of a bail bond, as set forth in all bail bonds, except on an appeal in which case it may be inserted, is that the person involved does not depart the said court without leave. If he was awaiting trial he could not depart from the jurisdiction of Quebec or Canada without leave. We wondered about that. We asked whether provision was made for that. As far back as May 11 the hon. member for Bow River asked this question, as found on page 3115 of Hansard:
According to newspaper reports an order was made by the chief justice of Quebec granting bail to Mr. Banks. I wonder whether the terms of that recognizance include a condition which would prevent Mr. Banks from leaving Canada?
The member for Bow River wondered whether this would be the course followed. If there was no solicitude for Banks, Mr. Chairman, there was certainly negligence in dealing with Banks. When an ordinary man is arrested, charged with an offence and enters into a bond he has to undertake not to leave the jurisdiction. But Banks, with a five year sentence hanging over him, could sign a bond for $25,000 which, to use a vulgarism, is just peanuts in that league, without a provision that he must not leave Canada, he being a United States citizen.
We followed this matter throughout and asked questions. On July 27 and succeeding days we asked the government over and over again what they were going to do about the matter. The government did nothing. Banks disappeared. We have been trying to get information for weeks with regard to what is being done to find Banks. I believe that the reason the government does not give us any information is that the government knows that Banks cannot be extradited on the charge of conspiracy, with regard to which he was out on bail, and he certainly cannot be extradited on the other charges, one of contempt of court and the other a further charge of conspiracy yet to be tried.
Here is the interesting part. The law officers of the crown and special counsel allowed this man out on bail when they must have known that if he walked over into the United States he could stay clear of any danger of being apprehended. This is, to me, the most ridiculous thing that has ever happened in connection with Canadian justice.

Supply-Labour
Ordinarily I would not use the expression, but one of the great supporters of the Liberal party, the Toronto Daily Star said, on August 19, "Mr. Banks thumbs his nose".
Hal Banks seems to be thumbing his nose successfully at Canadian justice.
He is. Any one of the law officers must have known that you could not extradite him if he got across the line. What a commentary upon the administration of justice upon which we in this country pride ourselves. Here is a man who comes into the country, disregards our laws in connection with immigration status as no one else could do, is prosecuted and let out on a bail bond that will not be effective because it does not prevent him from leaving the jurisdiction of the court.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask the hon. member a question because I am interested in this? I should like to ask the hon. member if he can say, from his legal knowledge and as a former prime minister, whether or not it is possible for a person in Canada, under indictment and on bail, to leave Canada without there being a record with immigration or other authorities?


John George Diefenbaker: I have never tried to leave Canada that way, and neither has the hon. gentleman.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Have you ever been out on bail?


John George Diefenbaker: No; but the bail bond did not prevent his doing what he did. This is a very good question.


Harold Edward Winch: This is a very serious question. Is it possible for a person to cross the line under these circumstances without the Canadian or United States authorities having a record of his doing so?


John George Diefenbaker: I can only say that the hon. gentleman's question indicates that it could not be. I cannot disagree with the apparent conclusion that he has in mind, having regard to the nature of his question, that Mr. Banks crossed the line into the United States. When he did so, they would say, "Canadian or American?" They would not require an answer, perhaps, but when the name Banks was given they would know him. Even if the name was not given as Hal Banks, if you had seen him once you would never forget him.
Is this man in the United States? Here is an interesting thing, Mr. Chairman. Weeks after the event I asked the minister if he had ascertained from the immigration officers of the United States whether or not he entered

there. He said, I will make inquiries. One newspaper reported that a minister had said within the last few days Banks was in New York. He does not need to conceal himself. In my opinion, he cannot be extradited. Having first read the Extradition Act, I then made inquiries from other counsel and they told me they cannot believe it possible that he could be brought back to Canada. Is that the reason we get the kind of supercilious answer we receive when we ask this question?-"We have spoken to the F.B.I. in the United States." Imagine a criminal who flouted every law he could flout according to the Norris report, convicted and given five years-how he must laugh at the administration of Canadian justice. Already there is evidence in the United States that people are asking why it is that Canadian justice, which has always had the highest reputation, should have allowed itself to be circumvented in this way. Why can we not get any answers?
Sir, here is a man with a record of violence who, after conviction in September, I believe, came to Ottawa. The law officers did not pick him up then, they charged him with that offence later for which he will face trial. Why would a government that was anxious to get its hands on Banks fail for five long weeks to ascertain from United States immigration authorities whether or not he had gone into the United States? This is not only a frightful commentary, but one for which responsibility rests on the government. I say that without any fear of successful contradiction. They do not seem to want him. They go through the motions. They let him out on bail. I am not arguing that; the court did that. They let him out on a bail bond to which they could have objected.
An ordinary man suspected of crime cannot leave the jurisdiction of a court. Banks, convicted of a crime, could and apparently did. This is one of the great mysteries of our times. He never had anything to worry about. The trials meant nothing to him because he must have known when those trials started that so long as he was able to get back to his own country, whatever the penalties might be in Canada, they would not be imposed if a bail bond were provided. He had nothing to worry about, nothing whatever.
Sir, we want to get to the bottom of this. I asked for an investigation and the answer given by the government was, you do not need an investigation. I am beginning to think that is right. It is as obvious as the nose on one's face that if he were not extraditable, if he were convicted of con-

spiracy and allowed to go out on bail under a bond that did not prevent leaving the jurisdiction, this would provide him with an opportunity of which he was not slow to take advantage. I warned about that in May and in July. The answer I received from the Minister of Justice in July, I believe it was, was that we have a sufficient guarantee he will be in court on September 14 to take his trial. Well, it is a great mystery. The boss of the S.I.U. in the past can still exercise that authority through his vice president. The boss, convicted of a serious crime, subject to what the Supreme Court of Canada may do on appeal, is able to walk out of this country, drive out or leave in any other way, fly from any responsibility and simply vanish, and I say he vanished without there being any apparent concern on the part of the government.
The Minister of Justice, in a very suave way, indicates that we have got hopes that we will get him. You do not bring honour to the administration of Canadian justice by allowing a wrongdoer, a gangster, to act as he will, to dominate as he feels, and then when he faces the law, when he loses, to escape entirely.
I come back to the question of investigation. The government of Canada, despite the very lucid circumstances connected with this matter, owes it to the people of Canada to give an opportunity for examination into the looseness with which this man played with the law of Canada. At the same time the other, who is to face a charge of conspiracy with Banks, I think on September 14, is still in the seats of the mighty

McLaughlin.
The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg asked a very simple question as to whether anybody had inquired from the S.I.U. where Banks was as he received his salary cheque from the S.I.U. Mr. Chairman, I believe that they never thought of that across the way. Do you? They would have had an awful shock if they had thought of asking that question. This is one of the most serious things the government has permitted to take place, to make a laughingstock of justice, to place a foreign gangster in a position where he can well boast in the United States how he achieved his objectives, broke the law, was convicted, and served outside of jail in another country, the land of his birth.
This Banks' record has left a legacy to the S.I.U. that must be discharged, and we want to know whether it is being discharged. We find these seamen who state that they are being denied jobs because of a do not ship list. The minister says there is none that he 20220-486i
Supply-Labour
knows of. This is something that requires to be looked into.
There are many things that separate us that often are of no great consequence but, sir, when you find the law of the land trampled on and made ridiculous, the mystery of Hal Banks deserves to be looked into. I am not going over what I said before, but for years he was the anointed of Liberalism. When he could have been deported for smuggling- any other person would have been-an order in council was passed by the St. Laurent government to give him landed status, and it omitted his conviction.
When he came into Canada he had a record. Sometimes I have felt that some portions of the imprisonment imposed on him were not just-14 years for the issuing of bouncing cheques seems to me to be beyond what is within the realm of reason, but that was his sentence and, lo and behold, when he came to Canada the immigration officers forgot to enter that he had a record, or he could not have gotten in. Then when he established another record in Canada, when the order in council was made the Liberal government of that day forgot to include the conviction. In 1964 they forgot to get a forwarding address.


Harold Edward Winch: In view of the emphasis the Leader of the Opposition has placed on this matter of Hal Banks and the S.I.U. and the points he has brought to the attention of the committee, I would like to ask if in his opinion there should be a request made for a complete and an exhaustive examination as to how a man having a criminal record in the United States was allowed into Canada, how a man having broken the law of Canada on smuggling and being convicted, and having broken that law again, has now escaped from Canada-how all this could occur from beginning to end unless there is a suspicion of conspiracy? Is the right hon. member prepared to state in view of his own remarks that this is a matter into which members of the House of Commons have a right to demand a complete and exhaustive examination?


John George Diefenbaker: It is, exactly. I am not accepting the principle of conspiracy-I am not dealing with that; but I would like to see an investigation all through the past-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: From 1957?


John George Diefenbaker: From three or four months before he came to Canada, and the correspondence from then on with the officials.

Supply-Labour
We tried to get rid of him when we were in office.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Look at the record. But he had landed rights and an order in council that gave him those rights and we could not deport him. Otherwise we would have.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Will the right hon. gentleman permit a question?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I ask the question because I am quite sure the right hon. gentleman would not wish to be misunderstood. Did I understand him correctly when he said that the Minister of Justice had stated that there was no list?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, that he knew of no list. Yes, that is what I said.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Does the right hon. gentleman not recall that the statement of the Minister of Labour was that he had been assured by the chairman of the maritime commission, a distinguished member of the supreme court of my province-that he had the assurance of this eminent justice, the chairman of the commission, that there was no list?


John George Diefenbaker: I do not doubt you
had an assurance. But you can have an assurance, and the man who is out of a job and who cannot get one because he was on the black list knows whether there was a list or not.


Mr. Macdonald:: We have just heard the Leader of the Opposition making certain references to what he calls the mystery of Hal Banks. But perhaps the greatest mystery, when we remember that this occurred in 1957, and that the facts were known to the former government, is why he was not brought to justice earlier. Why did they do nothing about Hal Banks until 1961, when the seaway had been physically blocked by the contending parties? That is the great mystery about this. I should like an answer to that question, and I am sure the country would like one as well.
The Leader of the Opposition also made certain assertions about the legal process and the practice of the courts. I am sure he would not want to mislead the house with regard to what I think are principles generally accepted by lawyers. First, he asserted that there had been negligence on the part of the law officers of the crown in permitting Banks to go free on bail.


John George Diefenbaker: No. I never said that. I said in letting him go free on bail without the inclusion of the words "shall not depart the court without leave".


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I appreciate the right hon. gentleman's intervention and I would refer him specifically to form 28 of the Canadian Criminal Code and the subsection contained in that form which specifically excepts from the provisions with regard to bail on appeal the words which he has used. Some months ago in this house the hon. member for Bow River made an assertion that this was a customary and standard inclusion in any form of bail bond. I point out now, as I did then, that that is entirely false. It is not a provision of the Criminal Code and I am advised by the senior counsel acting for the crown in this case that it is not the practice of the courts in Quebec to insert that provision in bail bonds, and that such a provision could not have been expected in this case. I emphasize again that the request of the law officers of the crown to the court was that Mr. Banks should not be allowed out on bail at all but that he should be kept in custody. But I would also remind hon. members that it is, after all, up to the judge to decide in what circumstances a man should be allowed bail, and it was the judgment of Mr. Justice Tremblay, the chief justice of Quebec that he should be granted this privilege. It is a damaging and misleading statement to suggest that the law officers of the crown were responsible for letting Banks out on bail. Decisions as to bail are, after all, the duty of the court. Moreover, it is the duty of the Minister of Justice, as well as the rest of us, to respect the decisions of the courts, and that is what we are doing.
The decision in accordance with the Criminal Code was that this man should be set at liberty. I do not know what the right hon. gentleman's concept of liberty is, but one would gather from him that he believes it means keeping a man under 24 hour surveillance and taking him into custody if he makes one move outside his house. That is not the law of this country, and I hope it will never be. I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition should suggest, in any way, that it should be. All appropriate steps had been taken by the law officers of the crown to lay all possible charges against Hal Banks. The prosecution was pressed as soon as possible, and a conviction was secured. Proceedings were taken to make certain that Banks would be available for the hearing-


Some hon. Members:: Where is he?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Let me point out again to hon. members who would like to muddy the record that it was a decision of the Quebec courts exercising their jurisdiction that he should be allowed liberty. We have heard too often in this house the suggestion that in some way or other the decision of the court should have been disregarded and that this prisoner, or any prisoner, if let out on bail should be subjected to surveillance. It would be a mockery of justice if the law officers of the crown were to disregard orders of the court, specifically that a man should be allowed out at liberty.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to reply to two questions-


Lucien Lamoureux: Perhaps before the right hon. gentleman replies to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice I should bring to his attention and to the attention of all hon. members that our debate in committee this afternoon seems to have strayed away from the labour aspect of this situation. I realize it is not easy to determine what part of this matter involves justice and what part involves labour. But I would remind hon. members who will take part in the debate from now on that they should try to address their remarks to the estimates of the Department of Labour.


John George Diefenbaker: I was trying so hard to do just what Your Honour has suggested. But you, yourself, have made apparent the difficulty of deciding where the Department of Justice ends and the Department of Labour begins. That is one of the great difficulties in this case. There are two departments involved. If I tried to bring this matter up on the estimates of the Department of Justice, the answer would be-the Norris commission.
But to answer the hon. gentleman, there was no suggestion that the person convicted should not be let out on bail so long as it was assured he would be there to take his punishment. No one suggested there should be any onus on the part of the crown to watch a person as he went from place to place while he was free. What I did suggest was this- that it is a strange commentary on the administration of justice that a gangster who has a sentence of five years should be free to go as he will to the United States or any other place, yet if a man who has a good record in the past is charged with an offence and let out on bail, the provision made in respect of him is as follows-I will read the form:
Supply-Labour
Whereas by order dated the-day of-reciting that A.B., hereinafter called the accused, was charged before me for a certain offence herein mentioned, and that-
I am sorry. I have been reading from the wrong form.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


John George Diefenbaker: They both appear on the same page. This is the one. This is form 28.
The condition of the written recognizance is such that whereas the accused was this day charged before the justices within mentioned for that-
And here appear details of the charge
-if, therefore, the accused appears at the next superior court of criminal jurisdiction (or court of general or quarter sessions of the peace) to be holden in and for the said county and there surrenders himself into the custody of the keeper of the common gaol (or lock-up house), and pleads to such indictment as may be found against him by the grand jury, for and in respect to the charge aforesaid, and takes his trial upon the same, and does not depart the said court without leave, then the said recognizance to be void, otherwise to stand in full force and virtue.
Talk about travesties. A man who had committed no known offence, but a prima facie case of the crown has been made out against him, cannot leave the jurisdiction of the courts. But if he had about him the halo of Banks, he can. I have nothing to say about the decision of the court to grant bail. The crown asked for high bail. The judge fixed it at $25,000. But what I do say is that it had the appearance of being more than coincidence that the solicitude for Banks shown during the years still continues, when the bail bond was made out.
The hon. gentleman asked: why did we not prosecute him? As a matter of fact, we set up the Norris commission. That commission found the evidence, and then this government prosecuted on the basis of the evidence the Norris commission brought out.


An hon. Member:: With reluctance.


John George Diefenbaker: I would not like to say that; I would say, after undue delay. Indeed, I do not forget that the former minister of justice, the predecessor of the present minister, withheld action on the warrant for Banks' arrest when he was available to be arrested.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This is a very important point, Mr. Chairman, and I think it ought to be underlined. The incident for which Mr. Banks was convicted occurred in 1957. It occurred after the right hon. gentleman became prime minister of Canada. No new facts

Supply-Labour
were uncovered subsequent to the Norris commission.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, yes.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: These facts were investigated at the time and were made known to the government of the day. It was open to that government for all those years to prosecute Mr. Banks for an incident that took place in August, 1957. That is one mystery that I would like to have cleared up by the Leader of the Opposition. Why did he annoint and coddle Mr. Banks and refuse to prosecute him on facts that were known in August, 1957 and widely publicized at that time?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the statement that we refused to prosecute is as completely without foundation as is possible.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is a fact.


John George Diefenbaker: It is unjustified, and
untrue.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is a fact.


John George Diefenbaker: And it is untrue, if a fact can be untrue.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, will the Leader of the Opposition deny that this case was investigated by the R.C.M. Police at that time? Will he deny that? He cannot deny it.


John George Diefenbaker: I can understand the heated feelings that are aroused in the minister by the revelation of these facts. The way in which this government uses smokescreens such as this to cover up their negligence in connection with Banks is equal only to the solicitude shown throughout the years to him.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, would the Leader of the Opposition permit a question?


John George Diefenbaker: The evidence was forthcoming-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Would the Leader of the Opposition permit a question?


John George Diefenbaker: -in the Norris report. Mr. Chairman, I have never known two to speak at once, and one intelligently; and I am speaking intelligently. I can understand the feeling in this regard. While we argue and the government defends what took place, Banks enjoys his liberty at the expense of the reputation of Canadian justice.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, there are two things with which I should like the Leader of the Opposition to deal. Will he deny that the incident which took place in

1957 was investigated at that time by the police? Will he deny that? Second, will he deny that these facts were made known to the government of the day?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I immediately deny the second question, and as far as the first is concerned, my recollection is that we did everything we could to be sure that if we prosecuted, we would have a case. It was not until Mr. Justice Norris investigated this matter for months and months that sufficient evidence became available-because these employees of the S.I.U. would not talk; they dare not talk; they had hanging over them the tyranny of Banks, and McLaughlin too, and they were afraid to talk and bring out the necessary corroborative evidence.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Leader of the Opposition has now made it quite clear that this case was investigated in 1957. He has made it quite clear that at that time the government of the day must have concluded that there were not sufficient grounds for prosecution. The evidence upon which Mr. Banks was convicted was not drawn in any way from the Norris report, not at all; it was drawn from evidence collected by the special counsel who were appointed subsequently on the recommendation of Mr. Justice Norris. Mr. Justice Norris asked that special counsel be appointed to investigate all the activities of Mr. Banks. This government appointed those special counsel; they undertook the investigation, with the assistance of the police, and sufficient evidence was accumulated tc secure a conviction. It was open to the Leader of the Opposition in 1957, as head of the government, to instruct that special counsel be appointed to secure the evidence with regard to an event that took place when he was prime minister. But the fact is that the government of that day failed to take action, and it is as a result of action taken by this government that Mr. Banks was convicted.


John George Diefenbaker: And he is free.


Mr. Rheaume:: Where is he now?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I can understand the heated argument the Minister of Labour is putting up in respect of this matter. But if we look at the Norris commission report we will see it was recommended there that special counsel be appointed by the government to look into the evidence submitted to the Norris commission.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No.


Michael Starr: That was in order to ascertain whether a charge could be laid as a result of the evidence submitted to the Norris commission and to see whether proper evidence could be brought out in order to prosecute. It was only after the Norris commission report came out and that recommendation was made that we pressed the government to appoint these counsel. It was months afterwards that counsel made a report, and it was months afterwards that the revelations of the report were made and action, based on the prodding of the opposition, was taken to prosecute. This was based on the recommendation that there was enough evidence in the Norris commission report to justify proceeding with the laying of charges.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Then they helped him across the line, too.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, first I would confirm what the Minister of Labour said-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: -that the previous minister of justice, the minister of justice of the former government, had before him substantially the evidence upon which Banks was convicted in 1963.


John George Diefenbaker: Substantially.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That government failed to take action on it. Therefore it does not lie with them to accuse anyone of being dilatory or a friend of Banks. They failed to follow up the evidence that was before their noses. Second, Mr. Chairman, there was another misrepresentation from the other side of the house. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition very solemnly read to the committee a part of the Criminal Code. He started by reading the wrong page, but he got on to the right page.


John George Diefenbaker: No; the right page, but the wrong form.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: He read to the committee the form of bail bond where an accused is being committed for trial. He was very careful not to read the form used in appeal proceedings such as these, which is subparagraph (g) and which contains nothing like the provisions he read to the committee. There is no provision in that appeal bail bond form set out in the Criminal Code preventing the accused from leaving the jurisdiction or requiring him to remain continuously within the jurisdiction of the court before the day set for the appeal.
Supply-Labour


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Where is Banks? Where is your buddy?


Mr. Gelber:: Mr. Chairman, I want to say a word about automation and manpower consultative services.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Marvin Gelber: I would like to comment on the words of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition when he referred to Hal Banks and said he was anointed of Liberalism. I wonder what protection the anointed of Liberalism had under Conservatism, because it took some years before he was brought to court. Certainly the evidence upon which Mr. Banks was convicted is only one aspect of the Norris commission report. There are other matters that were certainly brought to the attention of the government. There was the agreement between a shipping company of Sarnia and the S.I.U. which Mr. Justice Norris considered was in defiance of the law. This matter was discussed at the highest echelons of the government at the time of the previous administration, and nothing was done.
Another matter the right hon. gentleman mentioned was the $500 bonus for winter home building. He quoted the hon. member for York East as a builder. I think if he moved around the construction workers of York South and ascertained that for the first time in many years there was a higher rate of employment during those dour months, he would understand why there is wide support for the very successful enterprise carried on by this government in order to encourage winter employment.
I was very much impressed with the report of the American council on education with regard to the state of employment in the United States. They pointed out that while there were five million unemployed in the United States, there were four million unfilled job opportunities. We are moving into a period when more and more the employment demand will be for skilled personnel. Unskilled people without training, people with deficiencies in education, will find it more and more difficult to gain employment.
In a speech at Queen's University last May the Minister of Labour pointed out that 90 per cent of the light bulbs and tubes manufactured in the United States, with the exception of picture tubes, are produced by 14 machine operators. This is one aspect of the development of automation which does require skilled personnel and yet displaces a lot of workers. The automobile industry in

Supply-Labour
the United States in 1963 produced seven million cars. The automobile industry in the United States in 1955 also produced seven million cars. But in 1963 the industry produced seven million cars with 17 per cent less labour force. This is an important problem which sets up a challenge that this government must meet. It sets up a challenge in terms of the means of production and distribution, a means which will completely revolutionize our social and economic system. This is based largely on the development of automation and a highly sophisticated production system.
Automation is based on three main components. First of all, there is the self-regulating system. For example, the simple thermostat which one has in one's house is a selfregulating system. Second, there is the electronic computer which stores information and is capable of logical decision making. This has made possible the development of our economy and the use of the many services which otherwise would not be available to us. Yet this highly sophisticated and mature machine, the electronic computer, represents a threat to our society and threatens the jobs of hundreds of thousands of workers. The third component is the highly organized assembly system of laying out work. These three components when placed together are the basis of automation.
Automation requires certain types of materials. The hard substances which we use in our economy today are not easily absorbed in a highly automated assembly. Therefore, automation requires new substances, and science is busily engaged in producing these new substances to feed a highly automated system. Someone pointed out that whereas formerly the consumer would set up demand and would set in motion the process of production by his requirements, today it is the scientist and the engineer who are skilfully engaged in determining what such a system can produce and who are putting into reverse the well known saying and showing, as one wag put it, that invention is becoming the mother of necessity.
What are we in this country doing in order to meet the need for skills, and what are we doing in terms of planning? We have a system of joint training projects to which the Minister of Labour has referred. We have engaged in these systems of training, which are joint programs between the provinces and the federal government, in the 12-month period ending March 31, 287,187 Canadians, Of these, 164,420 were people
[Mr. GelberJ
who were being trained in vocational schools and high schools. That means that out of a labour force of 6,600,000 or more there are only 123,000 people receiving training through the joint programs. Of the 164,000 people who are at school more than half are taking business courses. Although these are important it means that only a small number of people in vocational and high schools are getting the skills necessary to absorb them in the productive mechanism which is so important.
It is my contention that we will never be able to build the schools and engage the people to provide the training which is required, unless more is done. The steps already taken by the government help, and the programs started by the previous government are also of assistance. But in the conception of the total problem it seems to me that we are not sufficiently imaginative and must do more. The greatest school for providing industrial skills is industry itself. Industry has the equipment, the knowhow and the leadership. It seems to me that we must conceive of industry not only as producing commodities but also as producing skills which will upgrade the labour force in this country and make it possible in this twentieth century to meet the challenge of automation. We must do more to give inducements to industry, and we must provide the opportunities to develop skilled tradesmen and craftsmen who are so much demanded by our society.
The program announced by the Minister of Labour some months ago, and which he mentioned again today-the manpower consultative service-is one step toward mobilizing our resources toward meeting this objective. We must look to industry as the most important school for retraining our labour force and as the most important school for giving that capability to our workers to meet the challenge of 1964.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, now that we are back on the estimates of the Department of Labour, I should like to say that I was pleased that the hon. member for Ontario made the reference that he did to William Jenoves, who passed away yesterday. I agree with the hon. member for Ontario that in paying tribute to this man who spent six decades working in the trade union movement we are paying tribute to all those who over the years have helped to build this very important and living aspect of our democratic way of life.

We have a Minister of Labour at the present time who is not only an honourable gentleman; he is also a gentleman. That is our trouble. He is a very fine man and is very charming. In fact, with all his charm and his capacity for making promises it mystifies me that he is still a bachelor. And I am saying that in 1964, a leap year at that. As everyone knows he seems in the labour field to be the epitome of the capacity of the Liberals over the years to make promises, and to make them in such a charming way that we are lulled into believing that they are going to be kept. He did it again today, and this time I hope he not only meant it but that it will come true. He went just as far as he could in saying that before the end of the month of September-and when I questioned him he said he meant 1964- legislation for a national labour code would be on the order paper. I hope I do not sound cynical if I refer to the fact that this is the kind of promise that has been made over and over again. True, this minister has never become quite so specific in terms of time. Thus far he has told us it would come "soon" or "as soon as possible" or "very soon" or "just as soon as we can make it", and so on. I hope that this time he has pinned himself down.
I remind him that, as he well knows, when we were dealing with his estimates last year we were able to pin him down fairly well on November 8, 1963. On that day we were dealing with the estimates of the Department of Labour for last year and we got out of the Minister of Labour what seemed like a promise to bring in a national labour code at this session. I was anxious to pin him down on that, and on a couple of other matters as well, and so on page 4605 of Hansard for November 8, 1963, I referred in particular to three matters, amending the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, a labour code, and doing something about the Unemployment Insurance Act. I asked the minister if he would not summon up his courage and assure us that action would be taken on those three matters during the following session of parliament, namely the session now with us. On page 4605 of Hansard for November 8, 1963, I read this paragraph:


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Subject to the approval of a number of other persons directly involved, I have no hesitation in saying that we will want to take action on the Unemployment Insurance Act and the labour code within the time mentioned by my hon. friend.
I interject to say that I thought that was a pretty clear promise that at this session we
Supply-Labour
would get action on those two things, the Unemployment Insurance Act and a national labour code. I continue the quotation:
I would be very rash indeed to give the same kind of assurance with respect to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, because, as at the present time, I have not, nor has my department given the kind of consideration in depth-
That is a great phrase.
-to the proposals put forward to justify my giving an assurance of that kind. However, we will consider these proposals and perhaps at a later date I will be glad to add this particular suggestion to the rather optimistic prospect I have given in connection with the other two.
I found the Minister of Labour so charming and such a gentleman last year that I thought it was a certainty that at this session we would get action on the Unemployment Insurance Act and on a national labour code, and that there was a possibility that we would get action on amendments to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. It is now clear that the only one of these three with regard to which there is any hope so far as this session is concerned is the national labour code. I hope it will be on the order paper shortly and I hope the Minister of Labour will make the strongest representations he can to the Prime Minister, the house leader and those who are responsible for things around here to see to it that we get at that item as soon as possible after it gets on the order paper. I need not take any time discussing what is happening to the business of the house at this session, but it still seems to me that some of our time, no matter what else we may have to deal with, should be spent on other legislation and that this is one of the items that should be got through at this session, no matter what happens.
I hope that the labour code will be a substantial document. I hope that at least it will deal with the ingredients that we discussed last year, the first being a minimum wage. I hope that the provision for a minimum wage in the labour code will not be a pious hope. I trust it will not be something that is flexible, permitting different rates in different parts of the country. I hope the minister is aware of the fact that the Canadian Labour Congress, which for a few years was proposing $1.25 an hour as a minimum wage, decided at its last convention that under today's conditions the minimum should be $1.50 an hour.
I also trust there will be provision in the code for maximum number of hours of work per day, a maximum work week and certain other matters. In particular, I hope the labour

Supply-Labour
code will improve the vacations with pay legislation, which is the only ingredient of a national labour code that we now have on the statute books. As the minister knows, this was not put on the statute books by the Liberals, but by the Conservatives when they were in power a few years ago. In my view the provisions with respect to that matter should be improved along the lines of certain private members' public bills that I have introduced. There should also be provision for statutory holidays with pay.
As I say, I hope that these five ingredients at least will be in the national labour code. It may be that a national labour code is also the place to make certain provisions regarding safety and other matters to protect workers who come under federal labour jurisdiction. As the minister said when he was making his remarks earlier, this is a subject about which some of us have been having a good deal to say for a good many years, but I will not today do as I so often do, pull out the 1919 program of the Liberal party. That is a long way back now, but at any rate let us have implementation at this session of the promises that the present generation of Liberals have made to us.
I also hope the minister will pay some attention to what he said on November 8, 1963, regarding the Unemployment Insurance Act. He led us to believe then that action on that matter at this session was on a parallel with the intended action on the national labour code, but there has been no indication at this session that anything of that nature is in store for us. Likewise, even though his commitment last year was not very strong, we feel that improvements are needed in the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. If the minister wonders what the details are, he can find them in the record of the debate on these estimates a year ago.
As my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North, said, when we started to prepare for this day's debate we wondered what there was to say that we did not say a year ago. We said it all then and virtually nothing has happened in the meantime, except that the minister has given us the benefit of his charm and has made these promises. A year ago we felt that at least he was coping with some very difficult problems involving a number of disputes and so on that were on his doorstep, and we gave him full marks for the courageous and active way he was coping with them. He earned quite a reputation. Even my hon.
[Hr. Knowles.]
friend, the columnist who sits in front of me was rating him very high in the cabinet of that day; but in the meantime we have to settle for his charm. They are wonderful-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Just for a month.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just for a month?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: You should have more by the end of the month.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope the minister is not going to turn his charm off at the end of the month-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Charm, plus.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -but that we will have something solid in terms of legislation.


Douglas Mason Fisher: No LaMarshian stuff.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But even now he is asking me to settle for the one piece of legislation which he promised earlier today, namely a national labour code. It is going to be good to get that, but I suggest that these other items should also be proceeded with at the earliest possible date.
We welcome the fact that there is on the order paper government order No. 39 calling for parliament to approve of the I.L.O. convention regarding discrimination in employment. We hope there will be an early opportunity for parliament to deal with that and we hope that the government will bring other I.L.O. conventions before parliament for its approval.
Because, as I say, most of what we might say we said last year, and because those things we asked for last year have not yet been implemented, and because other members wish to speak I intend to keep my remarks very brief.
There is just this other point to which I should like to give expression and it was mentioned last year after other members had spoken by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. It has been mentioned from time to time by other hon. members. I have the feeling that during the time it has taken the Liberals to implement their 1919 promises, time has moved on. Those things that would have been of tremendous advantage to the working people of Canada in the twenties, thirties, forties, and fifties, such as the national labour code that we are now perhaps going to get, are not enough to meet the conditions of our time. Automation, to which the last speaker referred, technological changes and all the changes in our economic and social structure, will make necessary far more sweeping changes than are involved

even in things like a good national labour code.
People are recognizing the fact, and economists of various schools have been speaking in this direction, that the day may soon come when we may have to provide people with an income, even though they are not engaged in what is sometimes called productive work. The whole process of automation by which we are able to produce things to make up the affluent society can change our society tremendously, and some brand new, imaginative thinking has to be done in this field. This involves more than the Department of Labour. It certainly involves the Department of Finance, it involves the whole of government policy, but the Minister of Labour is the person who should be the spokesman in the government for the great mass of our people, and in our view he should be taking the lead in any government to which he belongs to try to get some new thinking in this field. The day is going to come when, entirely apart from any productive work there may be for people to do, we are going to have to do things to expand our educational horizons; we are going to have to make it possible for people to make a contribution to our life and to our times in other ways than just trying to run machines or even pushing the buttons of an automated plant.
This is a tremendous field. I know that the minister with his academic background, is interested in it. I call upon him to bring to bear those academic thoughts that he has on the practical problem of improving the situation for the labouring people, and indeed for all the people of this country. We welcome, as I say, the improvements that are at long last in prospect, improvements promised by the Liberals 45 years ago. I suggest to the minister that if we are going to make life in Canada in the affluent sixties and seventies what it ought to be, not just for a privileged few at the top but for all the working people of the country, he still has a great deal to do. I trust he will add this as an additional supplement to the promises he has already made.


Mr. Regan:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few comments on the matter of the
S.I.U. trustees and some of the other aspects of the estimates that have been dealt with earlier this afternoon. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I was somewhat taken aback by the exchange between the right hon. Leader of the Opposition and members on the government side with regard to the matter of Hal Banks. Much was said about it this after-
Supply-Labour
noon and it perhaps is not necessary for me to add to it, but I cannot help but think that if we were to accept that which was stated by the Leader of the Opposition in his final submission this afternoon, when he said that the administration of justice under his government in 1957 was unable to get people in this country to talk and give evidence on the crimes that had been committed and the only way that the administration some six years later could get evidence of these same crimes was through a royal commission, certainly it would be a sad commentary on the efficiency of the administration of justice under the former regime. I would be extremely surprised if the minister of justice of that time would agree with the remarks made by the right hon. gentleman this afternoon.
Actually of course it was a very clever effort on the part of the Leader of the Opposition to escape what must be the decision of history that the Conservative government between 1957 and 1962 did absolutely nothing. These were the years when Hal Banks was only beginning to stretch his octopus-like tentacles across the Canadian labour movement. During those years between 1957 and 1962-


Douglas Mason Fisher: Oh, oh.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Has the hon. member got a pain? During those years between 1957 and 1962-


Douglas Mason Fisher: I sure have.


Gerald Augustine Regan: -he extended and expanded his grasp of the labour movement. During those years, the troubles on the great lakes grew. I cannot help but admire the sheer audacity of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. I am somewhat reminded of the statement that all "gall" is divided into three parts, and he has all three parts. He has the unmitigated gall to come in here and, despite the fact no action was taken against Hal Banks and the S.I.U. gangsters during his regime because the administration of justice was inefficient, say that we should have done something about Hal Banks.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Members of the opposition had been urging the Liberal government for years to take action.


Gerald Augustine Regan: It finally came to the point where only a royal commission could get the evidence needed. Yet, in spite of this the Leader of the Opposition does not avoid the point. He has the gall to come in here, change the facts around and try to say that it has

Supply-Labour
been the Liberals who have protected Banks over the years. I am sure that if the government finds Mr. Banks they will make every effort to extradite him, bring him back to Canada and face a trial. So far as I am concerned, personally, I am not sure I am in favour of that. So far as I am concerned, far more important than Hal Banks or all the Hal Bankses, is the re-establishment of peace on the great lakes. This has been accomplished through the efficiency of our present Minister of Labour. Then, I should like to see a democratic system established in the S.I.U. so that that union could be brought back into the main stream of the Canadian trade union movement.
There has been some criticism here today, somewhat disturbing criticism, of the actions of the trustees. I hope that criticism is not accurate. I hope that some time this fall the Minister of Labour will be able to prevail upon the trustees to appear before the industrial relations committee so that we may have an opportunity of discussing with the trustees what their actions have been. Until the contrary is shown to me, I am inclined to believe the trustees have been doing an effective job and that they are making progress towards the objectives that we set for them. Let us remember that hon. members who sit in the group directly opposite my very back bench-


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


Gerald Augustine Regan: -were the ones who urged the setting up of this board of trustees.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order please. Would the hon. member who has the floor permit a question?


Gerald Augustine Regan: It would be an exquisite pleasure.


William Skoreyko: Will the hon. member agree with the Minister of Labour that Mr. Millard is doing an effective job when he claims he has not even read the Norris report?


Gerald Augustine Regan: I am not aware whether Mr. Millard has read the Norris report or not, but I am not at all convinced that is essential to doing an effective job in his position.
I believe that the trustees were set up to run the union, to return it to a democratic type of system, and to see to it we had peace on the great lakes.
I was starting out to say, and I think this pertains to the question asked by the hon. member, that members of the group directly opposite me were among those who

urged at the time that the trustees be given a free hand once the board was established to run the union, so that parliament would not be attempting to be the board of trustees itself. Actually Mr. Millard, who I presume is quite acceptable to that group because he was once an N.D.P. candidate, and the other trustees, have shown successful results. We have seen the fact that we do have peace, that commerce is moving between Canada and the United States across the great lakes.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: At any price.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I am not going into the subject of how much I as a Haligonian am in favour of great lakes commerce, particularly in wintertime; but coming back to the point, the trustees should not be subjected to slighting remarks because of little differences between what they have done and what individual hon. members, 265 of them, feel that they should do. Obviously every step they take is not going to meet with the approval of everyone in this chamber; but what they have done is (a) brought peace on the lakes and (b) have brought about the position that elections are coming up in the S.I.U. in which, for the first time in many years, there will be the opportunity for the rank and file members of the S.I.U. to campaign effectively for office. We can take note of the fact that there is going to be a three cornered contest for the presidency, and contests for other positions, and I do not know what more the trustees could do than what they have done towards moving to return the S.I.U. to the rank and file of the workers and to the mainstream of Canadian democratic unionism.
I certainly deplore the fact that in some corners of this chamber every effort is made to suggest that either the trustees or the government are anxious to defend Harold Banks. Such has not been the case and I hope when the trustees do appear before a committee of the house there will be ample opportunity for this to be displayed.
Before taking my seat I wish to mention one or two other matters. I noted with interest the minister's report on the older workers' program, and I have to agree with him that it has at least reasonable success, judging from the number of older workers who had been unemployed for six to eight months prior to their applications and who have received benefits and employment. However, I think the minister and the committee would be quick to agree in this era of automation that this is only a beginning

exercise in assisting older workers, but it is a good beginning. The department should and must examine other ways by which the older worker, who becomes redundant or whose job disappears because of automation or technological changes, can make a worthwhile contribution to our economic processes and support himself and his family.
We look forward with interest to the forthcoming introduction of the national labour code, but beyond the introduction of that I would remind the minister that the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act itself is badly in need of overhaul because many of its sections are out of date with conditions as they exist in industry today, and I trust the time is rapidly approaching when it will be possible to give that act a complete overhaul.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: I was very interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Regan) who mentioned that he hoped the trustees would be appearing soon before a committee of the house. I think hon. members on all sides have expressed strong enough feelings to justify the trustees or the board chairman appearing before a committee, so that members may understand the facts. We want to know what price has been paid for the achievements of the board, as recited by the hon. member.
We know the price we paid under a Liberal administration for ridding the lakes of so-called communists. They involved us with gangsters and we are not out of that yet. We still have McLaughlin in the seats of the mighty, and therefore it is imperative that the trustees appear as soon as possible before a committee of the house. Will the minister tell the committee very definitely when arrangements are going to be made for the trustees, or the chairman, to appear before a committee of the house to give the facts about the
S.I.U., Banks and the situation on the great lakes?


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: Is the minister not going to give an answer to that very direct question?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. May I suggest for the sake of good order in the work of the committee that we have contributions from hon. members, and the minister may answer questions later.


James Ernest Pascoe: Mr. Chairman, other speakers have referred to the winter works program,
Supply-Labour
but not quite along the lines on which I want to discuss it briefly. I think it important to bring certain points to the direct attention of the minister before he formulates his winter works program for this year.
I believe the minister has received a brief from the Regina housebuilders association, which has a membership of 96 firms. I represent part of Regina and I am associated with the hon. member for Regina City in outlining the main points in the brief, and the points which I shall bring out also apply to my home city of Moose Jaw, and other Saskatchewan and prairie cities.
The right hon. Leader of the Opposition referred to the defects in last winter's $500 house bonus program, and these defects are certainly apparent on the prairies. To support that assertion I will quote portions of the brief from the Regina housebuilders association. I believe the minister has received it and I imagine he has answered it, but I would like to put a few points on record. It says:
This brief from the Regina housebuilders association with a membership of 96 firms, is requesting certain changes in the $500 house bonus program of the federal government's winter works scheme.
Before proceeding to discuss the brief from the Regina housebuilders association I should like to point out that they are not opposed to a winter works incentive program but merely to the federal government's house bonus program in its present form. Members of the association feel the success or failure of this year's winter works program in their region is dependant upon certain necessary changes being made in the regulations. The brief stresses two points. One is the short period of winter employment support offered in 1963-64, namely, from December 1 to March 31. This would compare with the winter works program of the former government which started on October 15 and ended April 30. The second point they bring out is that winter building costs on the prairies greatly affect the success or failure of a winter works program. In this regard I should like to quote from the brief as follows:
Members of the Regina housebuilders association maintain that winter building costs greatly affect the success or failure of a winter works program. A national housebuilders survey of winter building costs across Canada established extra cost for winter building at from $300 to $1,100 depending on the region in Canada in which the house is built. This means builders in areas that have an average extra winter building cost of $300 have a $200 incentive to offer their purchasers if they buy a winter built house.. .but builders in areas where climatic conditions are very

Supply-Labour
severe, such as those in the prairie region, have nothing to offer except costs in excess of the bonus amount.
A further point made in the brief is this:
In addition, winter works houses this year will have to bear the increase of most of the cost of the 3 per cent sales tax increase to go into effect January 1, 1965.
They are referring to the fact that on January 1 there will be a federal sales tax of 11 per cent on building materials. The recommendation in the brief on this particular point is:
The Regina housebuilders association, therefore, respectfully requests the Department of Labour to increase the amount of the winter works bonus paid the purchaser by an amount equal to the difference between winter costs in the most favourable region of Canada and those found in the region in which the house is being built.
I think this is a reasonable recommendation to place before the minister and I hope it will be given consideration. The brief goes on:
Regina housebuilders realize the federal government's winter works bonus plan has been designed to stimulate construction and create employment during the winter months when unemployment is usually at a peak. They also acknowledge that the 1963-64 winter works program was designed to alleviate this condition by promoting employment between December 1 and March 31 each winter.
However, unemployment in the prairie region occurs earlier in the fall and remains later in the spring than in other areas of Canada.
The recommendation made to the minister is as follows:
We therefore respectfully request the federal Department of Labour to consider the merits of extending the winter works $500 house bonus program to include the spring and fall periods of unemployment in the prairie regions.. .especially November and April.
As I mentioned before, the program of the last government began on October 15 and ended on April 30.
Another point brought out in the brief is this:
Regina housebuilders wish to point out that during the 1963-64 winter works bonus program, the Department of Labour refused to recognize an irrevocable assignment or power of attorney from the purchaser, thus enabling the builder to collect the $500 bonus amount from the government as part of the purchaser's house payment. Builders maintained they were entitled to payment for a completed product before occupancy and refused occupancy until payment was forthcoming. Consequently, many purchasers, and especially those in the lower income groups, were unable to raise the required amount and were forced by this requirement to find other accommodation at additional expense until their bonus application was processed by the government.
The recommendation in this respect is as follows:
The association therefore, respectfully requests the Department of Labour to recognize a standard irrevocable assignment by the purchaser of the $500 bonus amount.
Again I would point out that though this is a brief presented by the Regina housebuilders association, in bringing it forward I am speaking also for other builders in Moose Jaw, Saskatoon and the prairies generally. The brief, at its conclusion, makes the following request:
Members of the Regina housebuilders association would strongly urge the federal Department of Labour to give immediate consideration to the recommendations for change as outlined in this brief so that they may be implemented before the 1964-65 winter works house bonus program goes into effect this fall.
I trust the minister will carefully consider these recommendations and incorporate them in the winter works program.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am inclined to agree, if I may say this on entering the discussion, with the comments made by my colleague about the minister's charm. It would appear to me that after the first flush of success which the minister enjoyed he has, in the last year, somewhat faded away. The only thing I have discovered about him in the last six or seven months is that he does not know much about baseball, compared with the Prime Minister. I do not suppose that is a serious handicap.
Some of us regret that he did not accept the position offered him as leader of the house. In view of the fact that he has been able to bring forward little of his legislative program and that he has not been embroiled in any great labour difficulty such as arises from time to time in connection with the railroads, I might comment that the hon. gentleman might well have accepted that position. If he had done so, maybe, with his charm, we would have been further along with our work this session.
I have one concrete proposal to put to the minister. It is at least current in that it ties in with the discussion going on in the country with regard to the appointment of an ombudsman fired by the visit of Sir Guy Powles of New Zealand. In my experience in labour matters, and because of my work in relation to railway unions in particular, between six and a dozen cases are brought to my notice every year of grievances felt by workers, sometimes with their own unions but more often with the way their complaints have been processed and the difficulties which arise in dealing with an international union whose final decisions are taken in the United States.


I had a case brought to my attention the other day, a case from Cornwall involving a man by the name of Kuntz who was in difficulty with the hospital employees union. It was taken up through the Canadian vice president and then it went before the Ontario labour relations board. The grievance was not upheld but in my judgment, having reviewed all the files-this is not a federal matter and I am mentioning it only as an example-this man still needs assistance. This case still needs review. I myself can see, implicit in the case in which he is involved, a tremendous tendency for the agents of the union and of the employers to co-operate in snuffing out this man's complaint, because of the trouble it would cause in terms of both the unit in which the case is involved and the membership of the union.
I have another case in connection with a railway trainman on the west coast, a man by the name of Woods, who for three years has been trying to get a grievance settled. He has lost out partly by default, it seems to me, within the union processes. I have taken it up with management and they always come back to me and say there are the proper arrangements within the contract for the man to settle his grievance.
I would like to suggest that in the United States at least one union, the steelworkers, has set up an outside court. Even the S.I.U., in the last gesture, I believe, that Mr. Banks made of any substance to indicate that the
S.I.U. was a good union, created this appeal board with Commander Robertson in charge. I think there is a spirit in the labour movement, particularly in some of the more progressive unions, in the United States to say that it is a great advantage to labour if, when a particular worker has a grievance and suspects collusion between the union leadership and management, he can go to someone who is above and beyond management, government or labour-someone, in a sense, in the judicial field who has almost a judicial status and the kind of freedom to move that an ombudsman has-to settle his grievance.
Obviously, Mr. Chairman, if we are to get this kind of an officer in Canada it is going to take a great deal of co-operation in developing the idea of the office; because it needs a co-operative program perhaps on the part of 11 different departments of labour and it needs the substantial support of an organization such as the Canadian Labour Congress, and even the unions that are sometimes referred to as maverick unions that
Supply-Labour
are outside the Canadian Labour Congress. I think this is a very, very worth-while idea. Partly it is a good defensive move for the labour movement itself, and partly it appeals to me because I have become more and more concerned, in my time in politics, with the poor individual citizen who gets caught up within a bureaucracy, whether it is of management, labour or government. This is something that is of increasing difficulty. I think it is a feather in the cap of the trade union movement as I know it that so few cases do come forward; that their grievance procedure does settle so many things.
I do not think there would be a welter of these complaints. I do not think it would have any effect on the normal working of the grievance procedure. But I do suggest that the minister should consider giving the lead in trying to obtain co-operation from the provincial departments of labour and from the labour movement as a whole in setting up in Canada the kind of organization and system based upon a labour ombudsman, and having some similarity in its terms of reference to what has been created in the United States by the united steelworkers. It seems to me that if the terms of reference for such an office were properly worked out, for example so that the office did not get involved in any jurisdictional disputes, and if there was a question of jurisdictional difference that would be wiped out, this would benefit those in the labour field.
One of the most important reasons for our needing this office is that judicial recourse is so rarely useful or so rarely open to a worker with this kind of grievance. This gentleman who came to see me from Cornwall has been out of work for two years. He had difficulty getting the bus fare to come to Ottawa, let alone the money necessary to hire a lawyer. I have just enough of these cases, four or five a year, to indicate to me -and I assume that other members have had similar cases brought to their attention-that this would be a very worth-while move to consider. Perhaps we should expect the unions to develop this idea in the way that Commander Robertson has developed it within the S.I.U. But I suggest it would be an imaginative step if we had such an office for the whole country. I would like the minister to give this suggestion serious consideration. I think it would be a real contribution.
One of the points where government and bureaucracy madden me is, for example, with the little gandy dance that has gone on between the minister and the hon. member for

Supply-Labour
Danforth in connection with the unemployment insurance commission, the Toronto newspaper strike and the question as to whether the strikers, or the people who have been locked out, as they claim, should be eligible tor unemployment insurance benefits. We have this whole question of 85 per cent production. Why in the name of heavens in a case like this cannot there be a bit more dispatch? I have connections with one newspaper, and to a degree with another newspaper, at both the management and union level. It has been apparent for more than two weeks that those newspapers are in practically full production. When we hear this talk about a production of 85 per cent, we realize it is nonsense when we read the editions of the Telegram and Star. They have been putting out 76-page and 72-page editions. When you look at the amount of classified advertising, this point is brought home, because you do not get a paper of 76 pages in the city of Toronto unless you have a very large output. Having talked to the management of at least one of the papers, who say they are as efficient, if not more efficient, than they were before the strike started, I do not know how the minister can be satisfied with this kind of delay. Maybe to the bureaucrat's mind a delay of one, two or three weeks is not much; but it sure means a great deal to those strikers and the income they have, in comparison with what they seem to me to be entitled to from the unemployment insurance commission.
I certainly think the minister could, in co-operation with the head of the unemployment insurance commission, settle this matter with about three phone calls to Toronto. Maybe this is not the way you should do things; maybe you should send registered letters-I don't know. But I think three phone calls would confirm to the minister's satisfaction that there is a lot more than 85 per cent production in those newspapers.
One of the points I wanted to make in connection with the S.I.U., as I have heard the kettle addressing the pot here this afternoon in this connection as to who is responsible, is that it is very apparent from the correspondence that is filed in connection with the Norris report that the question of how the S.I.U. was behaving was brought to the attention of the former minister of labour and the previous government quite early on in its administration. I know it was brought to their attention right in this house, because I brought it to their attention, and so did the hon. member for Kootenay West. As a matter

of fact, I received a number of virulent phone calls and letters over it. I also hope that the minister has read the speech, Hal Banks' speech, made last year at the S.I.U. international convention in the United States. I think this speech is worthy of his perusal. Hal was delighted with the Canadian situation because his buddies were back; the Liberals were back in power and all the noisiness of those silly New Democrats and the stubbornness, bullheadedness and the unfairness of the Diefenbaker government had disappeared, because his pals were back.


Mr. Benidickson:: Oh, you don't believe that.


Douglas Mason Fisher: That is what Hal Banks said.


William Moore Benidickson: But you don't believe it.


Douglas Mason Fisher: He was convinced of it. I know there is an element of guilt amongst the Liberals in a Liberal administration over the relationship the party has had with the S.I.U. and Mr. Banks. I could get worked up about this personally, since the S.I.U. moved right into my own area to work with the Liberal organization in order to try and defeat me in two election campaigns. They were welcome; it was great to have them. But, Mr. Chairman, there has been an identity in the minds of a great many people between the Liberal party and Hal Banks. However, I do not want to go digging up again the whole business of how Mr. Banks and Mr. McLaughlin used to refer to Walter Harris as their Ottawa office.
I am not going to get into what I think is the kind of corn introduced by the former prime minister in connection with the recognition of red China, when he suggested that red China had to expiate its sins before Canada could give recognition. I am not suggesting that the minister or the government have to expiate any sin, but I do hope that their guilt makes them uncomfortable enough to feel that it will not be satisfactory just to do a little surface tidying up of the situation.
A few weeks ago I had the pleasure of going through the Welland canal on a freighter, calling at a United States port and then going on to the lakehead. I talked to the sailors and several of the men who were witnesses before the Norris commission. They all welcomed the fact that there is peace on the lakes. But not even the simplest among them is under any illusion that the situation has been cleared up or that it is permanently remedied. They do not expect the bombs to start bursting this year but they do expect it

next year. They say it is useless to think that the tactics of the S.I.U. which have been built up over a generation in the United States are suddenly going to disappear. There will probably be peace as long as we have a trusteeship, and then the battle will develop again.
It seems to me that the only alternative is for the trusteeship really to develop a democratic approach. I took a gentleman in to see the minister a week ago. This man had been fired off a ship at the lakehead. This was despite the fact that he had an excellent record and had been with that ship for a couple of years. He also had a letter from the vice president of the C.S.L. recommending him for further training for a master's ticket. He had been fired off his ship without warning by an officer of the ship, who actually was not responsible for him, and on a phony excuse -at least, according to Mr. Mallett. But the interesting thing is Mr. Mallett's position in the union. He was against the march to Ottawa last year. He had stood, with a certain amount of bravery in my mind, against the size of the union fee membership and against any special levies. He had also been told by two officials of the S.I.U.: "You just wait, mister". Well, they got him and he now is involved in a court case, which comes under the Canada Shipping Act and which I will not comment on. I think they have got him, but many difficulties have since ensued. Now, here is a man fired off a ship. There is a grievance procedure, but has it worked well? I would say it has not, because to my mind there has been collusion to a degree between management and union officials in order to get rid of an objectionable character. That is my personal opinion.
My point is that this kind of situation does not occur in a good union. You are not going to get an arbitrary firing of a man who has an excellent record just overnight for a very minor excuse. I am just dismayed at the prospect of peace so long as the trustees are there, with the trustees not carrying out a thorough enough reform to make sure that it becomes a democratic organization. I realize we have to suspend judgment for a little longer, but I have a hunch that despite the remarks of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Regan) the minister and his officials are no more enamoured with some of the things which have developed in this situation than I am. I would hope that the minister has a breaking point, and that that breaking point will be when he becomes convinced that real reform is not taking place. I trust that he will then let us know, and that any guilt
Supply-Labour
complex which may exist will reinforce my contention that he should let us know. We will look forward to hearing the trustees before the committee.
I want to switch now to a matter which has been a very great disappointment both to myself and to a number of other members of the house, particularly to a number of Conservative members who represent railway points. I think of the late Sherwood Rideout and of all the work he did for the railway workers. It is a fact that last year the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines had before it the subject matter of a bill which I brought in. That committee almost unanimously-there was one exception-after long hearings listening to the vice presidents of both railways and hearing labour representatives, led off by the senior citizen of Canadian railway labour, Frank Hall, brought in recommendations in connection with the Railway Act. But we have in the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate-that Manitoba carpetbagger who got into Newfoundland and took charge of the department-a very skilful person at sitting on something so that all you get is inaction, inertia, and finally disappearance.
I put it to the minister that amongst the railway workers this issue has not disappeared, despite the fact that contracts have been signed. I also put it to the minister that the Minister of Transport promised when Donald Gordon was before the committee some time ago that as these recommendations which we made in connection with dislocation costs and the effects of automation and technical changes on the railways was so large an issue it should properly fall within the scope of the Department of Labour. That is what he said and I think there is a certain amount of reasonableness to it. Then he was prodded about this and said yes, he thought the Minister of Labour would be interested and that it should be within that framework. But we have not heard a damned thing about it since. It seems to me that it is almost typical of the slowness with which this administration works.
The minister knows, despite the big glossy title of Minister of Labour for Canada, that the main group of workers who come under his jurisdiction are the railway workers of Canada. I think he would acknowledge that the great bulk of his routine work in labour relations matters is connected with the railroad. I am surprised that the minister and his officials have had so little interest in the recommendations of that committee. Those

Supply-Labour
recommendations were made by a committee of this parliament on which members of the party to which he belongs took quite an active part. I would suggest to him that one of the answers we would like at this time in discussing his estimates is what he is going to do about this matter. I can be quite specific about it. If he wants to check the evidence given by the Minister of Transport before the special committee which heard Donald Gordon, he will find it all in the report, and in several places the Minister of Transport made statements which I had certainly assumed would lead to some kind of communication with the government, so that the minister would have some answer.
Another question I want to put to the minister is this. I, and I think a lot of other hon. members, would like an assessment of the vocational and technical school building program into which the federal government has poured so many millions of dollars. I was staggered when I saw that the Ontario minister of education is going to throw up another $4 million structure for retraining purposes somewhere soon. Wherever I go across the province I run into these big piles of schools which have come out of recent programs. For example, in the lakehead we have a number of them. We have some very good programs going on, but a great many people-educators, teachers, even the unemployed and the people in the unemployment insurance commission and national employment service-are not convinced that we are providing the right kind of facilities or offering the right kind of courses.
We have had an excellent crop of buildings, but in view of the fact that the federal government has put hundreds of millions of dollars into this program I think it is about time that we had some kind of assessment from the government of what has followed from all this building. I want to repeat one of my suspicions in connection with this matter. I think many of the provinces have got good, new secondary school plants out of the program but I am not so sure we have really created enough space of the right kind for a real retraining program. I think we need an assessment.
One of the reasons why I ask the minister for this is that I have great respect for the work of Mr. Ford of his department, although I do not know him personally. I have read enough of the contributions to the written record that Mr. Ford has made at various times to sense that he has been concerned and somewhat disturbed about this huge pro-

gram which is moving along on an ad hoc basis. I think we should have an appreciation
as to how successful this big spending program has been in terms of concrete results leading to work.
The last point I want to make to the minister relates to the publications of his department dealing with automation. I have just seen the first occasional paper by a Mr. McDonald in connection with office automation. I thought it standard was much higher than most I have seen from the department. It was much higher in the sense that it was both readable and yet had enough substance to it that you had something more than just the big bulky mimeographed reports that we used to get from the department in connection with matters like this and which always seemed to be a welter of statistics. I should like to suggest that the department should be encouraged to produce more papers like this and to give them wide distribution and as much publicity as possible. I certainly know that out of that one paper I can get a great deal of material to answer workers in offices in all kinds of industries. I should like to compliment the department on this particular publication and I hope there will be more of them. There are all kinds of things one can raise on this issue.
I suppose I should pay a compliment to the minister on two things, since they deal with his officials. In the last few months I have noticed a remarkable dropping off in individual complaints about the unemployment insurance commission and its officials. Part of that may be due to good times but I think a part of it is the result of the fact that things have finally settled down to an even keel after the adjustment that took place as a result of the tightening of the regulations a year or two ago. From my experience I think the commission should be complimented on this.
The other point on which I should like to compliment the minister also relates to the work of the unemployment insurance commission. If I can judge by my own area and by what I see in the newspapers of other areas the unemployment insurance commission is having much more success in the last while in moving in a public relations way to lead people to see that the commission is more than just a routine organization and that they tie in closely with the national employment service and with educational institutions and job opportunities. I may be wrong in sensing this improvement, but I certainly see it in my own area.

There are other matters in relation to the Department of Labour that I might mention to the minister. Really he has the same challenge as the Minister of Forestry in trying to develop joint programs. His department is really enmeshed in joint programs, particularly with regard to anything concerning education. I think that some day some educator in this country who has political responsibility, and the minister is an educator, is going to have the courage to get up and say: Joint programs are all very well but they are massive, they are slow and they are complicated. This minister is going to ask for more federal authority in this field, particularly with regard to retraining. He is going to ask for the surrender by the provinces of some of their privileges in this particular educational area. I should like to think that the present minister would be the one who would consider doing that.


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to take part in the discussion this afternoon but after listening to the remarks of the last speaker with regard to the strike in Toronto involving the three daily newspapers I feel I must rise. I wish to congratulate the hon. member for being truthful and honest in calling the episode now in progress in Toronto a strike. It is a strike. There was an endeavour to call it a lockout, but an injunction was secured in the supreme court of Ontario prohibiting the use of that term because it is a strike and not a lockout.
I should like to congratulate the Department of Labour and the minister for the manner in which they are handling the unemployment insurance fund in this specific case. We would all be howling to high heaven if the federal government in any manner, shape or form should appear to be acting as a strikebreaker in a strike, and I am sure we would also complain if the federal government should in any way appear to be financing a strike. I have no quarrel with the manner in which the Department of Labour is handling the unemployment insurance fund with regard to this situation in Toronto. These men all had good positions and were well paid, and paid regularly. They chose to strike of their own volition. It is no function of the unemployment insurance fund to finance them if they now find the going a little tough, after having made this decision themselves.
I should almost like to ask the question whether the last speaker was showing some self-interest in this matter. The strikers were somewhat riled over his crossing the picket
Supply-Labour
lines, and any request to the Minister of Labour to release money to these strikers may be with the idea that this money will assuage their feelings toward a man who crossed the picket lines. I should like to congratulate the Minister of Labour on the way in which he is handling this matter and to tell him not to be in too much of a hurry to meet the request of the last speaker on this point.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, I shall be just as brief as the hon. member who spoke before me.
As one who represents an essentially rural constituency, I should just like to say that I would be most happy if farm labourers came under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Our farmers are looking for cheap labour. They are often accused of mechanizing their farms, but if relatively cheap labour were available, they would undoubtedly take advantage of it.
Most often, such labour is not available because farm hands are not covered by unemployment insurance. I have taken every opportunity to bring this discrepancy to the attention of the authorities and once again I should like to advocate that farm labourers be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Chairman, I want to take only a few moments to make certain remarks to the minister. I know he is anxious to conclude the debate. I know he has promised the committee to give them certain specific pieces of information and I am sure he is anxious to get his estimates through. I want to bring to his attention a situation I have mentioned before in the house. My experience of the twenty sixth parliament is that sometimes you have to say something many, many times before it even registers either with the ministers or with their officials.
I am particularly pleased to see the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources in the house at this time because the suggestion I want to make to the Minister of Labour is a constructive one and almost involves a joint endeavour. The house is probably aware that there is absolutely no labour legislation whatsoever in the Northwest Territories. I think it is unfortunate that in 1964, when we are approaching the celebration of our 100th birthday, there should be a part of Canada where there is no protection whatsoever for the working man.

Supply-Labour
There are no laws guaranteeing minimum wages. There are no laws concerning hours of work, paid holidays, overtime pay or any of these things. I know, before the minister or anyone else tells me, that it is essentially a matter for the territorial council to provide legislation on these subjects. This is really where the minister of northern affairs comes in. At this particular juncture the minister of northern affairs has the peculiar responsibility of giving leadership to the council to see that this kind of legisation is prepared, in co-operation with the Minister of Labour, and presented to the territorial council. The fact of the matter is that the bulk of the councillors on that council are appointed by the cabinet, so there is an extra measure of federal control.
I say it is a serious problem because when we are talking about unemployment in Canada and the efforts the various administrations have made and are making to combat it, I think it is worth observing that in some of the more northerly areas of Canada at certain times of the year the unemployment rate is in fact 100 per cent. Now, this may not involve very many people in terms of the Canadian population. However, I suggest to you that it involves parts of the country that have a total population of approximately 100,000. I am thinking of the northerly parts of the provinces and, in particular, of the two northern territories. At times, the people who live in those parts of the country have absolutely no means of obtaining employment. These people are nearly all Indian or Eskimo people who have, over the course of the past few years, lost not only their initiative in connection with trapping, hunting and fishing, but in many cases have lost the skills necessary to conduct those activities properly.
I was pleased at the statement issued yesterday by the minister of northern affairs as a result of another northern tour which he has just completed, and a most successful one. This statement referred to the educational programs which are so desperately needed and which will have a long term effect on the life of the northern people. All that we have succeeded in doing so far is taking the Indian and Eskimo children and moving them out of their own way of life into a no man's land. I know of several communities in the Northwest Territories and the northern parts of the provinces where at times of the year when hunting, fishing and fur trapping are not profitable, the entire community may be out of work. When the minister is giving a statement on unemployment in Canada, it

must be a source of irritation to him that there are still these pockets in our country where unemployment may reach as high as 90 per cent for a few months in the year.
I want to make a suggestion to the minister. I was interested in his opening remarks about the economic research branch and the kind of analyses the branch is doing or is planning to do. I want to suggest to him that it would be worth while if he asked this branch to conduct a survey of the unemployment situation in Canada's northerly regions. I mean a real survey and not something that is done in a week or ten days. The minister should give this branch the task of finding out what the situation really is; what skills there are in the groups of people who are, as I suggested earlier, Indian and Eskimo people. He should ascertain methods by which they can be brought back into the employment stream. I suggest the Department of Labour do this, rather than the department of northern affairs, because the federal department of northern affairs is already involved in providing an ameliorating program, if you can call it that. I refer to the educational facilities, and so on.
Quite often when a federal department like northern affairs is so intimately involved in the administration of an area their survey would tend to be an apology for what they have been doing or have not been doing. Quite often the officials of a department, particularly northern affairs, will say that everything is fine and the programs they have been conducting are wonderful; there are no other methods that could be followed. I ask the Minister of Labour to conduct this survey through the economic research branch. This is a specific task and it may take some months. Certainly, from his description of the branch it would be the ideal organization to undertake this work. They would be really rendering a service to northern Canadians wherever they may be found, not only in the territories but also in the provinces.
I want to make a suggestion to him. I should like the department to look into the possibility of the government of Canada, which is the largest single employer in the Canadian north, making more use of local labour. The record of the government of Canada over the years in employing local people has not been good. Quite often, and I speak on the basis of experience in the Canadian north as a federal employee, we were pressuring private enterprise, construction companies that came in to work on projects and so on, to give work to the Indian

and Eskimo people. We said, you should not be importing thousands of labourers from the south when we have all these people here. However the record of the government itself has not been good. For this reason I suggest the Department of Labour, because it represents the only federal department that is not in the Northwest Territories in a major way. They have nothing to protect, not even any empire to preserve. I use those words advisedly. I think they would have to take action with objectivity, with a special perspective that would allow the officials of this department to do the work. I urgently request the minister to consider this.
There is just one other thing I want to request the minister to do, and that is to establish at least one office for the unemployment insurance commission and the national employment service in the northern territories. At the present time if a person wishes to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits or even attempt to find work in other parts of the country, the nearest office is Edmonton which is some 500 miles south of our southerly border. If you live over in the eastern part of the territories you have to contact Montreal. I have placed a question on the order paper before about this and received an answer from the minister's officials that there is no need for the Department of Labour to establish either an employment office or an unemployment insurance office in the Northwest Territories; everything is fine; the officials are watching things and it is under constant survey.
The bitter truth in relation to this situation was revealed when one of the producing gold mines in Yellowknife shut down last winter and some 150 men were put out of work for a few months. The unemployment insurance office did not even have enough forms in Edmonton to handle the situation. I suggest to the minister that the volume of business in the Canadian Northwest Territories justifies a full scale office and it would be advisable to have one set up. I can guarantee him that business will be booming, if he does in fact provide facilities. Right now people just have to depend on neighbours or friends to do this. It is not as good as the service that is being provided by the unemployment insurance commission in many, many regions. Many residents who are eligible for benefits simply do not know about it and consequently use other facilities offered through the department of northern affairs, such as the public welfare program and relief,
Supply-Labour
when in fact they could be benefiting from the placement service.
Before taking my seat to allow the minister to make his concluding comments, I want to bring his attention to the situation on the distant early warning line. He promised me previously that he would look into it. The situation is one which has been going on for some years and I would like him to indicate now, or later to me privately, whether his department is looking into the complaint that American employees of the Federal Electric Corporation receive substantially more pay than Canadian employees doing the same work. I have had this complaint for some months now. I was dimly aware of it when I worked along the distant early warning line, but more recently it has been brought forcibly to my attention.


Arthur Laing: My intervention in this debate will be short and is caused only by the fact the previous speaker referred to labour conditions in the territories. I want to assure him we have been aware of the complaints that have been registered in respect of the letting of contracts in Edmonton, with no requirement in the territories covering the normal rates of pay that exist in Edmonton. There has also been a complaint in respect to the workmen's compensation in the territories, on the basis of inadequacy.
We are not unaware of this, and I would hope the hon. member would give us some marks for the fact that we have forthrightly attempted to take care of these matters in the appointment within our power of at least one member of the Northwest Territories council. We have appointed to that council Mr. Stuart Hodgson, who is an extremely well known and highly regarded member of the international woodworkers of America.
I have asked him to act in respect of these matters as a labour man might be expected to act, and nothing more. I know he called the labour council in the city of Edmonton to meet them. They gave him an entire day and I have reports from them that they were exceedingly well pleased for what they described as the first time a government had attempted to meet them in respect of these matters.
My hon. friend is aware of the difficulties in respect of using and incorporating the indigenous people in the work force there. I think we have made pretty fair progress and I believe he thinks so too. At one time we had 100 Eskimos working in a mine in the territories and they turned out to be extremely adept in using machinery, and

Supply-Labour
competent of adopting new techniques. Unfortunately the mine ran out of ore, but we transferred a number of them to other mines. There are now 10 Eskimo families working at Yellowknife, respected and accepted by the white community, and doing a very splendid job for the firms employing them. These are conditions towards which we are moving, and we will do our best in co-operation with the Northwest Territories council to take care of these matters brought before the committee.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I think I hear the Secretary of State murmur a bit because he sees me rise, but I can tell him right away I am going to have my say because I promised a number of people in B.C. that I would make a few remarks on the estimates of the Department of Labour.


Maurice Lamontagne: Excuse me, I did not.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Then I apologize. I must have had a poor ear. This is a most inspiring atmosphere in which to deal with labour matters; I can see the committee is in a very cheerful and agreeable mood. I wish to say I listened to the minister's opening statement with interest and appreciation, as he outlined certain policies and programs of the department. I am not going to deal with those, except to say that I for one am very pleased to see willingness to experiment. I am not one who would criticize if an experiment fails. In this field the idea of experimenting is well worth while. We are entering into a new era so far as labour relations, automation and so on are concerned, and I am sure the only way to find sound solutions is as a result of experimentation from time to time. I am very glad to see these experiments being carried on with respect to legislation programs, and administration.
I have a few remarks to make on other matters which concern a number of workers. I am one of those persons who keep in touch with the rank and file of the workers organizations and unions because I have always found that if I keep close to the rank and file of labour, the farmers, and people in general, I have nothing to fear regardless of what anybody else says.
I have a few comments to make in respect to the maritime trustees and the famous Hal Banks binge, as I was possibly the first member to raise the question in the house of his activities, his past record and so on. As a result of that I aroused his ire, and he sent one of his colleagues around my constituency circulating literature wherever he
[Mr. Laing.l
could find an opportunity to distribute it, in stores, Legion branches, clubs and trade union offices, condemning me as a proper bounder. Anyway I was very pleased because once people read his opinion of me their regard for me was higher than it was previously. That was before the 1957 election.
I support the remarks made by the hon. member for Port Arthur in respect to this question. We in this group have some concern as to the ultimate conclusion of the operations of the maritime union trustees. I am not underestimating their difficulties. Some members have been critical of the former government with respect to this situation, but at least a royal commission was appointed by that government, a commission that finally brought out the facts and caused some action to be taken. On numerous occasions during 1956 and the early part of 1957 hon. members of the opposition rose in the house and urged the Liberal government to take some action with respect to this man. I repeatedly urged that he be deported and, regardless of the situation now, let us not forget that this man was brought to Canada as a result of action of the Liberal government in which I consider there was monkey-work with the immigration papers when he arrived, which concealed his former criminal record.
There should be an early appearance of the maritime trustees before the industrial relations committee because I remember that on April 4, Mr. Charles Millard, one of the trustees, issued a joint statement with Mr. Paul Hall, president of the S.I.U. of North America, announcing they had reached agreement. Their peace formula included the following, and I quote:
The vice president of the S.I.U., Leonard McLaughlin, would take over as president of the
5.1.	U.
Active management of the S.I.U. would be turned back to S.I.U. leaders.
The Canadian S.I.U. will continue as part of the
5.1.	U. of North America.
Maritime unions on the great lakes will be integrated.
Later it was stated that integration meant that the two Canadian unions on the great lakes-the Canadian maritime union and the seamen's section of the Canadian brotherhood of railway and transport workers-would be taken over by the
5.1.	U.
That peace formula has not developed, but it indicates Mr. Millard's line of thought and I for one object very strongly to any action to permit the S.I.U. to take over these unions which fought the good fight against Hal Banks and his S.I.U. associates when the going was very difficult. These Canadian

unions did a great deal to bring the matter to a head, focus public attention upon it and, ultimately, bring about action by the government.
I think the trustees should appear before a committee of this house and give us some idea of their objectives and their methods, as well as some understanding of what they have achieved to date. I am not understimat-ing the difficulties. I think everyone wants to see this question resolved satisfactorily and for all time. I hope the committee members will have the opportunity to question the trustees-not just the chairman, but all of the trustees. Some of us would like to put certain questions to them individually, and I hope the minister will make this possible at an early date.
There is another matter I should like to bring to the attention of the minister. I have mentioned it before in the house and I repeat it at the request of union members concerned with the British Columbia hydro power authority legislation. Members of the unions directly concerned are anxious about this, as is the trade union movement generally in British Columbia. In 1954, Premier Duplessis had an amendment made to the Quebec labour legislation making it illegal for all unions connected with public services to strike. That law was in effect until recent times. Owing to the strong position taken by Quebec trade unions-and I give them full credit for it-Premier Lesage has agreed to amend this act and delete those vicious clauses so that employees of public services will have the right to strike; they will have this freedom returned to them. Only the firefighters and the police are excepted.
Just the reverse is happening in British Columbia. At the last session of the legislature, amendments were made to the hydro and power authority act making it illegal for employees of the hydro authority to strike. In case the minister has not noticed this, I refer to subsection (2) of section 56 of the act which passed third reading in the legislature of British Columbia on March 10, 1964. It reads as follows;
No person shall declare or authorize a strike, and no employee of the authority shall strike, and the authority shall not lock out any employee or employees.
I have mentioned this before and brought it to the attention of the Minister of Justice. I mentioned it again at the request of many of the employees concerned. They are disturbed about it and I cannot understand the authority supporting this legislation. This is
Supply-Labour
a type of organization within which strikes are most infrequent and I cannot understand them damaging public relations with their employees by having this provision included in the hydro and power authority act. I urge the minister to discuss this matter with the Minister of Justice because, like a good many other people, I think there are sound grounds for the disallowance of this legislation as a transgression of the Canadian Bill of Rights. The federal government has the right to disallow legislation if there is sound reason for doing so. I bring this to the attention of the minister because I know that at heart he is a small "1" liberal who is very conscious of this aspect of our social fabric. I know many trade unions in British Columbia would welcome an assurance that this legislation will be disallowed.
Now I wish to deal with another question for a few minutes. I do so at the request of trade unionists because of the coming developments on the Columbia in the course of which large contracts will be let. Undoubtedly a good many of these contracts will go to corporations controlled in the United States, because many of these companies have the type of equipment required and are able to underbid Canadian firms. I mention this because we had one experience during the construction of the pipe line in British Columbia which brings it to mind. I speak particularly of southeastern British Columbia where I know what happened from personal experience. Hundreds of United States workers crossed the line into Canada as landed immigrants. I am not blaming them for seeking employment. Of course they had to indicate that they intended to settle in Canada. On the whole, these were completely false declarations. They came to Canada and worked on these pipe line jobs for periods of between three months and six months to my knowledge. In order to find out whether or not these people were landed immigrants, the R.C.M.P. checked their cards, and practically all of them had visitors' permits saying they intended to return to the United States within a few months. These men obtained employment from United States controlled construction companies while Canadian workers in the area were unemployed. Students at the university of British Columbia who were looking forward to making a little extra money in the summer months were denied the opportunity to do so because of the number of United States citizens who had come in as landed immigrants to take employment in connection with the construe-

Supply-Labour
tion of the pipe line and who then, with very few exceptions, returned to the United States.
The second thing I wish to complain of is this. These companies completely ignored the national employment service. I talked to the manager of the employment service at Nelson at that time and he told me that the manager of one of these companies had said: We are not going to be bothered with your petty national employment service; we shall employ whom we wish and in the way we wish. I thought this was a high handed way to treat our national employment service. The office there had a list of local people for 200 miles around who were anxious to get employment on these projects. I bring this up because, as I said before, numerous United States controlled companies will undoubtedly get contracts in connection with the Columbia development project and I suggest to the minister that some consideration be given to amending the Immigration Act or to tightening up the regulations or to checking more closely so as to make certain that those who apply to come to Canada as landed immigrants really intend to settle in Canada. I fully agree there must be reciprocity on this question. We have Canadians who wish to enter the United States to take up employment, not so much from western Canada as from the eastern areas. But I do think something could be done to amend the act or the regulations and strengthen the hands of the officials at the ports of entry so that they can check this practice. The British Columbia hydro and power authority has indicated that it would employ persons who have been in Canada for 60 days. Well, it is easy to come to Canada for a couple of months to await the commencement of a four or five year program. I suggest the department should do something to see that the services of the national employment service are used by these organizations. I think it is highly improper that the national facilities should be ignored to the disadvantage of Canadian citizens. I would also suggest that it would be a good idea for the Department of Labour to have occasional observers at these large construction projects to find out how the law and the regulations are being complied with, to see how the national employment service is being used, and for the government to get well informed, from a national angle, as to the application of labour law and regulations to the advantage of Canadian citizens.
I had intended to speak for another ten or 15 minutes, Mr. Chairman; but I will leave my further remarks to another occasion

in order to give the minister an opportunity to reply at this time if he wishes to do so.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member who has just resumed his seat for his consideration in shortening his remarks so I might have a chance to make some comments on a number of points that have been raised by hon. gentlemen in the discussion this afternoon. I certainly thank hon. members for the searching examination they have given the work of the Department of Labour and the unemployment insurance commission. I especially wish to thank them for the well merited commendations they have paid to members of my department and the unemployment insurance commission. I have already stated that it is the intention of the government to introduce comprehensive labour standards legislation at this session, and it is my firm expectation that it will be placed on the order paper in the month of September. I believe that once we have enacted this legislation the federal Department of Labour will be in a stronger position to undertake some of the activities suggested by the hon. member for Kootenay West.
A number of hon. members have discussed, and understandably so, the operation of the board of maritime trustees. I have always maintained that the board of trustees should be accountable to parliament, and it is for this reason that I joined my request to the request made by other hon. members that the board of trustees appear before a parliamentary committee. I have received an assurance from the chairman of the board of trustees that such an appearance will be made at this session of parliament. It is the suggestion of the chairman of the board that this appearance be later in the fall. I have concurred in that suggestion, or at least I have expressed my appreciation of the reasons that may be in the mind of the chairman of the board. I undertake, of course, to arrange such a meeting with the board of trustees at this session of parliament. On that occasion members of parliament will have an opportunity to receive more detailed information on the matters that are causing them the concern which they have expressed today.
On August 4 I made in the House of Commons a rather long statement on the operation of the board of trustees. My views expressed at that time with respect to the operation of the board still stand. I do not intend to repeat them today, except to say that I do appreciate the concern expressed by

hon. members with respect to human rights affecting seamen. The board of trustees have already taken action to add members to the maritime appeals board in order to permit additional panels to deal where necessary with these outstanding cases. I understand the board of trustees will be making an announcement in this regard shortly, and I trust this will have the effect of adding further to the confidence that has already been expressed in the integrity and competence of Commander Robertson who has been operating as a one-man appeal board in hearing these cases.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North dealt extensively with the question of the "do not ship" list. He raised a number of important questions concerning which the officials of the Department of Labour have undertaken discussions with the board of trustees. These discussions will continue in an effort to remove any concern that may exist with respect to these cases.
I have no intention of continuing the discussion with respect to the employment programs of the Department of Labour, except to state that in my view the winter-built housing program has been an undoubted success. I believe this success is demonstrated beyond all debate by the considerable increase in housing starts in January and February of this year in comparison with the same months in 1963. The percentage increase in housing starts as a result of this program has been estimated at well over 70 per cent in these two crucial months when seasonal unemployment is at its highest.
May I just say in connection with the operation of the winter-built housing program that all the terms and conditions of that program will continue this winter. We have, of course, examined the proposals made by the Regina housebuilders which were later supplemented by proposals made by the national housebuilders. In considering proposals from the builders and representations from areas of the country experiencing severe climate we have decided that the commencement of the program this winter will be on November 15 rather than on December 1. The program will be in effect, in other words, from November 15, 1964, to March 31, 1965.
A number of hon. members have referred to the municipal winter works incentive program. May I just say that the terms and conditions of this program will continue as they did last year, except that we intend to make provision to assist certain municipalities where there is high winter unemployment 20220-487
Supply-Labour
and municipalities located in designated areas. Provision will be made for certain projects to be continued during the month of May, to compensate for periods during the winter when it is clearly demonstrated that work could not continue due to severe weather conditions. Work on such projects in these areas will continue, provided they had been started during November and are projects of at least five months duration.
The hon. member for Port Arthur made a suggestion, among quite a number of others, that particularly impressed me. I refer to the hon. member's suggestion with respect to the desirability of considering ways and means of strengthening the appeal procedures in cases affecting human rights of union members. He suggested that discussions ought to be undertaken with provincial departments of labour, and possibly the Canadian Labour Congress, with regard to methods by which this could be done. I certainly undertake to place this item on the agenda of the next conference of labour ministers, which would include all provincial ministers and the federal Minister of Labour. A number of questions have been asked with respect to the cost of the older worker program. Incentive payments to July 31 on behalf of older workers under this program amounted to $413,000. This was disbursed on behalf of 941 older workers and amounts to $440 per person. I suggest this cannot be considered excessive when you consider the retraining aspect of this expenditure and the possible savings to the unemployment insurance fund.
The hon. member for Ontario asked me about the state of the unemployment insurance fund. The unemployment insurance fund stood at $559,000 on July 31. During the period April 1, 1964 to May 29, 1964 the sum of $26.5 million was borrowed. All of this has been repaid, and in addition $21 million invested in non-marketable securities redeemable at par practically on demand.
The hon. member for the Northwest Territories raised a number of questions with respect to the administration of labour relations in the Northwest Territories and the operations of the Federal Electric Company. I am sure he knows that at present there is an outstanding conciliation board case affecting the workers and the employer in this case. The conciliation board report has not yet reached me, but when it does it may contain the solution to a number of the problems raised by my hon. friend. He can be assured that this point which he has raised

Supply-Labour
will be fully considered, and if possible his suggestions will be implemented by the department.
If there are any other questions which hon. members would like me to answer I would be very glad to try and do so.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the minister about his remarks in connection with the appearance of the trustees before a committee of this house. His remarks were pretty general. I could hazard a guess as to the reason he agreed that the meeting of this committee should be later, but what has he in mind? September, October? Could he pin it down to a definite area of time, say within a month?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not want to be pinned down to a definite date because this is a matter which involves the house leader; but it is certainly my intention to advocate the setting up of this committee this fall. That ought to satisfy my hon. friend because this fall is not very far away.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Annuities Act-
20. Administration and government's contribution to annuities agents pension account in accordance with regulations made pursuant to vote 181, Appropriation Act No. 5, 1961, $1,229,500.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister would make a statement with regard to the annuities act. In particular, could the minister tell us whether the government has any plans for enlarging the provisions of the Government Annuities Act or for extending the promotion of this legislation. As the minister may know from his reading of history-because I believe I am now referring to something which took place before he became a member of this house-it is the fact that about 14 years or so ago the Liberal government of that day brought in a measure to raise the ceiling on the amount of government annuities and to make certain other changes. It is also a matter of record that although that legislation was given second reading in the house and approval by the industrial relations committee of that day, the government allowed it to die on the order paper. I should like to know whether any thought has been given by the present minister or by his department since he became minister to make improvements of that kind in the Government Annuities Act.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I have two things to say, if I may, in reply to my hon.

friend. The hon. member may recall that this spring we did increase the interest rates on government annuities. The interest rates used in the calculation of premiums for immediate annuities for persons aged 55 and over and for group annuities have been increased from 4 per cent to 5i and 5 per cent respectively. These changes in government annuity interest rates were necessary to bring the rates more in line with the yield on other good investments. It was apparent that the lower yield on government annuities certainly put the act at a disadvantage in the market, and we took this action in order to remove this disability.
The second thing I should like to say is that we are actively discussing and considering in the Department of Labour the relationship between the government annuities program and the Canada pension plan.


Stanley Howard Knowles: First of all, may I welcome the first of the two statements the minister has just made. This of course is something that the government can do by order in council under the terms of the Government Annuities Act, namely change the applicable rate of interest from time to time. The minister will recall that I referred to the proposal the government made some years ago to raise the maximum amount of annuity obtainable under the act from $100 a month to $200 a month. Is the government now giving consideration to picking up that proposal, which as I say it made and then dropped in about 1950 or 1951?
While I am on my feet perhaps I might ask the minister whether he could be a little more specific as to what he has in mind about the relationship between the Government Annuities Act and the Canada pension plan.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The answer to the first question, Mr. Chairman, is no. There is no current consideration being given to the proposal which was considered some years ago. The specific answer I can give to the second question is that the annuities program is being considered especially in relation to industrial pensions. However, we have not made any decisions; it is purely in the consideration stage.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I would not want to do anything to delay the passage of these estimates but at the same time you did go rather quickly and I suppose it is my fault for not getting to my feet fast enough. We passed item 15, the one just before this, and a number of questions were asked on this item. I asked about the newspaper reports to

the effect that there were a large number of people dropping out of the training courses because the allowances they are given are not large enough to live on while taking training. Then the hon. member for Port Arthur asked whether very careful assessment has been made, is being made or will be made of the number of technical schools which are being and will be built; and he also asked whether the types of courses being offered are designed to meet the needs of 1964, and so on. I wonder whether the minister could deal with these questions at some point.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, so far as the adequacy of training allowances for the unemployed is concerned, we presently pay 90 per cent of these allowances to persons under program 5. The Department of Labour have agreed to pay 90 per cent of an allowance of $55 a week for a married person. That is the present maximum training allowance which we have authorized. We are also quite interested in the usefulness of our training facilities and the expansion of capital facilities. There is a provision in these estimates that will authorize the Department of Labour to enter into agreements with provincial governments to undertake the kind of research that will enable us to evaluate the efficacy of the training programs and establish the relationship of the courses offered to the requirements of industry. Certainly each one of us ought to be concerned that the courses offered are the right kind of courses and meet the requirements of industry. We have under consideration at present meetings with officials of the labour and education departments of the provincial governments to consider how best these courses can be related to the requirements of industry.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: Mr. Chairman, we have exceeded the clock at this point and may I say that to my mind it is proper that we should exceed it. I suggest that we will be quite willing to ask for unanimous consent. The hon. member for Winnipeg North posed a question to which he received an answer and we did not object when the time limit was exceeded. As his bill is to be dealt with under private members' business, perhaps he would agree to the committee taking an extra 20 minutes or so at this time to complete these estimates.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I have no personal objection. At the same time I do not think I can agree because there are a number of members not here at this time 20220-487i
Criminal Code
who are interested in matters which come under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labour and who I think will want to speak. Some of them have left town because it is a Friday afternoon with a long week end coming up. I do not think it would be fair to those members who are not here to pass all these estimates at this time. I think we have had a good discussion with no disposition on the part of any member or party to hold up the estimates unnecessarily, and I am sure that when we return to them they will be passed expeditiously. I do not think any real purpose would be served by passing them all now.


Lucien Lamoureux: May I bring to the attention of hon. members that the last question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North related to a previous item and since that item had already been passed I wonder whether it is the disposition of the committee to pass the item now before us before we report?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
26a. To authorize payment of compensation in the current and subsequent fiscal years to Edgar Simms under the Government Employees Compensation Act in respect of the injury sustained by him while a seaman on board the customs cutter M.V. Shulamite in June, 1936, as if he incurred the injury by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment while an employee within the meaning of the Government Employees Compensation Act, $1.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I think it was suggested that perhaps we have gone far enough, although personally I would not mind items 26a and 27a carrying. This would bring us to more or less of a clean break and leave the unemployment insurance item for another time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills, private bills.



CRIMINAL CODE


David Orlikow: the second reading of Bill No. C-50, to amend the Criminal Code (company-censored housing).

Criminal Code
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is a very simple one. Most people in Canada, particularly people who are interested in labour-management relations, have assumed for some considerable time that the law of the country provided for the right of workers who wished to join unions of their choice to do so without discrimination against them and without difficulties being put in their way. The Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act makes this position very clear. Section 3, subsection 1 reads as follows:
Every employee has the right to be a member of a trade union and to participate in the activities thereof.
This right has not been challenged too often in Canada. Certainly it has not been challenged in most of the cities of Canada. It has not been too difficult for trade union organizers and rank and file members of trade unions interested in getting workers in their industry to join their union, to visit people in their homes or in public places in order to make clear to them the reasons why they should join and to give them the legitimate right to join.
Difficulties have arisen in recent years as resources of Canada in previously inaccessible areas have been developed. Problems have arisen in the mining industry, in the building of hydroelectric plants and in the lumbering industry, to mention just a few. What employers who have desired to get around the provision in the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, which I have just quoted, have done is to use a provision in the Criminal Code, which in my opinion was never meant to be used when it was drafted for the purpose of preventing union organizers from having the opportunity to speak to people on the job. Section 41, subsection 1, of the Criminal Code, which deals with defence of house or real property, reads as follows:
Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling house or real property and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority is justified in using force to prevent any person from trespassing on the dwelling house or real property, or to remove a trespasser therefrom, if he uses no more force than is necessary.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in the inaccessible areas of Canada when mining operations or lumber operations are opened up the companies have to build bunkhouses for the workers, since there is no other place for them to live. In my opinion the workers who live there have the same rights to have visitors as any other people living in a city or town in a house or an apartment building. This is the place where they live. In my opinion they have a right, and

they ought to have a right, to have the same kind of visitors as freely and as easily as people living in the cities or towns of Canada. That has not happened. It is for this reason I have proposed in this bill to add subsection 3 to section 41 of the Criminal Code, which would read as follows:
Except where a landlord would be therein justified under a covenant with a tenant for quiet enjoyment, nothing in this section shall be deemed to justify an employer in using force to prevent any person from having ingress to, regress over, or egress from a dwelling house or real property in or upon which the employer houses an employee or to remove any person therefrom.
I took the trouble to write some of the unions which have had difficulties in this connection and have secured some details of some of the problems with which they have had to deal. I wrote to the president of the confederation of national trade unions and I received a letter from the president, Mr. Jean Marchand who, as some members of the house will know, is now a member of the bi-culturalism commission. I want to read from the letter which he wrote me on March 23, 1964, and I quote:
We are in perfect agreement with this bill which aims to amend the Criminal Code so that the companies could not arbitrarily prevent their employees from joining a union. In the past, it was an accepted policy of the companies to forbid union organizers from visiting workers. Last year, we reached an agreement with the Quebec department of forestry so that passes are issued which entitle our organizers to travel freely on the companies' properties. But the system adopted is one based on privileges. We would prefer to have the Criminal Code amended and eventually the provincial laws.
We support your bill and we hope that it will get through.
I wrote to the international woodworkers of America and I received a letter from the vice president who wrote on behalf of their president on March 17, 1964. He cited a few examples of the difficulty which they had experienced, and I should like to read them into the record so members of the house will realize the type of problem which the union has had to face. I quote:
At Hystad Bros., Valemount, B.C., Canoe river camp, in March 1962, organizers Mike Sekora, R. E. Larson, and Ed Timmath were threatened by superintendent Jack Woods with R.C.M.P. action for trespassing. The superintendent told the employees in the bunkhouse that they had no right to invite a union man in to see them.
Industrial Lumber Ltd., Celeste, B.C., owned by Federated Co-operatives, organizers R. E. Larson and Clifford Michael were ordered out of the bunkhouse by Art Lloyd, manager of Federated Cooperatives, on the grounds of trespass.

All Fir Lumber Co. Ltd., McLeese Lake, B.C., organizer Ron Tweedie escorted out of bunkhouse by R.C.M.P. on the grounds of trespass.
North Western Pulp & Power Ltd., camp No. 2, Hinton, Alberta. In 1956, Frank Howard, M.P., and Michael Sekora, organizing for the I.W.A. were ordered out of the bunkhouse while signing up the crew. The superintendent, Stuart Allen, called local police to escort them from the property-the police did not respond because the local policeman happened to be an old I.W.A. member and a friend of Sekora.
I should like to cite some of the problems of the united steelworkers of America as they are set out in the "Miners' Voice" dated March, 1964. I quote:
Esterhazy, Sask.-Employees of International Minerals and Chemical Corporation (Canada) Limited who live in the trailer campsite here are being fenced in behind barbed wire and the camp has been declared by the company to be off bounds for visitors.
This latest move is another in a number of antiunion acts taken by I.M.C. to prevent union organization of its employees, charged representatives of the united steelworkers of America. That union is currently engaged in a membership drive at I.M.C. operations in nearby Yarbo.
Mr. Speaker, I am not proposing for a moment that anything be done to force workers to join a union. I believe workers have a right, under our law, to either join a union or not join a union. The point I am raising is that this provision in the Criminal Code dealing with trespass was never designed to be used to interfere with the rights of workers to join a union as it is being used now. This section of the Criminal Code, therefore, ought to be amended along the lines I have proposed. I want to cite some more cases which occurred in the province of Ontario. I shall quote from a letter which I received from the northern Ontario district council of lumber and saw mill workers unions. Here are some of the cases:
Henry Selin Forest Products-Hearst, Ontario.
Numerous attempts were made between 1946 and 1961 to get into the camp area which is seven miles off highway 11, 35 miles west of Hearst. All of these attempts failed. In the early part of 1961, the union repaired 14 miles of old winter haul road and went around the gate and into the camps with 35 organizers. At 3 a.m. a union organizer had to walk out to call the O.P.P. as Selin had blocked the road in many places with bulldozers, graders, trucks and trees. The union had over 90 per cent of the employees in the union when they came out. This shows the men wanted the union, and the union was subsequently certified by the labour relations board and had to pull a strike for a first agreement in October, 1961. Selin immediately blocked the road leaving 42 families isolated without food, medical care, etc. He barred these people from using the road. The union, at great expense, flew all the necessary supplies in to these people, and finally secured an injunction to open the road.
Criminal Code
Numerous small operators operate in the area of Chapleau, Ontario. All operate on crown land and all have so-called private roads. Some have gates, others have not.
In the year of 1963, the union had an invitation from the employers in Chapleau Lumber to organize them. This is partly a jackpot family camp and partly bunk-houses. There is no gate on the road. The union secured permission from management to visit the camp (subsequently, this was withdrawn) , when the organizers (five in number) went in, the operator called the O.P.P. and attempted to have them arrested for trespass. Charges of trespass were laid against the five and on a later occasion, on another visit, three more were charged wtih the same offence.
In my own province, Mr. Speaker, we have had the development of one of the largest industrial complexes at Thompson, Manitoba. Preparatory to building that plant it was necessary to build a power plant, which was built at Kelsey, some miles from Thompson; but despite the fact that it took two years to complete the building the trade unions were never able to get into that power plant project to discuss with the workers the advisability of their joining a union.
The only way to get into the area was by a spur line railway which was controlled by International Nickel, who instructed the C.N.R. not to sell tickets and not to permit anybody on a train except people with passes from the company. I have in my file sworn affidavits to prove that men worked on that project for as long as six months at a time, seven days a week, working as much as 100 hours a week, not because they wanted to but because they were told that unless they were prepared to work those hours they would be fired immediately.
Those men wanted to join unions, but during the entire time this project was being constructed they were unable to contact union people because the company used the provisions of the Criminal Code, which in my opinion were never meant to be used in this way to get around the very clear intent of the parliament of Canada which passed the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, and of the provincial governments which passed labour relations acts.
In the same way, when the actual project was begun at Thompson, for two years or more it was impossible for any union organizer to get into Thompson. I know about this because as a member of the legislature I finally got them in, although I must say it took me close to three or four months to get through all the red tape and go from minister to minister, and from deputy minister to deputy minister, to try to get permission to meet the rules and the regulations.

Criminal Code
After I had done all this and had been turned down I went on. I told the company I would go in there whether the law permitted or not. I advised the company when I would go and suggested to them that they arrange with the R.C.M.P. to arrest me. I told them I was prepared to appear in court, that I would refuse to pay the fine, which was the only penalty that could be imposed, that I would then probably be adjudged to be in contempt of court, and if the company was prepared to stand the publicity of sending a member of the legislature to jail I was prepared to go to jail for whatever period the magistrate would assess.
But this is not a way which we can get good labour management relations. What we ought to do is amend this section of the code which has been used, is being used and will be used by some unscrupulous employers to get around the very clear intent of the labour relations act.
I hope hon. members of the house will not laud this bill to death, in other words that they will not talk it out. It may be that the government has not had enough time to consider all its implications, and I know it is not very often that a bill proposed by a private member is passed by the house. But if the government is not ready to permit passage of the bill today I would urge that it agree to send the bill to the industrial relations committee where representations could be made by the people concerned, by the unions which have had the difficulties I have mentioned- and there are other unions I have not mentioned which have had difficulties-and by employers who, if they have really good reasons which I have not mentioned for carrying on the kind of activities which I have outlined, could appear and give their reasons so that the committee could consider this matter thoroughly in all its aspects, and bring back a recommendation to the house.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Before the hon. member takes his seat would he permit a question? Could he give the house the advantage of his understanding of the meaning and effect of the first clause of his amendment, that is, the first 17 words leading up to the comma?


David Orlikow: Could the hon. member be a little more explicit in what he wants me to explain?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I have to interrupt this exchange because the hon. member's time has expired, unless the house wants to give him unanimous agreement to continue

so that he may answer the question. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Orlikow: Having looked at it, it is not very difficult to explain. The purpose of this bill is to permit legitimate action. The first 17 words permit a landlord to eject from his premises anybody who is, for example, having a wild party, creating a disturbance which bothers the other tenants, and so on. I think it is quite simple.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I listened with much interest to the remarks made by the hon. member who spoke before me and even if he did labour his point, I doubt very much that the amendment he is submitting to the house would come under the administration of the Criminal Code.
It is clear and obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the provision he would add to section 41 of the Criminal Code is a provision essentially related to the labour code.
The Criminal Code in sections 40, 41 and 42, deals with the protection of movable property. There is first a provision for the protection of a dwelling house against breaking in or forcible entry.
There is also a provision for the defence not only of a dwelling house but also of real property against a trespasser.
There is also a provision for the assertion of right to real property by the person who is lawfully entitled, whether or not the owner claims a right.
Mr. Speaker, it is a question of establishing the right of the occupant. Is he an occupant by sufferance? Is he a tenant? Is he a landlord? It is advisable to set boundaries to know up to which point it is possible to resist the intrusion of another person. It is difficult to pass an amendment such as the one introduced because it contains many ambiguities.
It reads as follows:
(3) Except where a landlord would be therein justified under a covenant with a tenant for quiet enjoyment-
As pointed out a little earlier by the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald), that is when he asked a question to get more information, the beginning of this amendment leaves us wondering and makes it rather hard to understand its meaning.
The question is to find out if the landlord is ready to require his tenant to occupy the

rented premises according to the conditions set out in a lease. It such or such a condition is set out in a lease, the tenant has to comply with it, nothing more. There is no need to amend the Criminal Code to determine how the person who occupies the premises-that is whether the landlord is an employer or an employee, whatever his trade or profession-* must behave; the lessee must comply with the conditions set out in the lease.
If there is no lease, reference will be made to the civil code of the province where the lease is granted, in order to know, when it is a tacit lease, in which way it must be executed, under what conditions the tenant must occupy the leased premises. The Criminal Code is concerned when the question is to determine in which way someone must face an aggression, an attack or a trespass. If someone is attacked, he has the right, under the provisions of the Criminal Code, to defend himself. The conditions for admission of selfdefence are set out in sections 34 to 37 inclusive of the Criminal Code.
The conditions required to act in selfdefence are the following:
A person must be illegally assaulted, must not have provoked his attacker, must not have intended to kill or seriously injure him and must not have resorted to anything else but the necessary force.
When serious injuries have been inflicted or death occurred following the quarrel created, as it were, by resisting the aggression, then, the person alleging self-defence must have had reasons to fear either death or serious injuries, or fear, for reasonable motives, that he could not himself escape death or serious injuries.
That is the theory of legitimate defence.
The case mentioned by the hon. member could occur if, after allowing his employee to occupy a property he owns, an employer sought to prevent a third party from visiting his employee on the premises in question.
Mr. Speaker, I now come to the point which interests the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). All those things had to be explained to my hon. friend because he does not understand anything about the Criminal Code. He may be conversant with matters pertaining to labour conditions but the Criminal Code has a very distinct character, in that it contains provisions for the maintenance of public order and, in this case, for the protection, first, of the person and then of the individual's property, both real and movable.
Criminal Code
As I said a moment ago, the amendment now before us cannot be inserted in any way in the Criminal Code, because it is in no way related to the spirit which characterizes the Criminal Code.
As I have already pointed out, if a third party comes to meet or visit someone occupying his employer's property, the question is then to determine the right of the occupant, and that only in the light of the civil code. There is no question here of applying the Criminal Code. It is a matter of finding out what rights has the occupant of those premises, in what manner he is entitled to occupy those premises as provided in a written lease or one that is merely implied.
If the employer wishes to prevent the visitor or third party from going to the place occupied by the employee, everything depends on how he will go about it. If the employer assaults the visitor or the third party, then, the Criminal Code will provide protection for the employee or the visitor if the employer illegally commits an assault.
Therefore, there is no reason to amend the Criminal Code. We only have to establish the right of a tenant and to see to what extent, under the labour legislation, union organizations can authorize such relationship with union leaders and company employees.
Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member introduces an amendment to the Criminal Code in order to determine the nature of relations between employer and employee, then, I say he goes the wrong way about it and he should merely see to it that labour legislation be amended accordingly.


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: I am very sympathetic to the objectives of the hon. member who introduced this bill to the house. We have gone a long way in our democratic society in providing access for the ordinary man, the worker, to organizations to protect himself against the overwhelming power of his employer within the framework of trade unions. Everyone in this house is sympathetic to the need for legislation to protect the rights of Canadian workers.
One wonders however in looking at this bill whether the hon. member has approached the question from the right side. Is he approaching something which belongs essentially to the realm of property law? Should he have brought this provision in by means of an amendment to the labour laws or by way of a resolution? I wish to comment on one or two points which came to my mind-

Criminal Code
and it is not a legal mind-as I read this bill and as I listened to the hon. member discussing it in the chamber today. I wonder how this measure would affect military property or, let us say, the army, where the army is the employer and where the employee is a soldier in a bunkhouse or a married soldier with a family living in married quarters on a national defence establishment. Would not the same law which he is proposing here essentially to deal with a labour matter apply in an area in which he had not anticipated it would apply?


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether the hon. member would permit a question.


Grant Deachman: I would be very glad to answer a question.


David Orlikow: I am very sympathetic to labour organizations but I wonder whether the hon. member is suggesting that we should extend the rights of people to belong to a union so that the ordinary private in the army could belong to a union which would deal with his officers? Is that what the hon. member is suggesting?


Grant Deachman: I am afraid I was not suggesting that for a moment. I was suggesting that the hon. member has brought into the house a bill which deals with the relationship between landlord and tenant, and the landlord's rights in respect of that property. If this bill were passed by the house its provisions would apply equally in the case of national defence properties, and the relationship of members of the armed forces, as it would to the landlord and tenant relationship which he has explained may exist in mill towns, and for which he really wishes this bill passed by the house.
I suggest to the hon. member that there is a great deal of difference in the relationship of a landlord or an employer with regard to bunkhouses. This was raised in letters which the hon. member quoted. I believe that in a lumber camp, a fishing cannery, or whatever it may be, where temporary quarters are constructed some discipline must apply with regard to such temporary living quarters, and there really is no tenant and no lease in respect of these bunkhouses that applies to the particular case the hon. member has in mind.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I suggest this is really not the avenue through which to approach this problem, but that adequate avenues are open to the hon. member and he

would indeed be advancing the cause of labour were he to seek these avenues and bring his suggestion on to the floor of the house either through the labour laws or by way of a resolution for discussion by the house.
I have one further small point to raise after listening to my hon. friend. Under the legislation he proposes, a stranger would now have more right than a tenant in the very property in which the tenant lives. I say this because the tenant is bound by the terms of his lease, by the terms of the agreement with his landlord in regard to staying there; but the stranger who comes upon the property, under the bill of my hon. friend, could not be ejected and would indeed enjoy more freedom upon the property than the tenant himself. I do not think it was the aim of my hon. friend to bring about such a relationship when he introduced this bill.
In the early part of his discussion, in reply to a question which the hon. member answered I was not certain that the wording of this bill would prevent the committing of a nuisance on the property. I wonder whether the landlord would be able, under the wording the hon. member has given, to eject, let us say a bagpipes player who insisted on tucking the bag of his bagpipes under his arm and spanking out into action at twelve o'clock at night.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Grant Deachman: I will be glad to answer a question.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Would the hon. member tell us what he has against bagpipes, which produce perhaps one of the finest types of music to be heard?


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: Is this a filibuster?


Grant Deachman: I have no objection to bagpipes, to pipe organs or to instruments of any kind, provided they are played quietly and at the proper time. But I think in a closely packed community there are limits in this regard and sometimes the landlord might have to take the necessary action to restrict the exuberance of even a bagpipes player.


Mr. Walker:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Grant Deachman: I am honoured, Mr. Speaker; I have never been asked so many questions. I must be doing very well today.


David James Walker: Does the hon. member not agree that the definition of bagpipes is an ill wind that nobody blows good?


Grant Deachman: No; that is the definition of an oboe.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did you say "hobo" or "oboe"?


Grant Deachman: That is an oboe.
I think, Mr. Speaker, some of the examples I have given are enough to indicate that there are difficulties, and very obvious difficulties, in this bill. I suggest to my hon. friend that he would find a sympathetic audience everywhere in this house if he could find the means to achieve what he wants by way of legislation with which the house can deal.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up the remarks of previous speakers by pointing out that this is really a more appropriate provision for labour relations legislation under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act or, in the case of Thompson, Manitoba, to which the hon. member referred, the Manitoba labour relations act. I think the weakness of the hon. member's bill was perhaps best disclosed by the hon. member himself in reply to my question as to the meaning of the starting phrase of the bill:
Except where a landlord would be therein justified under a covenant with a tenant for quiet enjoyment-
The reply of the hon. member indicated that it was his impression that the covenant for quiet enjoyment was an obligation which required a tenant to use the property quietly. I would point out that the obligation of a covenant for quiet enjoyment is quite the reverse; it falls on the landlord and is not at all related to the purposes which to a layman like my hon. friend might appear to be most obvious. Perhaps I may refer my hon. friend to the work of a very distinguished Manitoban, the former chief justice of the court of Queen's bench, Hon. E. K. Williams. This work is entitled "Canadian Law of Landlord and Tenant", and I would refer my hon. friend to page 339 of that work, where he points out as follows:
The covenant for quiet enjoyment is an assurance against the consequences of a defective title and of any disturbance thereupon and of any substantial interference by the covenantor or those lawfully claiming under him with the enjoyment of the premises for all usual purposes.
Criminal Code
To restate it in perhaps less technical language, it is an undertaking either implied by law in the lease or included expressly in the lease to make it incumbent upon a landlord to ensure to his tenant, first that he is in fact the owner of the property he is purporting to lease, and the tenant will not be disturbed in it by adverse claims of ownership; and second, that the landlord will not by any act disturb the tenant in his enjoyment of the property. It is also pointed out by the learned author in the same edition of this work, at page 343:
In order to constitute a breach of covenant for quiet enjoyment, it is sufficient that the lessee's ordinary and lawful enjoyment of the demised land be substantially interfered with by the acts of the lessor, or those lawfully claiming under him, although neither the title to the land nor the possession thereof be otherwise affected.
I would point out that this gives to the tenant in question an obvious civil right which he can pursue in the civil courts of the province to protect him against the kind of harassment to which the hon. member has been referring. Specifically Mr. Speaker, it has been held in various cases that the tenant, the tenant's invitees, those coming in to engage in business relations with him, or the tenant's licencees-that is, those coming in for non-commercial reasons-are entitled to have access to the property, and actions of the landlord which would prevent such persons or the tenant from having the normal use of the property may be the subject of an injunction under the landlord and tenant act. It would appear-


David Orlikow: I wonder whether I could ask the hon. member a question. How long does he think a worker in a camp who went to his employer and said "I should like Mr. Smith, the union organizer, to come and visit me" would be able to continue before he was fired?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am suggesting, and the hon. member merely underlines my argument again, that the proper course of action for him to take is not by producing garbled amendments to the Criminal Code but by producing amendments to the appropriate labour legislation, which essentially would-


David Orlikow: Which you would talk out.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Let the hon. member bring forward an amendment to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act and we will see.


David Orlikow: Do you think we have not tried?

Criminal Code


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have seen, and we know.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member has no such legislation on the order paper and is in fact proceeding on a misunderstanding of the law applicable in these circumstances. What has to be borne in mind, as the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deach-man) pointed out so effectively, is that the effect of this particular provision would go far beyond the provisions relating to labour disputes which so much concern my hon. friend-and I do not for a moment question the legitimacy of his concern. First of all, the effect would be to prevent a landlord from taking action to expel a squatter, which is not connected with a labour dispute-someone with no colour of right to be on the land in question. Yet as my hon. friend pointed out, the amendment could apply in such a way as to protect someone who was a mere trespasser on the land with no rights whatever. It could apply far beyond the labour union situation. It could apply to the hon. member's own residence or the residence of any hon. member of this house.
I would also point out that the effect of the provision would also prevent a landlord or the person responsible for property on behalf of other occupants, such as a bunk-house, a rooming house, an apartment or otherwise, from taking action to expel undesirable persons, persons undesirable in the view of other occupants of the premises. For example, such person as the loudmouth, the lunatic, or the drunk who might be in a particular rooming house and causing concern and disturbance to others. Under the provisions of the hon. member's amendment such person could not in any legitimate way be removed from the premises.
I would also point out to the hon. member that there is a substantial protection for persons in the form of jeopardy to which he referred. Once again while the hon. member read a great many hortatory statements into the record, he did not give any indication whether he had taken any expert advice or whether there had been any legal proceedings to determine the assertion which he made.
In this connection I refer him to section 42 (3) of the Criminal Code, and for the benefit of the house I might be permitted to read it into the record:
Where a person
(a)	having peaceable possession of a dwelling house or real property under a claim of right, or
(b)	acting under the authority of a person who has peaceable possession of a dwelling house or

real property under a claim of right, assaults any person who is lawfully entitled to possession of it and who is entering it peaceably by day to take possession of it, for the purpose of preventing him from entering, the assault shall be deemed to be provoked by the person who is entering.
The effect of the provision, therefore, is to extend the justification provisions which are already provided by section 41 and the earlier provisions of section 42 of the Criminal Code to the person who has a colour of right to be on the property, to tenants, to tenants' licensees, to tenants' invitees, permitting them to resist efforts by the landlord or the person acting on the authority of the landlord to exclude them from the premises, or otherwise be forced to prevent them from remaining on the premises. I suggest that substantially the provisions provided by the Criminal Code already give this right.
The hon. member referred at length to the practices of the International Nickel Company at Thompson, Manitoba. I have discussed these matters with the hon. member for York-Scar-borough (Mr. Moreau), for example, who has himself, as has the hon. member, had experience with that particular situation. Perhaps I am out of order in referring to these but I think they bring into question other federal legislation and other lines of possible legal action which, had the hon. member for Winnipeg North and his associates done slightly more resourceful thinking, could have been followed up. For example, the hon. member referred to the actions of the C.N.R. in refusing to ticket people who did not have a pass issued by the company. The C.N.R. is, after all, a common carrier and the provisions of the Railway Act should be considered from the standpoint of taking action to prevent such misconduct. I do not condone for a moment the suggestion that union organizers should not be entitled to go on the property but I do suggest that this is not the proper type of legislation-this kind of garbled, ill-conceived and badly drawn legislation founded on a misunderstanding of the law-to best protect the rights either of the organizer or of the people who most desire the protection of the law so that they can carry on this very legitimate objective.
In closing, I might make reference to the fact that perhaps this is one of the most obscure provisions that has been introduced into this house for some time. Not only is obscurity created because of a misunderstanding of the law on the part of the hon. member, to which I have already referred, but up until the time the hon. member rose to his feet this house had not had the courtesy

Business of the House
of an explanation of the situation which the hon. member is trying to remedy, or an explanation of what was the purpose of the bill. I can understand that he did not have an opportunity to give this explanation when he introduced the bill, because it was introduced along with many others at the start of the session; but I do deplore the fact that the hon. member did not have the courtesy to put on the bill any explanatory note so that hon. members, and not just hon. members who may have some knowledge of the law of landlord or tenant or some knowledge of the law concerning labour relations, would know the specific problem to which the hon. member was directing himself and the effect of the provisions he is setting out. I would make these words applicable to all bills of this highly technical nature which are brought before the house. There is an obligation on hon. members to make a brief and lucid statement by way of explanatory note which is attached to the bill and serves to explain the purposes and objectives of it.
So, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the bill is founded on a mistaken knowledge of the law; that it would have application far beyond the field of labour relations to which the hon. member has sought to carry it; would have an adverse effect, as hon. members have pointed out, beyond the field
of labour relations; and because there are many incidental effects which the hon. member has apparently not foreseen, I would certainly oppose passage of this measure.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Churchill:: I should like to ask the acting house leader whether there will be a change of program next week due to the revolt of the government's political allies which occurred yesterday?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, in asking such a question the hon. gentleman should not have added a gratuitous allegation, or mis-allegation, at the end of his statement. I think by way of reply I should equally take advantage of the rules for a moment to express to each hon. member in the chamber the wish for a very pleasant and refreshing week end holiday and I would advise them that the business on Tuesday will be a continuation of the business that has been occupying our attention for all of this week, except today.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
20220-488 }
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Items Passed
[The following items were passed in committee of supply this day:]
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR A-Department-
1. General administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates; the expenses of the international labour conferences; the promotion of labour-management co-operation; the promotion of a program for the employment of the older worker; the promotion of a program for combatting seasonal unemployment; the organization and use of workers for farming and related industries; and the manpower consultative service, $4,243,100.
la. General administration, $177,000.
5. Payments to carry out the purposes of the Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Act and agreements made thereunder, including undischarged commitments under previous agreements; payments in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the governor in council to employers of 50% of monthly wage paid or $75 per month, whichever is less, on behalf of each full time worker 45 years of age or over engaged during the period November 1, 1963 to March 31, 1964, and who is otherwise eligible under the older worker employment and training incentive program; payments to provinces under agreements entered into with the provinces by the Minister of Labour with the approval of the governor in council for the organization and use of workers for farming and related industries; and to authorize payments in accordance with agreements entered into with the approval of the governor in council by the Minister of Labour with provinces, employers and workers in respect of labour mobility and assessment incentives, $4,910,000.
7a. To authorize the governor in council to transfer the powers, duties and functions of the unemployment insurance commission under sections 21-24, inclusive, of the Unemployment Insurance Act to the Minister of Labour, and to transfer such members of the staff of the unemployment insurance commission as may be necessary to give effect to the foregoing to the Department of Labour; and to provide that the provisions made by an Appropriation Act for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1965, based on estimates 1964-65, to defray (a) expenses of the unemployment insurance commission with respect to the powers, duties and functions referred to herein; and (b) expenses for the transfer of labour to places where employment is available and expenses incidental thereto in accordance with regulations of the governor in council; shall apply
to such classifications of the public service within the Department of Labour as the governor in council may determine, $1.
Technical and vocational training assistance-
10. Administration, $699,300.
10a. Administration, $86,000.
15. To carry out the purposes of the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act and agreements made thereunder-Payments to the provinces, $100,409,600.
15a. To carry out the purposes of the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act and agreements made thereunder-Payments to the provinces -To extend the purposes of vote 15 of the main estimates, 1964-65 to authorize the Minister of Labour to enter into agreements with any province subject to terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the governor in council for the purpose of sharing in provincial government expenditures or grants for research projects to provide information relating to technical and vocational training and manpower requirements; and to provide for payment of the federal share of provincial expenditures and grants under these agreements during the current fiscal year, $1.
Annuities Act-
20. Administration and government's contribution to annuities agents pension account in accordance with regulations made pursuant to vote 181, Appropriation Act No. 5, 1961, $1,229,500.
Government employees compensation-
25. Administration of the Government Employees Compensation Act, $130,000.
26a. To authorize payment of compensation in the current and subsequent fiscal years to Edgar Simms under the Government Employees Compensation Act in respect of the injury sustained by him while a seaman on board the customs cutter M.V. Shulamite in June, 1936, as if he incurred the injury by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment while an employee within the meaning of the government Employees Compensation Act, $1.
27a. To authorize in the current and subsequent fiscal years payment of compensation pursuant to the Government Employees Compensation Act to the dependents of any former employee within the meaning of that act who died in Prince Edward Island during the period commencing on the 1st day of October 1935 and ending on March 15,1961, as a result of injury arising out of and in the course of employment, in such amount as would be payable to the dependents had the said employee died on or after March 16, 1961, $1.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, September 8, 1964