Mr. Murphy:

I have read the speeches. I said a while ago that I spent some money to find out about the tariff policies of your party as well as mine. I will defy the hon. member or any member of your party to deny what I said respecting the amount of tariff increase-

Mr. Chevrier:

May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?

Mr. Murphy:

Yes.

Mr. Chevrier:

Has he read the speech made by the hon. member for Stormont advocating an increase in tariffs against those countries we can not get more trade from.

Mr. Hamilion (Qu'Appelle):

Have you read the speech of the hon. member for Essex East?

Mr. Chevrier:

What is the answer?

Mr. Murphy:

Unfortunately, I must confess I did not read the hon. member's speech but he does not pretend to establish policy.

Mr. Heliyer:

Economic bilingualism.

The Chairman:

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.

Productivity Council

Mr. Murphy:

I should like to finish one sentence.

Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):

You have another 40 minutes; there were questions.

Mr. Murphy:

I am not taking an extra 40 minutes for anybody. I should like to say that we cannot pursue an inflexible policy which stifles industry and denies labour an opportunity of steady employment. Foreign exporters to Canada and Canadian industries cannot expect to sell much to unemployed Canadians.

I want to conclude by saying without any hesitation that the policies which our party follows have been declared very completely over the years by the leaders of our party. I know the hon. member for Laurier may not agree with what has been said by the hon. member for Essex East or by some other members of his party respecting the question of tariffs and free trade.

Mr. Chevrier:

Mr. Chairman, I did not rise to take part in this debate. My purpose in rising is twofold: first, to tell the hon. member who has just taken his seat that it is a fact, notwithstanding his statement that members of his party and the government itself have by their conduct tended toward a policy of protection in this country. If there is any necessity to prove these statements which I have made, then all one needs to do is to look at the statement made by the Minister of Finance in Ste. Adele quite recently in which he indicated clearly to those people of the common market countries that if they continued to reduce their tariff there would be only one alternative that Canada could adopt in connection with meeting the competition of those countries.

Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):

Where is the high tariff?

Mr. Chevrier:

I did not rise for that purpose; I rose to reiterate sentiments which I expressed in another debate having to do with emergency legislation in this house. It seems to us who sit on this side of the house that far too much time is being taken on this emergency legislation, far more than should be taken under the circumstances. We have been given by the government four measures of great importance, so the Prime Minister told us, and we have by all the means at our command assisted the government in bringing that legislation into being. This resolution, which has now been before the committee for some time, has seen no less than eight speakers from the government side take well over two hours, as compared with one speaker from this side.

I should like to draw to your attention, sir, the fact that much of the discussion on the

Productivity Council

resolution was entirely irrelevant and had absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the establishment of a national productivity council.

Mr. Pallet!: Utter nonsense.

Mr. Chevrier:

You, yourself, Mr. Chairman, indicated this when you interrupted one member. The hon. member for Lambton spoke at great length on matters that had absolutely nothing to do with the establishment of the council. I rise simply for the purpose of bringing to the attention of the government this fact. If you have emergency legislation, bring it on; we want to assist you and help you in getting it through so that it will be of assistance to those who are in dire need and who will be unemployed during the winter months. There are five or six days left before the Christmas recess. If there is any other legislation in connection with this matter, I think the house should have it.

We had one example today of a bill which was introduced in the other place entitled an act to repeal certain laws relating to the signals station at Halifax. How could that be associated with emergency legislation? I am unable to see how it could be. Why legislation of that character should have gone to the other place I am unable to see. I do want to reiterate to those who sit on the government benches, if there is any emergency legislation, let us have it. We are anxious to assist the government in putting it through the house.

Mr. Starr:

Mr. Chairman, in spite of what the hon. member for Laurier said a few moments ago, I do take the risk of rising at this time to make a contribution to this debate on the resolution stage. As the Minister of Labour I feel that I should make some remarks in respect to this measure to indicate the part that will be played by the labour department and labour generally in this country. Last week the Minister of Trade and Commerce gave us an outline of the objectives of the organization and the other arrangements for the proposed national productivity council. There are a few comments I wish to make at this time in connection with this resolution.

I should like to say, first of all, that I am pleased to note the interest on the part of those who have already spoken in bringing about further productivity improvements in Canadian industries, and the wide support of the action proposed to help accomplish this. In my opinion, two points stand out clearly. First, productivity is the cornerstone of economic growth in today's increasingly technical and competitive world. Second, strenuous efforts are being made by many

fMr. Chevrier.]

countries throughout the world to raise productivity levels in their industries.

Now in view of these two considerations, Mr. Chairman, it is essential I feel that we take steps in Canada to achieve the greatest possible industrial and business efficiency by the most effective use of manpower, plant materials, and other resources. This, in turn, will help to bring about expanding employment opportunities and improved living standards. The fear is sometimes expressed that productivity improvement may lead to a displacement of manpower or to unjustifiable speed-ups of work for employees. These are understandable concerns, all the more so because on some occasions they do in fact take place. With a proper regard for the human factor in industrial production, the latter should not occur, and I would hope the national productivity council, when it is set up, would be able to encourage positive action in this matter.

Improvements in productivity almost inevitably involve employment adjustments. In some cases the workers affected are able to take advantage of new employment opportunities created as new products are developed; new types of equipment and machinery are brought into use and increased sales are realized through improvements in industrial efficiency. In other cases workers may have to find other jobs, perhaps requiring different kinds of skills and knowledge. It is particularly for these workers-

Mr. Hellyer:

There are no other jobs.

Mr. Starr:

The hon. member for Trinity says there are no other jobs. This government is endeavouring to do everything possible to create an atmosphere of opportunity for more jobs. I do not know what the hon. member means by that interjection, whether he wishes that this condition exist or whether he wishes to improve it.

Mr. Hellyer:

I wish you could do something about it instead of just talking about it.