Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a brief statement about one of the measures foreshadowed in the Speech from the Throne opening this session. The Government undertook to propose grants and loans to assist workers moving to new jobs. This is an important part of our attack on the waste of our human resources which results from inadequate employment opportunities.

The new program will make loans available to anyone who is without work but for whom a job is open beyond commuting distance from his present home. The loans will apply to the costs of moving and of resettling in a new home. They will cover the actual costs of the family's transportation and movement of household effects, plus a resettlement allowance which may be up to $1,000 for a family. For a single person the maximum will be $100 plus the cost of transportation. The repayment period will normally be not more than two years.

The loans will be of great assistance, I believe, in enabling many people to make a new start. But loans are a larger financial obligation than can reasonably be assumed by people who have suffered prolonged unemployment. Therefore grants, instead of loans, will be available to people who have been unemployed for four of the previous six months, or who cannot get a job locally after completing a training course.

For a single man or woman the grant will be limited to actual transportation expenses. A family will be entitled to expenses of transportation and movement of household effects, together with a resettlement grant of up to $400 for a childless couple and up to $1,000 if there are six or more dependants. Grants and loans under this program will be available not only to unemployed wage earners but also to other people, such as farmers, if they are in similar financial circumstances and can obtain employment by moving.

For the purposes of this program Parliament will be asked to approve, in Department of Labour estimates, a $5 million revolving fund for loans and a $5 million appropriation for the cost of grants in this fiscal year.

I would like to emphasize that in addition to its direct benefit to the unemployed, this measure should be of great assistance to industry. We cannot enjoy efficient economic expansion unless people can take advantage of employment opportunities despite the handicaps of distance. For the worker with dependants, those handicaps are very large. The effect of this proposal is that for the first time the doors of opportunity will not be barred to a family just because of where they live. The benefits will be social and economic. They will also be national; we will be helping all Canadians to feel that their community is as broad as Canada itself.

It is not my wish, Mr. Speaker, to exaggerate the importance of this measure. There is much more to do, but this is one item in the first phase of the planned attack on the problems of poverty and inadequate opportunity and as such I believe it is of real significance and will, I hope, be welcomed by the House.

Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the Prime Minister make this announcement it is difficult to focus upon all the aspects and to analyse his complete statement. But it would seem to me off-hand that this is an enlargement, which would encompass all of Canada, of what is now in effect the prerogative of the Minister of Labour, through the Unemployment Insurance Commission, to designate a certain area as labour surplus, with the added provision for transportation of the person involved, plus his family and household effects, to another domicile where a job is available to him through the National Employment Service facilities.

In addition the Prime Minister said there would be grants to those who have been unemployed for four months of a six month period. What puzzles me is that the $1,000 loan is to be repayable within two years. Without giving it too much thought I feel that repayment period is not long enough. I found in my time as Minister of Labour

May 19, 19G5

Labour Conditions

that the Canadian labour force is not as mobile as we would like to see it. From experiences we have had in Springhill and in Windsor as a result of the unemployment situation, it was difficult for one reason or another to get people to move from where they had settled, having put their roots into the ground in a particular community. If they do move they always want to come back, especially to the eastern part of our country.

We will have to look at this program more closely, analyse it, and then express our opinions about it at a later date.

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):

Mr. Speaker, if the announcement made by the Prime Minister represents a first phase in a co-ordinated manpower policy it is certainly to be welcomed. However, I should like to make two points in reference to this policy statement by the Prime Minister.

The first point is that unless this particular project is part of an over-all co-ordinated manpower program it will have very limited benefits. It seems to me there must be an over-all co-ordinated program which provides for not only the payment of moving expenses, but also supplies information for unemployed persons in respect of employment opportunities and some means of placement or retraining and placement of unemployed persons. The payment of moving expenses represents only part of a very much larger picture, and I hope the Government intends to build around this particular program a complete manpower co-ordinated program, which we so badly need in this country.

The second point I should like to make is that I hope in time the Government will enlarge this program so that it becomes a program of providing grants only, rather than loans and grants. It seems to me there is a false distinction being made when one man who is unemployed as a result of the closing of a plant in a community has an opportunity of a job one month later receives a loan, while another unemployed man in similar circumstances who does not get a chance for a job until four months after he becomes unemployed receives a grant. I do not think any man should have to wait for a certain period of time in order to get a grant if there is an opportunity for him to obtain employment in some part of Canada before that period expires. Grants which are to be made available to assist such an individual and his family in moving should become available at once. I hope the loans

aspect of this program will be dropped and that the Government will move increasingly toward a policy of outright grants to assist in moving and other costs entailed in creating greater mobility of the labour force.

I should like to say that we compliment the Government for having taken this step, and we hope this program will be enlarged into a much more effective manpower program in Canada.

Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):

Mr. Speaker, we have found the announcement made by the Prime Minister of much interest. Certainly this is one area in which there is a need for emergency assistance and we are happy that the Government has recognized this.

With developing automation and the changing picture of industrial development in the country, one of the greatest problems to be faced involves not only the relocation of people but their retraining. In this regard I note that the announcement represents only the beginning of a very important series of adjustments to be made to meet the changes which take place daily.

Not having received prior notice of this announcement, Mr. Speaker, it is not possible to make the subject a debating issue, but it appears from the announcement that the new policy will meet the needs of a large number of people who are in very difficult positions at this time, and I am sure that number will continue to grow. This is an emergency measure intended, I would think, to help those who are not able to help themselves. Therefore its basis would seem to be practical. We will reserve any further comment on this announced program until we have had an opportunity to study it in more detail.

Mr. Real Caouelle (Villeneuve):

Mr. Speaker, all hon. members, at least those who spoke before me, seemed to agree with the new government policy just announced by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) whereby, in the future, unemployed people moving to another community to work will be able to borrow up to $1,000, in the case of married people, and up to $100, in the case of single people, repayable over a two-year period. This means that the unemployed will run deeper into debt. Instead of a war on poverty this is a war on the poor across the country.

I would have preferred to hear the right hon. Prime Minister announce a policy to

May 19, 1965

assist those who can contribute to the reopening of mining industries, for instance, in designated areas such as in my own area of Rouyn-Noranda, Val d'Or, La Sarre, Malartic, etc., as well as in the riding represented by the right hon. Prime Minister, at Elliot Lake, or those people who can take steps to establish new industries, and not only move people from one place to another.

For instance, in the constituency represented by the Prime Minister, or in my own riding or anywhere else, there are people who have lived in the same place for 15, 20 or 25 years. Now, the government tells them: Gentlemen, as you will not be working here anymore we are lending you $1,000 to move elsewhere.

So, people will have to leave everything they have cherished for years to go and earn their living elsewhere, while it would be possible to create new industries in their own areas thus permitting them to remain, work and earn a decent living in their own community.

That is what we, of the Ralliement

Creditiste, would have liked to hear from the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada.

Under the circumstances this offer will only run the unemployed into greater debt when they are already up to their necks in debts. I say that war is not being waged on poverty but on the poor in Canada who are entitled to a better deal from their federal government.

Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):

Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could now get unanimous consent from the House to revert to motions after written questions and motions for papers, so I could then ask for the consent of the House to table a document which is being produced in the Ontario Legislature this afternoon. As that House does not meet until three o'clock and there is an agreed time for release I would not want to anticipate the statement there.

Mr. Speaker:

Does the House give consent to this method of proceeding?

Agreed.

1. When did the government appoint a special prosecutor in the case of Morris Black and Samuel Ciglen?

2. What was this special prosecutor's name?

3. Is he still handling the case and, if not, when was he replaced and why was he replaced?

4. If there has been a special prosecutor other than the counsel who now has the case in hand, what payments did he receive as of this date and are there any further payments owing to him from the Crown?

Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):

1. Mr. C. L. Dubin, Q.C., January 28, 1958; Mr. H. H. Solway, November 21, 1958, (to assist Mr. Dubin); Mr. Gordon W. Ford, Q.C., February 9, 1961; Mr. J. A. W. Whiteacre, July 18, 1961, (to assist Mr. Ford); Mr. Walter B. Williston, Q.C., November 12, 1963; Mr. Paul A. H. Hess, Q.C., November 12, 1963, (to assist Mr. Williston).

2. Answered by No. 1.

3. Mr. H. H. Solway's employment was terminated on July 19, 1960; Mr. C. L. Dubin's employment was terminated on January 9, 1961; Mr. J. A. W. Whiteacre's employment was terminated on August 28, 1962; Mr. G. W. Ford's employment was terminated on November 4, 1963.

Relations between the Government and lawyers employed to conduct Government business, such as reasons for changes in such counsel, are ordinarily considered to be information of a confidential and professional nature, disclosure of which would not be in the public interest.

4. Mr. Dubin, $9,675, no further payment outstanding; Mr. Solway, $6,583.75, no further payment outstanding; Mr. Ford, $65,115, no further payment outstanding and Mr. Whiteacre, $7,125, no further payment outstanding.

In connection with minimum security institutions of the penitentiaries branch, by institution (a) what is the cost of maintenance per prisoner (b) what was the percentage rate of escape in the past three years (c) what was the percentage rate of recidivism during existence of each institution?

Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):

(a) The cost of maintenance per inmate in minimum security institutions of the Penitentiary Service, by institution, is as follows:

Minimum Security Institutions: Springhill, Nova Scotia, $3,043.42; Valleyfield, Quebec,

May 19, 1965

Questions

$2,338.88; William Head, B.C., $2,702.62. The average for these three institutions is $2,687.99.

Work Camps: Blue Mountain, N.B., $3,635.42; Gatineau, Quebec, $3,511.65; Beaver Creek, Ontario, $2,511.57; Landry Crossing, Ontario, $2,398.96; Agassiz, B.C., $1,792.53; Mountain Prison, B.C., $2,036.65. The average for these work camps is $2,408.54. The average for

Farm Annex (Dorchester Penitentiary) Springhill Institution Blue Mountain Correctional Camp Farm Annex (St. Vincent de Paul Penitentiary)

Industrial Annex Valley field Gatineau

Farm Annex (Joyceville Institution) Farm Annex (Collin's Bay Penitentiary) Beaver Creek Landry Crossing

Farm Annex (Manitoba Penitentiary) Farm Annex (Saskatchewan Penitentiary) Agassiz Correctional Camp (British Columbia Penitentiary)

Mountain Prison William Head Institution

(c) The present system of compilation of statistics on penitentiary recividism relates to the number of persons admitted to maximum security institutions directly from the courts.

The inmates of minimum security institutions are not received on direct admission, but on transfer from their parent admitting institutions, therefore, statistics as required in answer to this question are not available.

An improved system of penitentiary statistical reporting is under development and expected to be in operation within the next few months.