1942-07-10

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Donnelly.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): I desire to inform the house that the proceedings against Mr. George Drew of Toronto for an alleged breach of the defence of Canada regulations, based on a statement given to the public press by him on June 5 last, relating to the report of the commissioner who inquired into the dispatch of the Canadian expeditionary force to Hong Kong, were instituted on the advice of Mr. D. L. McCarthy, K.C., of Toronto, retained as special counsel in that connection by the Department of Justice. This advice had been concurred in by the legal officers of the department.
Mr. McCarthy has since recommended that, in the light of subsequent developments, these proceedings be withdrawn, for reasons which he has set out in a letter to me of the 9th instant. This further recommendation has also been concurred in by the legal officers, and I have accepted it and authorized Mr. McCarthy to discontinue the proceedings accordingly. I desire to table Mr. McCarthy's letter, together with the concurrence therein of the deputy minister of justice.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Read it.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If hon. members desire that the letter be read, it is as follows:

Defence oj Canada Regulations
Honourable Louis S. St. Laurent, K.C.,
Minister of Justice,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Minister:
Re: Prosecution of George A. Drew.
When advising as to the prosecution of Mr. George A. Drew in reference to the statements made by him to the public press on the 5th day of June last, the following facts and circumstances particularly impressed me:
(1)	That this statement or utterance must be considered in its effect on others in the light of existing circumstances;
(2)	That it alleged that the findings of the commissioner were not based upon the evidence; and further, that findings were made without evidence;
(3)	That it alleged that secrecy was purposely imposed to hide from the public evidence of inexcusable blundering, confusion and incompetence;
(4)	That it alleged that there were bloodcurdling facts which the commissioner suppressed and which should have been made public;
(5)	That it alleged that the government withheld information upon which a finding could be made;
(6)	That the accused was a party to the inquiry having been appointed as counsel at the instance of the Hon. R. B. Hanson, the leader of the opposition in the House of Commons;
(7)	That the accused is an ex-army officer and must be aware of the necessity of secrecy in war time;
(8)	That he impugned the bona fides of the commissioner in holding the inquiry in secret.
In my view, the clear meaning of the statement is that the commissioner was corrupt or incompetent and that he suppressed or misconstrued the facts.
The commissioner is the Chief Justice of Canada and a member of the judicial committee of the privy council. Having regard to his long and honoured career on the bench and his well known ability to weigh facts, and his wide experience in the conducting of public inquiries extending over many years, it is quite unthinkable that he should be corrupt, incompetent or unmindful of all the facts presented before him.
In peace time these statements, while serious, have not the same effect as in war time. There was no doubt in my mind that under the circumstances, and considering the author of the statement, and the nation-wide publicity which the statement wras given, it would be likely to prejudice recruiting in this country and the efficient prosecution of the war.
As I have already said, the statement was given to the press, obviously for wide circulation throughout this country, and in fact reached the press in the United States of America.
The report in question is unquestionably a report on matters in which the public have great interest; and particularly the relatives of those in the armed forces.
Since first advising in this case, matters have developed which in my opinion are of paramount importance, and which must be weighed along with the considerations which influenced me in advising a prosecution. There has been a widespread demand by members of parliament and the public and the press for a full and free debate and discussion of the commissioner's report. That these discussions, either in parliament, by the public, or in the public press cannot be freely and fairly carried on, while these proceedings are in progress, is obvious.
This is well illustrated by a report in this morning's press. While discussing the Prime Minister's promise that facilities for debating this question w'ould be afforded to the house, the leader of the opposition, the Honourable R. B. Hanson, took the position that "the government has taken every means in its power to frustrate debate by withholding evidence and from time to time resorting to an alleged rule that a certain inquiry is sub judice".
No doubt the inquiry referred to is the preliminary inquiry that is pending as a result of the information that has been laid in this case. That is true that it is sub judice. It is a well-established and traditional principle of British law that there should be no comment on or discussion of matters relating to judicial proceedings while they are pending. It is plain that if the commissioner's report is to be fully discussed in parliament and in the press, as it should be, this principle of British law must inevitably be violated. Events that have taken place since the information was laid more than justify this conclusion.
On the one hand it is unfair to the public, members of parliament and the press that they should be put in the position at this time either to refrain from discussion of this important public matter, or to run the risk of committing a contempt of court, which is itself a breach of lawr. On the other hand, if these judicial proceedings are carried on while the debate in parliament and public discussion is taking place, it is obvious that the prosecution cannot continue in that freedom and independence that is so essential in our administration of justice.
Therefore, weighing the importance of free parliamentary debate and public discussion as against the continuance of this prosecution, at a time when matters affecting the carrying on of the war are of such vital and immediate importance, I am bound to come to the conclusion that it is in the public interest that this prosecution should be withdrawn and I so advise.
I am,
Yours very truly,
D. L. McCarthy.
Then there is a memorandum dated July 10, 1942, as follows:
For the reasons given by special counsel for the Attorney General of Canada, I concur in the opinion that the charge against Mr. George Drew under the defence of Canada regulations should be withdrawn.
F. P. Varcoe,
Deputy Minister of Justice.


Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: I desire to make just a few
brief observations with reference to the statement just made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), but before doing so I
Shipping Losses

should like to express to him my appreciation of his courtesy in sending me a copy of the statement and the letter which he has just read.
As to what took place in the court proceedings to-day, I have no comment to make, but I do assert that the reasons given for the withdrawal are untenable. The reasons given in the McCarthy letter perpetuate the allegations against Colonel Drew. That is unfair to Colonel Drew and the public will resent it. The fact of the matter is that the government made a grave mistake in starting this prosecution. An excuse for its withdrawal had to be found, and one excuse is just as good as another.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: I wish to express my appreciation to the minister of his forwarding to me a copy of this communication, although I have not really had time to read it, because I have only just received it. The defence of Canada regulations are now before a committee of the house. This case, like others, was based upon the expression "likely to prejudice recruiting" or words to that effect. On several occasions I have tried to point out to this house that that is too wide a power for any government or any department to have. I hope the committee will consider the recommendation to the effect that the regulations be amended so that we may not have any more of these regrettable incidents.



SHIPPING LOSSES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. ROY (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I
should like to direct a question to the government on a very urgent matter. According to information received from my constituency there have been some more ships sunk by enemy submarines since the time of the first attack on May 11 and 12 last. Still three more ships forming part of a fourteen ship convoy were torpedoed last Sunday night opposite Cap Chat in the St. Lawrence river. Is the minister disposed to make a statement to the house or to arrange for a secret sitting to inform the people's representatives as to the seriousness of the situation?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I believe the hon. member was in the house when the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald) made a statement as to the policy that will be followed wTith regard to the disclosure of any sinkings that might occur in the vicinity of Canada or in the St. Lawrence.

The minister made it quite clear that there would be a proper time for the government to make an announcement of any event of the kind, but that premature announcements were only serving the ends of the enemy and would not help the ends of Canada's defence. If the hon. member will allow me to say so, I think he should have conferred with the minister before bringing a matter of this kind up in the way he has. The minister does not happen to be be in the house at the moment, but I may say to my hon. friend that any statement that has to be made in regard to this matter will be made by the minister at a time which he thinks will best serve the public interest.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: I rise to a question of privilege. I am most unwilling to disclose anything that might help our enemies. However, I think my constituents have a right to be protected. They are confronted with danger every day.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: I respectfully submit that I should be allowed to make my position clear. It will take only a few words.


Georges Parent: The hon. member has put his question and the Prime Minister has replied. I do not think the hon. member should enlarge upon a question which has already been answered.



FOOD AND DRUGS ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): I should like to refer to sessional paper 303-E of November 3, 1941, which deals' with the requests and suggestions of a large number of temperance societies, organizations and leagues of various denominations and located in the various provinces. I do not know whether some of the letters I hold in my hand are accurate, and I ask the minister if he will kindly have them checked. If they are, I would ask him kindly to have the file completed and returned. I refer also to return 303-D of June 5, 1941. It has been stated by the department that it is not permissible to advertise John de Kuyper's compound gin as gin. Here are seven clippings from various French and English papers which show this product being advertised as gin, contrary to. the law. I shall send the return with the clippings to the minister and I hope that action will be taken.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health): I shall be very glad to make an investigation of this favourite topic of my hon. friend.

Morale Building Campaign
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE	MILITARY SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): I should like to inquire when Bill No. 80 will be brought up again?
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Bill No. 80 will be brought up again in due course.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to direct a question to the ministry with regard to the remainder of the sessional programme. We have concluded what I consider were the major debates of the session. I am anxious to see the budget resolutions brought forward, and I should like to know whether they will be considered in the coming week. They are very important from every standpoint and should be brought forward as soon as possible. I hope that we can make a start on them on Monday.
Then there is Bill No. 80 and the departmental estimates. I think I am speaking the mind of most of the members of this house when I express the desire-perhaps I should limit this to my own desire-to see the end of this session. I must say that the labours of the session are bearing very heavily upon me physically and otherwise, and I am getting a little frayed. I would like to see this session over, and I do not think I am doing any violence to the public interest when I express that wish.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all hon. members feel as my hon. friend the leader of the opposition does -I am not referring particularly to being frayed, but I think hon. members generally would like to see the proceedings of the session terminated as soon as possible. If there is any general desire in the house that we should begin morning sittings soon I for one would be quite prepared to do so. I would like to say to my hon. friend that perhaps he and I and the leaders of the other groups might have a conference to see if we cannot plan the arrangements for the remainder of the session in a manner which will expedite business, and then an announcement could be made to the house as to any agreement we may reach.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Certainly. Can the Minister of Finance say when the budget resolutions will be proceeded with?


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: I could go on at almost any time. I think I could go on with them on Monday or Tuesday.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National War Services. This morning there was a radio announcement that military district No. 3 would be the only district in Canada where men at present in the age group thirty-five to forty would be called for military service. Why is military district No. 3 picked out?


Hon. J. T. THORSON (Minister of National War Services):: There is no truth in the report.



AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: could name several of these documents, giving the dates, which are not included in the return, which consists in the main of literature put out in connection with the moralebuilding campaign. But what was asked for was the letters and the documents, many of which have not been brought down.
I think it is a serious matter, Mr. Speaker, when letters and documents in the possession of a department or departments of government are not brought down to parliament when an order of the house is made.
There are obvious omissions of letters from this return. It is an affront to parliament if government officials are permitted to sort out and determine what information or documents should be included in a return to be placed before parliament. It denies to parliament and the country full information to which hon. members are entitled when an order of the house is made.
Again not discussing the merits, I assert the right of members of this house to full information on questions asked, and not to selected information.


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: Mr. Speaker, the return was prepared in my department in the ordinary way. We have a senior officer of the department whose duty it is to prepare the returns. Without knowing anything about the matter personally, I have every confidence that the officer filed copies of all letters which were not privileged under the rules of the house. However, I shall be glad to explore that further and determine whether or not it is the case.
So far as the particular matter between Mr. Hirst and Might Directories, Limited, is concerned, Mr. Hirst was never an officer of the department, but he is an officer of the aircraft industry. Any letters that he may have written to persons outside the government are not in the possession of the government, and the government is not entitled to their possession.


John George Diefenbaker: In tfiat connection may I say that Mr. Hirst, three weeks before he received his appointment under order in council, which was passed on May 29, 1942, and brought down to the house on July 6, 1942, was sending out letters on the letterhead of the Department of Munitions and Supply, aircraft branch, from the office of the director-general, E. G. Hirst, director' of personnel relations.
When the minister states that any documents that are not included in the return may have been privileged, I would point out to him that a letter written on February 3, 1942, by Ralph P. Bell, director-general of

aircraft production, sent out broadcast, not to aircraft manufacturers, but to other manufacturers throughout Canada, is not included in this return. That letter reads as follows:
Ed Hirst is contributing his services for an important special job of work in connection with the aircraft production programme; namely, that of director of the committee on personnel relations.
Offhand, this may not strike you as a position requiring much time, but if you could study the programme that has been mapped out and visualize the tremendous organization work involved, embracing as it does industrial plants from Halifax to Vancouver, you would appreciate the fact that Ed is not going to have much time to attend to his own business.
For some days we have been groping around for a plan whereby his income wouldn't suffer too drastically-


Clarence Decatur Howe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this letter was put on Hansard by my hon. friend earlier in the session.


John George Diefenbaker: No, this is another one.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: On the orders of the day being called a question of privilege was raised by the hon. gentleman. The rules of the house are that a question of privilege must be briefly stated, and the grounds on which such question of privilege is raised ' should be very summarily stated. Such question cannot give occasion to a debate. The hon. member has stated his question based on the privileges of the house which he contends have been disregarded in the filing of the documents ordered by the house. The minister has promised to inquire and to give further information at a later date. That disposes of the matter.


Mr. HOMUTH:: He said a lot more than that.


Thomas Vien: For the time being, on the orders of the day, I think the question is now settled and closed.


James Lorimer Ilsley: On the question which was raised by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), I should like to correct a statement which, in the best of faith, I made to the house on a previous occasion. The question arose in a previous debate whether there was some arrangement between the treasury and the Department of Munitions and Supply, or Mr. Bell specifically, about the charging of certain expenses as part of the overhead of companies. I made inquiry at that time from the comptroller of the treasury, who instituted an inquiry himself, and after two conversations with him I was authorized by him to say that no such arrangement had been entered into, or none of which he could get any information.

Morale Building Campaign
Since that time it has turned out that one of the treasury officials did agree that these charges would be a proper charge against the government by the companies and part of their overhead, and that agreement was contained in a letter written by the treasury officer to Mr. Bell.
Mr. DIEFENBAIvER: Well, that letter is not on file either.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I would object firmly to the production of that letter because it is an interdepartmental letter, and the reason I am stating this now is that I made a statement inconsistent with it on a previous occasion. It was certainly not my fault, nor was it the fault of the comptroller of the treasury, who made, I am sure, every effort, as I did, to find out exactly what the facts were. I believe I suggested on that occasion that there might have been a general conversation about general principles, because I felt that Mr. Bell would not have made the statement he did in that letter if he did not have something to go on, and I was anxious to ascertain just what there was. It turned out that there was more than a discussion of general principles; there was some communication between Mr. Bell and this somewhat junior treasury officer, with the result that the officer wrote Mr. Bell a letter. I thought that in justice to Mr. Bell, and in correction of what I said before, I ought to state this.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think the minister is quite right in saying that the minister should make that statement in justice to Mr. Bell. But is this house not entitled to the letter from the treasury official to Mr. Bell? I think it is. However, the minister has given the substance of it. The treasury did, rightly or wrongly, concur in this course of action, and the country is going to pay the bill.


Mr. COLD WELL:: Has a junior or a subordinate official the right to commit the government by letter to expenditures? That is a strange thing.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am not just sure of the extent of his authority. But I am informed, and I intimated to the house, that this was probably a proper charge. In the absence of other directions from the Minister of Munitions and Supply, it would be, I think, a proper charge. An hon. member for one of the Toronto constituencies, if I remember correctly, raised that point later in the discussion. A business expenditure for the purpose of increasing production is an expense of production, it is an expense of carrying on business; and that view seems to have
44561-259	!
been taken. On the previous occasion I was not going into the question of the propriety of the charge; I was trying to identify the specific transaction, and I could not, nor could the comptroller of the treasury, find there was any such, until later he found there was.


Thomas Miller Bell: I was not criticizing the minister personally. I think it is quite proper and courteous of him to make the correction he has made to-day, and we appreciate it. But the point is this: has a junior official the right to commit the department to an expenditure of this description? The minister has answered that question.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I might say that he was not committing the department to an expenditure. To determine whether such an expenditure would be a proper item of cost, the official would look at his general rules. There are very strict rules as to what is, or is not, a legitimate item, and the interpretation given by the junior official recites that that expenditure was a legitimate item. My hon. friend says the public paid the bill. The public did not pay the bill, because, when it was drawn to my attention, I issued instructions that it was not a proper charge to cost.


John George Diefenbaker: And issued an
order in council ratifying everything?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, the order in council did not ratify anything. If the hon. member will read the order in council he will find that it specifically refers to the future and not to the past. The practice was regularized from that date. But all the money expended up to that time was charged to the aircraft companies, and cannot be passed on to the government.



GASOLINE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. CASTLEDEN (Yorkton):: With regard to the regulations as to the use of trucks for transporting members of a family, in many areas throughout Canada, as the minister knows, farmers get together and instead of each one taking his own car to town they use one truck. I believe that the present regulations prevent that practice. I understood the minister was to make a statement to-day, or shortly, on that matter.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I was not aware that I was to make a statement to-day. I ascertained that there were carefully drawn regulations on the subject, which I sent to one or more members of

Vocational Training

parliament; and, on the representations of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) I promised to look into the question as to whether or not a general rule should be made. At the present time permits may be issued in certain circumstances by the regional controller or administrator.



WAR RISK INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved the third reading of Bill No. 56, to make provision with respect to insurance of property against war risks and the payment of compensation for war damage.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, July 9, consideration in committee of Bill No. 64, to assist in the carrying on and coordination of vocational training-Mr. Mitchell-Mr. Vien in the chair.
On section 3-Minister may undertake projects.
Mr. MacNICOL:: The whole purpose of the bill is outlined in the various subsections of this section. The first purpose of the bill is indicated in subsection 1 paragraph (a); it covers the training of persons to fit them, by working at or on projects, for employment "for any purpose contributing to the efficient prosecution of the war whether in industry or in the armed forces". Under (b) provision is made for the training of persons who, I ' presume, have returned from the present war, of whom there are quite a number; under (c) there will be the training of persons recommended by the unemployment insurance commission; and (d) makes provision for the training of persons who, I take it, will participate in any conservation works which the government has in mind.
The minister should give some details of just how each of these training schemes will be carried out. If we are going to train persons first of all to work in industry, how will that be done? There are several schemes. If these persons are working in industry, you can have either vestibule schools attached to industry, or you can have technical schools equipped to teach young men to operate the various types of machines that will be required. I should like to know whether one
(Mr. Ilsley.]
or both of these methods will be followed, because any other method is not a very likely way of training people to work in industry. At any rate I know of no other method. We have had no explanation as to which of the two methods will be used in training men to work in industry.
If they are to be trained for the armed forces, how will that be done by the Department of Labour? I thought it was the duty of the army or the military authorities to give men training to fit them for the armed services. As to paragraph (b), "to fit for any gainful employment former members of the forces of his majesty domiciled in Canada," I am in accord with that. These young men coming back, discharged for one reason or another, should be trained, but I should like to know whether they are to be paid while training. If not, I suggest they should be paid; and, if so, I should like to know at what rates. Will they be paid according to the trade they are to learn, or will there be an even scale of remuneration all round?
As to paragraph (c), which covers the training of those sent for training by the unemployment insurance commission, that is rather limited, because it permits only of the training of young men who during the past two years have paid unemployment insurance for 180 days.
As to paragraph (d), the training of men for conservation work, I should like to know how that will be done. The universities all have classes for lines of conservation, one of which is reforestation. Are these young men to be trained in university classes in reforestation, or will they be sent out under foresters? The same will apply to flood control projects. Just what can they learn under such projects. Take on the Grand River; that is an engineering problem. I suppose a young man could be taught something of engineering in connection with such a project, but most of the work is rough work. How much would a young man learn that would be new?
Inasmuch as section 3 contains everything that is in the bill, or practically so, I suggest that we should have a fairly exhaustive statement from the minister on each of these subdivisions which I have indicated, showing how they will be carried out and what numbers will be employed in connection with each scheme.
I would also refer the minister to the report of the national employment commission, dated January 26, 1938, at page 39, wherein reference is made to rehabilitation and training measures. There are two statements in that

Vocational Training
connection, and one of them refers to permanent training. It states that permanent training measures should be the order of the government. Will any of these plans which the minister is going to put into operation result in permanent employment for young men? I hope so. The minister himself is a former employee, and he would naturally want to see the training of these young men result in permanent employment. To have permanent employment after the war, when we are likely to have a period similar to that which prevailed after the last war, I think the young men should be trained for more than one job. The more jobs a man is able to fill, the more trades he is able to assist at, the more likely he will be to have permanent employment. I want to find out, therefore, if the minister has, under his scheme, some method whereby these young men can be fitted for more than one job.
I should like to have an explanation of these various schemes. Perhaps the minister can tell us if he is going to use some such scheme as is now in operation in London, Ontario. I am not sure whether it comes under the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston); at any rate, I believe it is under one of the defence ministers. Young men are taught in a very efficient school by a very efficient method. I have been pleased by what they are doing there. They are being thoroughly trained by a visual system of teaching, with everything before them, to instruct them how to carry on all the various trades that are associated with aircraft or automotive production. Is some such scheme going to be used?
On project surveys there will be little possibility of training young men fully along the various lines of industry or engineering in connection with conservation or works of national importance. Perhaps the minister would give us some explanation along that line. When this subject was under consideration a year or two ago I took the stand that, through our labour department, we should have some such scheme whereby men obtaining jobs would have some hope of permanency. In Europe before the war, in quite a number of centres, there were excellent training schemes. They not only trained men but passed them on from the training centres into their positions. The minister is perhaps acquainted with the Sandvyk steel works in Sweden, one of the greatest undertakings of the kind in the world. I had long hoped that there would be some such scheme in Canada whereby young men, sons of fathers working in such plants, would be trained to work in 44561-259J
great steel works through graduating from the training school, vestibule school or technical school associated with the works.
When one considers that that single works has not only trained its men but built for them some 1,700 houses-that is before the war; there are perhaps many more now-it has something there that is worth emulating in this country. As a former workman I look upon the industry as being thoroughly sympathetic toward any scheme that will thoroughly train young men for jobs, and for permanency in their jobs, liking for their work and promotion in their work, because in those vestibule schools in those great works in Europe they are trained all along the line.
Will the minister give us a good outline of what he proposes to do? He has a golden opportunity to do something worth while, and I look to him to do it.


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: My hon. friend has covered a good deal of ground, and I am glad he did. There are three types of classes already in operation: pre-employment classes; technical schools, which in some cities are running twenty-four hours a day; and plant training under the direction and advice of the federal and provincial departments of labour.
My hon. friend mentioned the armed forces. With respect to what we call pre-enlistment training for the air force, last year we trained 15,000 men. They are paid, through the labour department, a subsistence allowance of $10 a week for single men and $15 a week for married men.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And they are graduated


Humphrey Mitchell: Into the air force. In respect of the province from which my hon. friend comes I should like to mention the real contribution by the school in Galt, one of those that my hon. friend mentioned. We also trained 18,000 men for the army. The men are already in uniform and receiving pay and allowances given to a soldier. We trained 600 for the navy, and for industry in general we trained 40,000.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What would the training for the navy consist of?


Humphrey Mitchell: Basic training for fitters, such as engineroom artificers.


An hon. MEMBER:: Diesel engines?


Humphrey Mitchell: Diesel engines and those trades that are needed in the navy. My hon. friend will realize also the dearth of skilled men at the outbreak of the war. It is no use crying over spilt milk; the condition existed. With the tremendous expansion of the fighting
Vocational Training

forces and of industry we just had to face up to the situation, and I think the house and the country may be proud of the way in which both industry and labour, as well as provincial governments and municipalities, met an emergency and made possible the provision of training for men for the army, the navy and the air force, and of course for industry.
With respect to conservation, that is a matter which will have to be decided at the conclusion of the war. This bill, however, does provide for the establishment of an advisory council. It will be composed of representatives of labour, employers, veterans' organizations, women's organizations and educationalists to advise the minister on plans that may be necessary in the future.
I agree with what my hon. friend said about apprenticeship. I think the past attitude of the people and governments toward the establishment of systems of apprenticeship has been a tragedy. My mind goes back to the days when I was an apprentice. But in the last generation there has unfortunately been a great let-down of the principle of apprenticeship in the various trades, and in commerce also. It is true that apprenticeship has been maintained where trades have been highly organized; I know many that still continue to provide apprentice training with strict supervision by employers' and employees' organizations. They regulate the number of apprentices in proportion to the number of journeymen, and also the length of time that they consider necessary before a young man becomes an efficient journeyman workman. I think in a modified way the Swedish system of which my hon. friend spoke is in existence in this country. Those of us who have lived in industrial communities have seen the development of the apprenticeship system. I think it can be said that the two major railroads of this country have an apprenticeship system that is as good as any system anywhere. The trainees are largely made up of the sons of railway employees. I know in the city of Hamilton in which I spent the greater part of my life, in some of the great industrial establishments the majority of apprentices are the sons of men in the industry. That is all to the good; with that you get tradition and the love of the trade that is necessary to make a good tradesman. I only wish it was much more intensively developed throughout the dominion.
At the moment there are three provinces that have apprenticeship laws. I know more of Ontario, in which I have lived all the time I have been in Canada, where, through the cooperation of industry, the government and

the employees, there has been at least a foundation laid of what might become, with careful supervision and nurture, a really successful apprenticeship system.
I think I have covered pretty well the ground my hon. friend asked me to cover. As we come to the various sections of the bill I shall be glad to discuss the matter further.


Mr. McIVOR:: I commend this bill highly. It shows that the present Minister of Labour is willing to build on the foundation laid by the man who, in my judgment, was the greatest minister of labour who ever sat in this house, the late Norman Rogers, who knew youth and who during the years of depression planned accordingly so that throughout the length and breadth of Canada the dominion and provincial governments had their youth training arrangements in every province. This bill will be welcomed by high and public school teachers who love youth and follow them after they get through school. I think the minister is to be commended for this legislation because it will pave the way for the employment of youth after the war. It was often said during those years of depression by the youth themselves, and sometimes by their teachers also, that education did not count. We find that education does count, and when the Minister of Labour builds on a foundation like that laid by the late Hon. Norman Rogers he is building on a foundation that will stand.


Mr. GREEN:: What is the policy of the government with regard to the training and employment of older men and women? As time goes on, it becomes increasingly evident that the older men and women can play a great part in the war effort, and one often wonders whether full use is being made of them. For example, I have a clipping from one of the Vancouver papers of an advertisement published under the title, "dominion-provincial government war emergency training programme." The advertisement states:
Young women wanted to train for war industries. Ages 18 to 35. Single and widows without dependent children. Subsistence allowance paid during period of training. Full particulars and application forms.
Then the address is given. Now there is in British Columbia an organization known as the British Columbia women's ex-munition unit, many of the members of which are over the age of thirty-five years. They are very keen to take part in this war work, but they are not eligible for training, and presumably the government feels that they are not eligible to undertake the work. This seems to be a

Vocational Training
defect in the policy of the government, and I wonder if the minister could explain why this age limit has been set.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not know the
class to which my hon. friend refers, but I would imagine it is what they call a sponsored class. Under the agreements with the provinces, which naturally administer them, there is no age limit. Preference is given first to returned soldiers, next to older people, and then to younger people. We do not take in these classes able-bodied men liable for military service, so it will be seen that the policy is predicated upon putting these older people to work and also taking women into industry in a progressive way, to a greater degree.
While I am on that point, may I say that I am one of a great many in this country who, since the outbreak of the war, have thought we should move women into industry as, quickly as possible. If we are going to raise the fighting forces that will be necessary to win this war, by the very nature of things some of the men engaged at the moment in certain industries, particularly the non-essential industries, must be moved into the armed forces or into essential industry.
In saying that, I should like to make this further observation, that I believe we have reached the stage when we must take extra special care in regard to what I may call the heavy industries. Yrou cannot produce guns and aeroplanes and tanks and ships unless you have the basic materials with which to construct them, and of course those basic materials include steel, copper, nickel and so on. I believe that from now on we shall have to be very careful in regard to those whom we permit to leave those industries to go into the fighting forces. I think the reservoir will have to be found in the non-essential industries and in those light industries which can be operated by women, I may say, just as well as by men.


Howard Charles Green: But the minister has not
answered my question. I am asking why this training should be limited to women under the age of thirty-five. These women must be trained before they are able to take jobs; yet women over the age of thirty-five, in Vancouver at any rate, are not eligible for training. The younger women are needed in the women's army corps, the women's division of the air force and the women's branch of the navy, and surely some use should be made of these older women.


Humphrey Mitchell: I have just looked at
the advertisement which my hon. friend sent over. The province has been written to by the department with respect to this age limit
of eighteen to thirty-five. There may be an answer to it. As a rule, as my hon. friend well knows, there is an answer to most of these things. I am not making this as a statement of fact, but it may be that in this particular industry younger women are desired because, as we all know, younger people are more dexterous with their fingers. However,
I shall be glad to give my hon. friend the information when we receive a reply from this company. My hon. friend, the house and the country may rest assured that special emphasis is being placed upon the employ ment of first, returned soldiers; second, olde. men, and then, women.


Howard Charles Green: Is any age limit set by the government?


Humphrey Mitchell: No age limit whatever.


Howard Charles Green: Has the government given
any consideration to arranging for an extension of the superannuation age limit in various industries in Canada. Men are continually reaching the retirement age, and is it a fact that they are being superannuated as usual? If so, it does seem that this must cause a great waste of men. During the war the superannuation age should be raised, which of course would release younger men for war service. What is the policy of the government in that respect?


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not know. I would think that this would boil down to a matter of common sense, and I do not say that in a critical way.


Howard Charles Green: Then that would probably not be the government policy.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think industries themselves probably will be the best judges in that connection. I cannot imagine a wise employer to-day superannuating a capable man at the age of sixty. Of course all men at sixty do not have another five years of useful work in them; judgment and discretion must be used. I should imagine any wdse employer to-day-


Howard Charles Green: What about the government? They are supposed to be all-wise. What is their policy with regard to the civil service?


Humphrey Mitchell: I think my hon. friend will find that an order in council has been passed dealing with the very question he has raised, providing that people should not be superannuated if they can carry on their work.


Howard Charles Green: What about the railways?
Vocational Training


Humphrey Mitchell: I believe the same thing might be said of them. I know we use a good many superannuated men for instructors in the classes under the youth training programme, particularly in connection with the metal trades. That was one of the first things we did; we got a list of all the superannuated railway employees in the metal trades, and from that list obtained a number of our instructors. But my hon. friend will understand that some men are better than others at sixty or sixty-five, so you cannot make a general rule for everyone.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is no doubt that the government has recognized the position; I believe an order in council has been passed suspending the operation of the seventy-year rule, and I think that is all to the good. With regard to the railway position, I made some inquiry myself. The rule heretofore has been, and I think still is, imperative retirement at sixty-five. Railroading is a pretty difficult task. I was speaking to a friend in my own constituency who was recently retired. He offered his services in any capacity; he was taken on for a period of time, but found that he could not stand up to the work. If it could be arranged that selected persons might continue on, that might be a good thing; I have no opinion on the matter at all.
I have not followed the discussion on this bill very closely, but there are one or two matters I should like the minister to explain, though he may have done so last evening. I notice that section 3, which seems to be the enabling section giving the minister power to undertake projects to provide vocational training, has been redrafted in a degree. Paragraph (b) is new, having been substituted for what was there previously, and it is limited in its operations to:
... fit for any gainful employment former members of His Majesty's Canadian forces or former members of any of His Majesty's forces who were at the time of enlistment domiciled in Canada. . . .
Then paragraph (c) empowers him to undertake projects:
to fit for any gainful employment persons directed by the employment insurance commission to attend a course of training. . . .
Paragraph (d) seems to be limited in respect of employment for any purpose contributing to the conservation or development of the natural resources of the crown in the right of the dominion, as opposed to the natural resources of the country. Would the minister tell me why this change has been made?


Humphrey Mitchell: The new wording in
paragraph (b) is to clarify the matter. A man who has joined the Canadian army will receive training regardless of where he was living at the time of enlistment. If a United States citizen or an Australian joins the Canadian army, he will be entitled to training. If a man domiciled in Canada joins the imperial forces, he will be entitled to training. The section was reworded in order to clarify it. Paragraph (d) reads:
(d) to fit persons for employment for any purpose contributing to the conservation or development of the natural resources of the crown in the right of the dominion.
My legal friends thought that the words "of the crown in the right of the dominion" should be incorporated in this paragraph. It deals more specifically with forestry, and possibly mining, and properties which are owned and controlled by the crown.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why the crown in the right of the dominion? Does not the minister think that that is very limiting? Nearly all the natural resources of this country which are not privately owned are owned by the provinces.


Mr. DONNELLY:: There is a section covering the provinces.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I understand that further down it is provided that arrangements may be made with the provinces to provide financial assistance. Just what has the minister in mind that may be developed or conserved under this section?


Humphrey Mitchell: Fisheries, forestry, mining, prospecting, parks and so on; it is quite wide.


Mr. SHAW:: In answering the question
asked by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) the minister stated that it was not the policy of the government to allow men of military age-I am not sure that he used that expression-or men who were liable to call to take this training. Was he referring to men of twenty to forty years of age, or to those eligible for military training?


Humphrey Mitchell: Only those single men in the compulsory age group.


Frederick Davis Shaw: A young man in my constituency seventeen years of age applied for permission to take a course, and he was advised that he must be eighteen years of age. When he became eighteen years of age he applied again, and was asked if he had been rejected by the army. He said he had not, and he was not allowed to sign up. I

Vocational Training
took the case up, and apparenty after that he was permitted to take the course. I should like to have this matter made perfectly clear.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is probably a local irregularity.


Frederick Davis Shaw: It has been straightened out since that time.


Mr. PERLEY:: Does the age limit apply only to British Columbia?


Humphrey Mitchell: No, to all provinces.


Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: There is a very real problem in connection with these boys of seventeen years of age. I know of a number of boys who are too young to get into the army and who cannot take these courses because by the time their training period is completed they will be old enough to enlist.
I wonder if any consideration has been given to this particular age group?


Humphrey Mitchell: Some of the companies are a little dubious about taking on boys around eighteen years of age, because they know that as soon as they are trained for a particular job they may go into the army on a voluntary basis. I do not know just what we can do about it. It is one of those things over which, as long as we have a voluntary system of enlisting, hon. members or the government or the minister have practically no control. Any boy may join the army; it does not matter what trade he is following or what course of training he is taking.


Mr. STIRLING:: There is a question I should like to ask with regard to the first part of section 3. I was called out of the house for a moment, and if this has been answered I can read it in Hansard. When the bill was first brought up the preamble seemed to imply that the object was to cooperate with the provinces, but now the wording of section 3 "the minister may undertake projects to provide vocational training'' seems to me to cover a larger territory. Has the minister explained what he proposes to do with regard to undertakings which are not of provincial origin and which the dominion government will institute?


Humphrey Mitchell: We would do that only for war purposes. Section 3 deals specifically with dominion undertakings, while section 4 deals with undertakings which are to be carried on jointly by the federal and provincial governments.


Grote Stirling: I should like the minister to make some statement with regard to section
3.	What sort of projects- has the government in mind? Where will they be, and for
what purpose will they be instituted? Of course I realize that the purpose is vocational training. Will these not necessitate the obtaining of land, premises, machinery, equipment and all sorts of things?


Humphrey Mitchell: If my hon. friend will read Hansard he will see that I answered that question rather fully.


Mr. MARSHALL:: Have arrangements been made with respect to the training of young men, particularly those who have taken about two years' university training for the medical profession? I have received a letter from a lady whose daughter wants to train as a nurse but is prevented from doing so by lack of finances. Is any provision being made for these two types of cases?


Humphrey Mitchell: Arrangements have been made already to assist students in medicine, dentistry, science and engineering.


James Alexander Marshall: The young chap I have in mind has already taken two years' university medical training, but he is unable to take his third year until next spring. It seems unfortunate that this young man should be prevented from taking his third year. He is now working on the Alaska highway.


Humphrey Mitchell: If my hon. friend will let me have the name of that young man I shall be glad to look into the matter.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: These students must have their first or second year before they are taken on.


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. gentleman
pointed out that this was a second year student.


James J. Donnelly: You must have two years pre-med and then your two years in medicine.


Howard Charles Green: In some centres there is a great shortage of nurses. Is the government taking any steps to train more young women in this profession? The problem is likely to become really serious in a short time, and it seems to me that this plan should be extended to provide for such training.


Humphrey Mitchell: I would imagine that that would come under selective service. If a girl is going to train as a nurse she should be trained in a hospital. I do not know whether there is any shortage of probationers in the hospitals, or whether the government could force girls to go into hospitals to train, perhaps against their will.


Howard Charles Green: I do not know that that will be necessary, but some assistance might be given such as is given to medical students.
Vocational Training


James J. Donnelly: I do not think any girl who wants to be a nurse will have any difficulty in getting into almost any hospital. The hospital provides their board and room, and pays them a certain fee.


James Alexander Marshall: May I ask the hon. member for Wood Mountain whether fees have not to be paid by the young nurses entering a hospital for training? If so, I would ask the minister if it would not be possible to have these fees waived, now that nurses are so badly needed.


James J. Donnelly: I do not think the nurse pays any fee at all. Most of the hospitals have a waiting list of girls who want to enter the hospital for training. The hospitals pay $10 or $15 and in some cases $5 a month to nurses while they are training, as well as providing board and room.


James Alexander Marshall: I understand that young girls who have taken their twelfth grade in high school and wish to enter the nursing profession have to pay a fee to the hospital. I suggest that the fee might be waived in these times.


Mr. WRIGHT:: I do not think the nurses have to pay any fees to the hospital, but they have to buy books and uniforms, which cost from $50 to $100. I believe that is the only expense to which they are put.


Humphrey Mitchell: I was a governor of a hospital in Hamilton for a good many years, and I know that we provided all the books and uniforms free. This is the first time I have heard that uniforms have to be provided by the nurses in training.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I think that is true. Most of the hospitals require the nurses to provide their own uniforms and textbooks. There are also certain small organization fees, which do not amount to much; but it does cost the girl from $100 to $150 a year to graduate as a nurse. I have a daughter who graduated this spring, and I know what it cost me.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: That is not the worst part of it. When these girls go into training in the hospital they have to work twelve hours a day. That is something which the minister should look into.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is not so in my city.


Mr. LOCKHART:: This bill gives the minister very wide powers, and I think it is a very commendable piece of legislation. Hypothetical questions are being raised here this afternoon and much of the discussion is irrelevant.
I cannot see any reason for bringing up all 
these trivial things. The minister will have ample power under the bill, as I think he will agree, to deal with any circumstances that develop.


Howard Charles Green: I raised the question of nurses, and it is not a trivial one. It will be a very serious matter for Canada if there is a shortage of nurses. Apparently the government has no plan for assisting in the training of nurses. All I ask is that the minister make an investigation and find out what the actual situation is, and if assistance is needed, let the government give that assistance.


Humphrey Mitchell: We have been asked for assistance by two provinces, and we are assisting them.


Mr. GILLIS:: I agree that the minister has wide powers under this bill, but I do not think it is a waste of time if members of the house who have some knowledge of the problems of vocational training jog the minister with respect to specific things that have not been done and which might be done in the future.
Vocational training has been going on in the provinces for the past five years, practically on the basis proposed in this bill. I would mention one defect. There are many young men who are desirous of learning a trade but who have not the necessary grounding in mathematics to pass the first preliminary examination. The first thing required is that they go before a selection board, which cheeks on their aptitudes for certain trades and sets them an examination in mathematics. Many of these young men from seventeen to twenty-five years of age left school early, through no fault of their own, and have not been able to pass that examination in mathematics, and so have not been able to take the vocational training. I discussed this matter with the man in charge in Nova Scotia, and he admitted that there were numbers of very capable young men who would make good mechanics, welders, sheet metal workers, or other good tradesmen, who could not pass the preliminary test. He suggested that if the provincial government, in conjunction with the federal government, would authorize those in charge of vocational training to start a class in mathematics, they could short-circuit the school course by about 75 per cent, and thus in about three weeks or a month a good many of these boys would get the necessary grounding in mathematics, pass the test and be routed into some trade. This is an aspect of the matter which will have to be dealt with in the future.
This bill is going to take care of things after the war, when hundreds of boys-they

Vocational Training
will be young men then-will be coming out of the army who cannot qualify under the regulations to-day. Some provision will have to be made to meet that situation.
There is another matter on which I have recently corresponded with the department. The minister knows the mining situation in Nova Scotia. He knows that there are hundreds of unemployed men there whose services could profitably be used somewhere else. There are restrictions to-day on gold mining and on the base metal industries, and in consequence there has been an undoubted shrinkage in employment. Many of the men who were engaged in these base metal industries are now unemployed, and it would be well if they could take advantage of this vocational training. My correspondence with the department on July 7 was based upon inquiries I had received from many unemployed or partly unemployed miners in Nova Scotia who were desirous of going into some other industry. They can be paid from $8 to $13 a week subsistence while taking a course, which means going some three hundred miles from home and leaving their family behind. Thirteen dollars a week is not sufficient.
I suggested to the department at the time that they should be on the same basis as soldiers and be paid subsistence allowance during the time they were taking their training. Mr. Thompson, who I believe is the man now in front of the minister, wrote me a letter in reply to the effect that in Nova Scotia, at least, some arrangement unofficially was in effect with a new shipbuilding plant there, where men could be employed, if they had an aptitude for that class of work, receive wages, and at the same time take some training in the shipbuilding industry. "Unofficially" may be all right, but you are not going to get anybody to leave his home and his family at $13 a week, when he is dependent, for putting the thing through, on the good will of the employer. If this is a feasible arrangement some definite understanding should be had with industries that they will be prepared to accept men and step up their earnings while they are taking the necessary training.
These are two things which the minister, with the latitude he has under this bill, will have to take into consideration and try to have some understanding arrived at. The non-essential industries are shrinking. Many men will be unemployed who are not fitted to go into war industry because they have no training. Arrangements will have to be made to train them, and their families will, have to be taken care of in the meantime.
The matter must not be left to the good will of the employer. There must be some definite arrangement.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Agreements with provinces.
Percy Ellis Wright: Will not the obligation on the provinces, under subsection 2 of this section, to supply 50 per cent of the money to carry on these agreements, militate against the successful operation of the act in certain provinces? Under the old vocational training scheme, instituted, I believe, in 1932, certain provinces were unable to take full advantage of it because of financial difficulties due to economic conditions over which they had no control. If this measure is to be successful, and it should be made successful, some provision will have to be made for certain provinces as regards the 50 per cent they are to contribute. Was that matter taken into consideration?


Humphrey Mitchell: For a good many years that was overcome successfully in provinces which were not able to raise the money. I cannot go any further than that. I suppose the hon. member is conversant with the method under which it was undertaken at that time.


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes, I am.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Mr. Chairman, I trust what I have to say will be in your opinion related to section 4, subsection (1) (e) and subsection 2. In subsection (1) (e) provision is made whereby the dominion government may assist after the war in "vocational training on a level equivalent to secondary school level", and subsection 2 provides for payment on a fifty-fifty basis as between the province and the dominion.
So far as those regulations go, they will be welcomed by educationists and all others interested in education, and, I think will meet a real need. Certainly it is my hope that the provinces will be sufficiently cooperative and the federal authorities will be sufficiently generous to provide under this bill vocational education for the boys and girls of rural Canada and the small towns of Canada.
I am fearful of the fifty-fifty basis because of what happened under the Technical Education Act of 1919. While that act was in force, only the larger cities of this country were able to take advantage of it, with the result that at present we have vocational education in most of our cities and practically no vocational education in any rural community or in many of the small towns across Canada. I think the time is coming when the federal

Vocational Training

parliament will have to face the proposition of providing federal support for education generally, not merely for vocational education, and on some basis of need instead of a fifty-fifty basis. Manitoba, for instance, has not yet been able to avail itself of all the money apportioned to that province under the 1919 Technical Education Act; other provinces required a renewal of the time limit under that act before they could take advantage of the money apportioned to them. So long as the small municipality has to pay the cost of education, or the major share of it, and the province only a small portion, the dominion also will be called upon to pay only a small portion on the fifty-fifty basis, and the burden of education costs will still be levied on the real estate owners within the municipality. There is no reason to-day why real estate in a municipality should be taxed for the education of children. Children are not educated for the benefit of that particular municipality; they are educated to be Canadian citizens, and as such their education should be provided by the provinces and by the federal parliament rather than by the local municipality.
, I have before me a bill drafted to meet this situation in the United States. There the situation regarding education is practically the same as our own. The authority for education, the control of education lies within the power of the state; the federal authority has no more authority there than has the federal parliament of Canada. Yet here is a bill, read in the senate of the United States on February 11 for the second time, and then passed to a committee of the senate for further study. This bill provides for the annual payment by the federal government of the United States of $300,000,000 to assist in all branches of education down to the kindergarten, across that country, and that money is to be apportioned according to a formula stated in the bill, which will give on the basis of the state's need, so that the poorer states within the union will get the larger proportion of the grant. That, I submit, is the only common sense way to deal with this question of educational opportunity and educational equality.
As a result of our system of leaving education to the small municipalities, we have in Canada to-day 30,000 rural school-teachers, practically all of whom are receiving less than $1,000 a year; 19,000 of them are receiving less than $625, and 13,000 of them are receiving less than $520. That, Mr. Chairman, is the lowest salary paid rural teachers anywhere outside Canada in the British empire.

The minimum salary paid to inexperienced women teachers in any other part of the British empire than Canada ranges from $700 to $800 per annum. As a direct result of this, we will have in September from 1,200 to 1,500 of our schools placed in charge of unqualified teachers who have had no professional education. It is simply impossible to-day, at the salaries paid, to get professionally qualified people to go out into the rural communities to teach boys and girls. I consider that a national calamity. Where is the point in fighting for democracy if we are to raise, during the years to come, a generation of children who will come under the tutorship of hundreds of teachers who have no special qualifications for their jobs? There is not another part of the British empire where educational finance is left in any respect to be a burden on the small municipality. In England, Scotland and Ireland from 50 per cent to 80 per cent of the total cost of education is borne by the national budget; in Australia 100 per cent of the cost is borne by the national or dominion budget; in south Africa 100 per cent is borne by the provincial and dominion governments. We are the only part of the empire where we still leave education to be paid for by the local municipality, with the result that we get only the type of education that the small municipality can afford. It is my hope that under this bill our rural communities and small towns and suburbs-


Thomas Vien: Order. I did not wish to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but he is clearly outside the scope of the bill.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I think my remarks come within the scope of section 4, subsection 1, paragraph (d).


Thomas Vien: No. In the first place, may I suggest that the hon. gentleman should resume his seat while I am giving a ruling. Second, I called his attention last night to the fact that the general scheme of education in Canada as compared with the general scheme elsewhere was not within the scope of the bill. Furthermore, the question as to how school teachers are paid here, there and everywhere is not within the jurisdiction of the federal parliament and is outside the scope of the legislation which the committee has before it.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Are there regular periods within which payments of these grants are made to the provinces, or is it at the end of March each year, let us ?ay?

Vocational Training


Humphrey Mitchell: As the accounts are submitted and certified. In some instances we give an advance. The provincial governments sometimes run short of funds.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I understand that payments have not been made to the provinces since March.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is correct. Certain payments cannot be made until this bill becomes law, although certain provinces have been given tentative grants.
Mr. MaeINNIS: Possibly this question has been asked before; if so, I will look it up in Hansard. Does this bill apply to technical schools or to education carried on in technical schools in the various provinces, or will these grants be available for that purpose?


Humphrey Mitchell: No.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.	[DOT]
On section 6-council.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: As regards the advisory council, what assurance have the people of Canada that it will not be a political set-up?


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not think that is
a fair question. What is usually done under these circumstances will be done. I may say that as regards appointments that have been made to such boards, politics have played no part in them. On the national war labour board I do not know the politics of any member. What I assume we shall do is this. When the council is set up, the national organizations will be consulted as to the membership of the advisory committee.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The
question I should have asked perhaps is this: They will be picked on merit?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-Chairman and members.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Subsection 3 provides
that there shall be equal numbers of members on the council representative of employers and employees, and the remainder of the members may be representative of such groups of persons or interests as the governor in council may determine. That would mean that if there were five employers there would be five employees. That is quite in order, and that would leave four others of any other groups. Has the minister arrived at a decision as to the number of employers and employees who will be on the council?
44561-260J


Humphrey Mitchell: We were thinking of
three of eaeh.	.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That would be six
altogether.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes, three of each. The employers' side would be represented by the national organization of employers. I am thinking at the moment of the construction industry, the chamber of commerce and the manufacturers' association, and on the employees' side there would be the three national organizations of employees.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Would the representatives of the employers be nominated by the
Canadian Manufacturers' association?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And the three representing labour would be nominated by the Canadian federation of labour or the American federation?


Humphrey Mitchell: It is not a question of
nominations; it is consultations. In the very nature of things the official decision has to be made by the government itself. These organizations will be consulted in the setting up of the committee.


James Alexander Marshall: Will the provinces have representation?


Humphrey Mitchell: No.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Will any salaries be paid
these persons?


Humphrey Mitchell: No.


[Stage Direction]
Sections agreed to.
Sections 8 to 12 inclusive agreed to.
On section 13-Repeal.
Mr. MaeINNIS: I understood that under the Vocational Education Act of 1931 certain grants were paid for technical education in the provinces. As this has now been repealed, I thought this bill would apply in the same way.
Humphrey Mitchell: There has never been any money spent under the act of 1931; it has merely lain dormant.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Did I understand the minister correctly to say in answer to a question that vocational or technical education as carried on to-day in the schools would get no benefits from this bill?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes, that is right.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Is not the purpose of paragraph (e) of subsection 1 of section 4 to
Vocational Training

enable the dominion government to enter into agreements with provincial governments for the carrying on of vocational education?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yea, that is true.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 14 agreed to.
On the title:
Mr. MULOCK:: I move that the title of Bill No. 64 be changed to read: "An act respecting the carrying on and coordination of vocational training."


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. NEILL:: I may be out of order, but there is one trivial point I should like to know about. This seems an excellent bill in every regard, but no provision is made for providing money-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, under section 12.
Bill reported.



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, March 9, consideration in committee of Bill No. 5, to provide for the reinstatement in civil employment of individuals who enlist for service in His Majesty's forces or who perform essential war employment-Mr. Mitchell -Mr. Yien in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Will the minister give an outline of what he proposes to do to carry out the purposes of this bill?


Humphrey Mitchell: The bill is more or less selfexplanatory. It applies to the reinstatement, upon the conclusion of the war, of men-and of course that includes women as well-who have seen service in the armed forces, the merchant service, and also of the firefighters who volunteered to go to Great Britain and assist there. The bill is along similar lines to acts now in operation in the United States, Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand. The bill itself is a result of a promise made, I think, by the former minister of labour to the leader of the opposition that the original order in council embodying most of the provisions contained in the bill should be enacted as an act of this parliament.

The bill has been approved by the major labour organizations of this country, the employers' organizations and the Canadian legion. It has been before the canteen committee and has been amended in minor points to make its intended meaning more clear. As we come to the various sections of the bill, I shall be glad to make any explanations hon. members may desire.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister is right in saying that this bill as originally drafted was brought down in compliance with a promise made by the Minister of Pensions and National Health. When the bill was before the house on a former occasion it was debated at great length. I have not followed its career in the committee to which it was referred, but I would assume that substantial changes have been made in the bill, judging by the reprint which I hold in my hand. It went to the special committee on canteen funds, and the definitions and interpretation clauses have been practically rewritten. I confess I have not before me the changes made, and they are not apparent from the reprint. I am pleased to see that in section 3 provision has been made for one right that I suggested, namely, the retention of pension or other benefits. I am glad that it has been decided that "service in His Majesty's forces shall be deemed to have been service with the employer", for pension rights.
Perhaps some member of the committee or the minister could'enlighten me as to whether section 4 has been strengthened, that is, the defences available to employers. I do not want to go into a discussion of any particular section, but I did look upon that as rather a weak provision in the bill as originally drafted.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is paragraph (c)?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, all the paragraphs of that section deal with the question of defences available to employers, any one of the paragraphs could be urged. Is the minister of opinion that the weakness of the former bill has been removed? I think we should have some statement on that. For instance, the preamble is gone.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think the suggestions made in the committee have nearly all been adopted. I agree that the bill has been strengthened by the suggestions made during the discussion in the house. Section 4 has been strengthened to provide more protection for the returned man who has found it necessary to have medical treatment. Section 4 (c) was the contentious section in the committee,

Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
but it was found that this language best suited the purpose of the bill. The language is identical with that used in the British act.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What the minister is saying in that regard is that the committee was unable to find any language better suited to the occasion. Section 4 (c) reads:
. . . that, by reason of a change of circumstances, other than the engagement of some person to replace him, it was not reasonably practicable to reinstate him or that his reinstatement in an occupation and under conditions not less favourable to him than those which would have been applicable to him had he not been accepted for service with the armed forces was impracticable, and that the employer has offered to reinstate him in the most favourable occupation and under the most favourable conditions reasonably practicable-
I have no concrete suggestion to offer, because I dismissed this bill from my mind as soon as it was sent to the committee, and I really have not thought about it since. I do suggest, however, that this is a wide open clause. We can understand this part of it-

by reason of a change of circumstances, other than the engagement of some other person to replace him-
But when you come to-
-that the employer has offered to reinstate him in the most favourable occupation and under the most favourable conditions reasonably practicable

That leaves it in the judgment of the employer.


Humphrey Mitchell: If my hon. friend will read section 10 he will see that we have provided that an officer of the department may take proceedings, if necessary, where an employer does not comply with the intent of the bill.


Alan Webster Neill: Since we are dealing with the bill more or less at random I should like to ask a question with regard to the section referred to a moment ago by the leader of the opposition; that is, section 4 (c). Let me put a concrete case. Suppose a man was working as a mechanic before enlistment. When he comes back from the war the position of mechanic is no longer open. Can he say to his former employer, "Well, you cannot give me a job as a mechanic, I admit, but I could also be a clerk. I want you to fire this man," who may have been employed there for thirty years, "and give me his job". Does this provision extend to any position? Must the man get some job, or is it confined to a position of the kind which he left? If he was a mechanic, and should there be no mechanics employed in that plant when he
returned, could he demand that a position be created for him, or could he demand some other position at the expense of a man who had been perhaps twenty years in the service of that employer?


Humphrey Mitchell: I would say common sense would have to be the rule. To deal with the hypothetical case cited by the hon. member, let us go back to the railway organizations, where they have seniority in the different branches of the service. A railroad engineer or fireman could not come back and put out a station agent, a telegrapher or a clerk. In the main I think common sense will have to rule in that regard.


Alan Webster Neill: But the man might be a good enough clerk. Could he compel his employer to fire a man who has been in his employ for many years, in order to give him a job?


Mr. HAZEN:: Has the minister had any opinion from the Department of Justice as to whether this bill is within the jurisdiction of this parliament?


Humphrey Mitchell: That is not being questioned. The law officers of the crown drafted the bill.


Douglas King Hazen: That may be so, but that was not the question. I asked if the minister had obtained any opinion from the Department of Justice as to whether this bill was intra vires of the dominion.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think we shall jump that hurdle when we come to it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The point is a very important one, and I think it was raised once before. I believe the minister failed to get the point of the question of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. Perhaps if the hon. member would restate his position the minister might deal with it; for I think the hon. member has a point.


Alan Webster Neill: I did not catch the gist of the minister's reply. The position I have in mind is this. A man has been a mechanic, we will say, or anything else you like. He goes to the war, and comes back. He is entitled to be reinstated as a mechanic, but suppose there is no such job open to him, perhaps by reason of the position having been abolished or by reason of the company having abandoned that class of work which required the services of a mechanic. Is he then in a position to say to his employer, "I admit that you cannot give me a job as a mechanic, but I can do clerical work; I have the education for that." Is the employer then compelled to employ that man and perhaps have to let go a man who may have been his confidential
4114	COMMONS
Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
clerk for twenty years? Or does this refer only to a job of the kind a man had before he enlisted?


Humphrey Mitchell: I am frank to admit
that this is a difficult question to answer, but I still come back to the suggestion that common sense will have to rule. I do not think a man could do that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The bill does not provide for it, I will say.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to help the minister with his bill, but the fact is that it was considered very carefully by the special committee, and I think we were all of the opinion that it is in the best form that could be devised. The Canadian Legion submitted a brief to the committee, and in one of the paragraphs of that brief we have a good summary of the purpose of this bill. That paragraph reads:
Many objections can be raised to legislation of this kind, but the Legion believes that a statute will provide the most effective means of tying employers generally into the rehabilitation plans of the government, and placing a share of the responsibility of solving the problems of individual rehabilitation squarely before them now so that it shall remain a factor which cannot be ignored in determining their policies affecting personnel.
I think the bill is very sound; it is simply putting the present order in council into the form of a statute.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And improving it.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, making it a measure that should be of the greatest help to the men coming back from the present war. Members of the committee realized that there were points which perhaps were not fully covered by the terms of the bill, but they found it practically impossible to strengthen the bill any more than has been done. They did recommend that the government should undertake the prosecution of any employer who did not carry out the intent of this legislation, and hon. members will find that provision in section 10 of the bill.


Alan Webster Neill: But, Mr. Chairman, there are poor prospects for the carrying out of the purposes of this bill if the minister in charge of it and the members of the committee who discussed it cannot agree even now as to what it means. I only want to know what we are doing. I am not trying to deprive any worker or soldier of his rights; far from it. But let us know where we are; for apparently we do not know. Years from now it will not be possible, if a case should come up in court,

for a man to say, "Well, the members of the house said so and so", because that is not law. It is what is in the act that counts.


Humphrey Mitchell: Does not section 4 (c) cover that?


Alan Webster Neill: No, it does not.


Humphrey Mitchell: It gives discretion if the matter should go before a magistrate, where it would go. It says:
-by reason of a change of circumstances, other than the engagement of some other person to replace him, it was not reasonably practicable to reinstate him-
I think that gives discretion to the magistrate; and if the matter should go before the courts that would place out of bounds the suggestion advanced by the hon. member for Comox-AIberni in connection with a machinist who might come back from the war and then attempt to bump-to use the language of the running trades-a clerk or a confidential secretary.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think the minister is quite wrong when he says that paragraph (c) gives the magistrate discretion. What paragraph (c) does is to give the employer a way out within certain limitations. This is one of the defence clauses available to the employer. With regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Comox-AIberni (Mr. Neill) I would say that this statute would not give the right to a man to come back and bump somebody, to use the term employed by the minister, out of a job of another category. I do not think it was ever contemplated that that should be done.
There is another point that should be dealt with. I do not know whether this has been touched upon in the earlier stages. The crown is the largest employer of labour in this country, yet this bill does not apply to the crown. What is the position of the crown qua employer with respect to the reemployment of returned soldiers? I do not think we could legislate with respect to the crown in the right of the province. Of course the Civil Service Act contains certain provisions with respect to preference for returned soldiers, but we have omitted from this bill a most vital factor. I wonder if that came before the committee.


Howard Charles Green: Preference is given in the
civil service.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But not by this bill. If that is so, then the committee has failed to perform a most vital function. Why should not this apply to the government of Canada? I have not been able to give a careful reading to the redraft, but I have not seen in the bill a single line which would

Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
compel the government of Canada to do what this parliament is compelling private employers to do.


Clarence Gillis: Why not?


Richard Burpee Hanson: The interpretation of employer reads:
"Employer" in relation to any person accepted for service in His Majesty's forces, means a person carrying on any undertaking or service in which the person accepted for service had been employed for at least three months immediately prior to the date on which he was accepted for service.
And so on. But it does not include the crown in the right of the dominion. The minister should withdraw the bill and make it binding on the crown. I commend that to the committee. I should like to get some support for this position. This is a proper bill in the interests of the returned men. Many of these men may not be able to take a more onerous occupation because of physical unfitness. Why should we be legislating to compel the subject to perform a certain function and leave the government entirely free to do the reverse?
What is the situation with respect to men who have returned from this war? How many returned men from this war have been taken into the government service? I assume that the Civil Service Act still obtains with respect to competition, but there are many temporary positions; how many are filled by men who have been discharged from the forces because of physical unfitness? This situation ought to be dealt with in the bill.


Humphrey Mitchell: A civil servant is granted leave, and I suppose he would not lose his seniority rights. I cannot imagine the crown being less generous than a private employer. I should not think it necessary to have such a provision in the bill.


James Alexander Marshall: I feel that as a member of the special committee I should say something with respect to this bill. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) was not altogether correct when he said that there was unanimity of opinion among the members of the committee with respect to this bill. Bill No. 5 is predicated upon order in council P.C. 4758, which was passed on June 27, 1940. This bill is the outcome of a request by the leader of the opposition that the regulations contained in that order in council should be embodied in a bill. This matter was discussed fully in the committee, and as far as I understand the feeling of the members of the committee they were divided on the question whether this bill should be turned down and the order in council allowed to function for some further period of time.
I jotted down some of the criticisms of the bill which were made by members of the committee. They are as follows:
Purpose for which act is framed is a worthy one but it is full of pitfalls.
If employers are worthy, and no one doubts their worthiness, there is no need for the bill.
The bill is not flexible enough.
It is overloaded with legal jargon.
Some sections could be worked only by bluff and not by prosecution.
Splendid opportunity to set up a bureaucracy of little value or importance.
This bill has been studied carefully, and I submit that it should not be allowed to pass but that the order in council should be administered for some time to come. We are told that it has been functioning well and that all complaints have been settled satisfactorily. The following recommendation was made by the special committee on pensions which sat the year previously:
It shall be the responsibility of the governor in council, in cooperation with industry and with all other classes of employment, to assume full responsibility for the reinstatement of all exservice men in the posts from which they withdrew on enlistment, or in some other form of gainful occupation.
That provision should have been embodied in this bill. As the bill now stands, there is no provision for placing men in some other form of gainful occupation. For that reason I believe it would be better to allow the order in council to operate a little while longer until we gain more experience. We could then build a bill upon the experience we have gained.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am surprised that a member of the committee should get up after the final meeting of the committee and indicate the course which has been indicated here this afternoon. That is the easiest thing to do.
I do not think that we can do less than they have done in Australia, South Africa and Great Britain. I am glad to go to those men who have knowledge of and are interested in Canadian returned soldier affairs-the Canadian Legion, which speaks for a large body of soldiers in this country. The general principle of this bill has been approved by industry and labour and by a large body of public opinion. If I may say so, to the lawyers of the house, I cannot hope I shall ever live to see the day when a bill that is perfect will pass the house.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Do you think that would
put them out of business?


Humphrey Mitchell: It might. I think the
suggestion that this bill will set up a bureaucracy is quite unwarranted and untrue. It
4116	COMMONS
Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
will not be necessary to set up a bureaucracy to set this bill in motion. We must remember that the order in council will expire at the conclusion of the war, but if you have an act on the statute book it can always be amended. This bill, like the legislation of the other countries I have mentioned, is "founded upon our experience of the last war and up to the present moment. It would be very fine, of course, to write a /Christmas tree into this bill. My hon. friend suggests that the government should guarantee employment to everybody. That suggestion is in a class by itself and: would need provisions of an entirely different character. The bill is simply to provide for the reinstatement of the soldiers who already had employment before going to the war. It embodies the policy of the government that employers shall take their men back to work. For 95 per cent of the employers of this country I believe it would not be necessary to have this legislation, because I believe the men will go back to their old jobs anyway if their jobs are there. This legislation is necessary because there may be some employers who will not do the right thing by the returned soldiers. It is a step in the right direction, and it can always be amended when amendments are deemed to be necessary in the practical working out of the act for the benefit of the men for whom it is designed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: With
what the minister has said I am largely in agreement. I am just wondering if there is some reasoning which applies to an order in council falling by the wayside after the war which might not apply to the provisions of this statute, but I do not think we ought to refuse to pass the bill on that ground. I have a very strong opinion that this is an interference with property and civil rights which it would not be competent for parliament to pass other than in time of war. But that time has arrived and we have to meet the situation as best we can.
Returning to the question of the crown not being a party to it, I find that this question was raised in the debate on March 9, when the minister made somewhat the same reply as he did to-day. I think upon reflection that is incorrect in part, but only in part. Permanent civil servants who have enlisted have been given leave of absence, but, as the minister very well knows, there is a large class of government employees, known as temporaries, who are not technically permanent but who have been on the payroll for years and years.
I have always wondered why, if they were necessary they were not blanketed in. I suppose there is a reason; that each adminis-

tration does not desire to recognize that a job which was created for temporary purposes should by a lapse of time, and by that alone, become permanent, although it would look as though they were permanent when you reviewed individual cases. A man employed in a temporary capacity does not get leave of absence. He has no superannuation rights; he has nothing. Some arrangement ought to be made whereby these men would be protected. The bill does not do that. It has a limited application; so far as its limited application goes, it is a pretty good bill, and I am supporting it. I think the committee did a very good job, probably as good a job as they could. I would not expect that there would be unanimity in the committee.
The question raised by the hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Marshall) is a very much wider one than is attempted to be covered by this bill. The objective he has in mind is a most desirable one that everybody should be given a job; but we are not yet a socialist state. We may be rapidly coming to it. If we do come to it, and these gentlemen have the opportunity to put into practice what they preach, they will find some difficulties in the way which are almost insuperable. You just cannot do these things on the spur of the moment, by act of parliament or in any other way. There is only one way, one big way, to provide employment in this country, and that is by the encouragement of private enterprise. I hope the day will never come when private enterprise will be wiped out. It is the one big factor that provides employment, and instead of tearing it down we ought to try to build it up after the war so that it will function once more.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am glad to hear hon. gentlemen over there applaud that sentiment. I have waited for some sign from that side that they support the principle I have tried to preach, however inadequately, over a period of months. Let us not destroy that which has been the backbone of this country and the basis of the prosperity of the most prosperous nation in the world, the United States-private initiative and private enterprise.


Clarence Gillis: With millions unemployed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There were great numbers of unemployed in Germany, and now they are all employed-doing what? Destroying the world. That is the way they became employed, and under national socialism too. If we are to have government regimentation and state socialism in this

Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
country after the war, I am announcing now that I am against it. I may not be here to fight it, but I am against it.


Mr. McLEAN (Simcoe East):: I will be here to look after it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If he is here, I hope my hon. friend will fight it. Somebody has to fight this battle.
I do not wish to delay the passage of this bill. If this is the best we can get, let us take it, and not rely on the order in council.
I have just one query to make of the minister before we deal with the sections. The title is to be changed on the recommendation of the special committee. There was a preamble which set out the purposes of the bill, and that has been eliminated. The short title was-


Thomas Vien: The short title remains the same. It is the title of the bill that is changed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The act may be cited as the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act, 1942, and I notice on this draft which the chair has kindly handed to me, "an act to provide for the reinstatement in civil employment of discharged members of His Majesty's forces or other designated classes of persons." Just what are those other designated classes of persons?


Humphrey Mitchell: The merchant service seamen and the fire fighters.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have a very brief comment to make. I was pleased to hear what the minister said a few moments ago, that in his opinion by far the greater number of the employers-I believe he said 95 per cent would not need to be regulated by the provisions of this bill. As long as I have known the minister in this house I have always found him to be a sane labour man. When he was here years ago, sitting further down the line, he spoke on labour matters as a man who was sane in his advocacy. I never knew him at any lime unnecessarily to attack employers. In that connection I notice what the minister said-	.


Clarence Gillis: That is why he is Minister of Labour.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not think that is a fair thing to say, even if it is said by the hon. member under his breath.


Clarence Gillis: I will say it out loud.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am not going to enter into an argument with my hon. friends to the left. They have a right to their opinions, as
I have a right to mine. I have been a labouring man myself, coming up from the moulding shop through the machine shop and office.


Humphrey Mitchell: I will say to the hon. member for Cape Breton South that when it comes to a question of who has contributed more to the working classes-himself or myself -in a practical way, I believe my record will stand out as well as his.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The Minister of Labour needs no defence from me. I have known him a long time, and I say again I have always found him to be a sane labour man. But what I rose to say was this. With regard to his reference to companies, my observation is that by far the majority of the heads of the firms of this country graduated, as I did, from down in the plant, to the top, and men who have done that certainly know how to handle labour. The man who in his time was the greatest employer of labour in the United States, the late Andrew Carnegie, rose from the lowest rung of the ladder. I do not like to hear attacks on employers; they should be encouraged instead of being attacked.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Adverting to the
remark of the hon. member for Cape Breton South, I think the Minister of Labour misunderstood what he said, and I think he ought to explain his position.


Clarence Gillis: Perhaps the minister did misunderstand what I said "under my breath." The hon. member for Davenport was delivering quite a eulogy of the minister: he said he was always fair, sane and sensible and did not at any time attack the employers. I think the minister is very touchy on that point, without any reason. I made the observation, "That is why he is Minister of Labour." I cannot see that there is anything wrong with the remark.


An hon. MEMBER:: Get on with the bill.


Clarence Gillis: When I am ready. I am in the hands of the Chair.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Don't look at me: I didn't say a word.


Clarence Gillis: I was a member of the committee that considered this bill, and I agree to a large extent with the remarks of the hon. member for Camrose. When it came before the committee I regarded it as premature. Under an order in council the Department of Pensions and National Health had built up quite a service with respect to the rehabilitation of the men who are coming out of the army; and in view of the fact that two other committees are considering and
Forces-Reinstatement in

Employment
going very broadly into the question of rehabilitation I thought it was too early to pass a statute at this time which definitely ties up this particular phase of rehabilitation with any particular ministry designated to take care of it. That was the bill in its original stage.
In addition to that, the original bill placed upon men returning from overseas the onus of coming back to Canada and proving their entitlement to a job. That has been corrected in this bill. But my fear about the bill is that it may interfere with arrangements which are working fairly satisfactorily. That fear may be groundless, nevertheless the risk is there. Many of the shortcomings of the blil as it went into committee have been corrected. I think the major disability was that the onus of proof rested on the man. An additional clause is provided which places the enforcement of the measure in the hands of the government. The minister who will be charged with the responsibility of administering this measure will have to lay charges against the employer who violates any particular section. I still regard this as premature. However, as a member of the committee, and one who was in a minority position, I accepted the majority opinion. In the light of present circumstances the bill, in my opinion, is as good as it can be. But we know very little about rehabilitation, or what developments will occur a year or two years from now.
As to the point raised by the leader of the opposition with respect to protection for employees of the government, I see under this bill the government in the position of employer. It is a matter of defining "employer". The situation is not confined to civil servants. You have to-day in this country many government-owned plants-one, which we had the privilege of going through a short time ago, having 16,000 employees. Many of these people will enlist or be called up. When they enter the services the government is their employer. When they come back from the war the jobs they vacated may not be there. Under this bill, as I see it, the government is morally responsible to find employment for them. That is another reason why I regard the bill as premature. The order in council is taking care of the situation as it exists at present. This bill does not go specifically, anyway, into that phase of the situation, and we may be in a better position a year from now to judge and legislate on it. However, the government still have the power to make regulations by order in council; they make them whether they have it or not.
[Mr. Gillis.J
As a member of the committee I am perfectly satisfied with the bill in the light of our present circumstances, in view of the fact that the majority of the committee saw fit to recommend its passage at this time.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I want to make sure what I am voting on. If I remember, in the committee the title-I don't know which to call it, the big title or the little title-


Thomas Vien: We are on clause 1, the short title.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like to know just what we are discussing. My recollection is, and I think the records will show, that in the title we originally struck out the words "or who perform essential war employment". In the new copy which has been given to me those words appear.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is out.


Thomas Vien: We are now on the short title. The short title remains as it is, but the title of the bill will be amended in due course when we come to it. Under the rules the title is taken up after the sections of the bill have been discussed.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Then I take it that the employer will not be expected to reinstate a man who is working, for instance, in an essential garbage plant, since what we are trying to do is to look after the men and women who are serving overseas.


Humphrey Mitchell: A man working in an essential garbage plant will not come within the terms of the bill.


George Hugh Castleden: When the bill first came down I opposed it because I did not think it effectively implemented what the preamble purported. I hope that when the amendments are brought in, some change will be made so that the bill will not be misleading. The bill does not provide for reinstatement in civil employment of individuals who enlist for service, because it is impracticable to do so. I do not think it is right to pass bills under names that purport to do something which is not done. That is why I referred to the bill in its original form as "tripe". However, the committee has done what it can under the circumstances. I think it was admitted by the members of the committee that it was impracticable. You cannot compel private industry to take a man back if it does not wish to do so.


Humphrey Mitchell: This bill does that very thing.

Forces-Reinstatement in Employment


George Hugh Castleden: Only under certain
conditions. I do not think the minister will maintain that when he looks at the loopholes in section 4 (c).


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not like it to go out to the country that this House of Commons is not doing the very best it can in the light of all the knowledge and circumstances that exist at the moment. It is statements of that kind that breed revolutions and moral decay. It is a reflection on the members of the committee and on the House of Commons.


Howard Charles Green: And undermines the bill.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is not a fair thing to say.


George Hugh Castleden: But the implication is there. In this case all an employer has to do is to state that it is not reasonably practicable to reinstate the man.


Thomas Vien: I suggest that we
should pass sections 1 and 2 and then take sections 3 and 4 together so that the matter will be dealt with properly. We are now discussing the substance of section 4 and we are on the short title. If we passed 1 and 2 and then took 3 and 4 together, hon. members would be within the rules in discussing the subject as the hon. gentleman is now doing.


George Hugh Castleden: I think that in the light of the minister's statement I should have the right to reply to what he has said.


Thomas Vien: I understand that.


George Hugh Castleden: Section 5 states that where an employer has reinstated a former employee in accordance with section 3 he shall not, without reasonable cause, terminate the employment of that employee, and in any proceedings for violation of this section in any case where the employment was terminated within six months of the reinstatement the onus shall be on the employer to prove that he had reasonable cause to terminate the employment. That is the basis of my objection to the bill. In committee we divided almost fifty-fifty on the elimination of these loopholes because we wanted to make the bill more airtight. We agreed that the whole bill was a gesture and a worthy one. I do not want to create the impression that the committee did not do the best it could under the circumstances, but we recognize that the measure is very limited in its application. There is this improvement in the bill, that it will not be necessary for the former employee to engage
counsel under the new section. It is now possible for the employee to obtain counsel through the government without cost.


John Horne Blackmore: I wish to make this one observation arising out of the statement of the leader of the opposition that the only way to put men back to work is by encouraging private enterprise. I agree with him. I trust that he will give the matter a good deal of earnest thought and some time before the session closes tell us what his device is for encouraging private industry.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Defences available to employers.
John Ritchie MacNicol: When the bill was under discussion I referred to the limitation of three months or four months in section 4. Section 4 reads:
In any proceedings for the violation of section 3 of this act, it shall be a defence for the employer to prove,-
(a) that the person formerly employed by him did not within three months after discharge in Canada from the service or from hospital treatment following discharge in Canada, or within four months after discharge overseas or from hospital treatment following discharge overseas, apply to the employer for reinstatement.
I remember very well what took place after the last war. I was associated with a very large plant and, contrary to the opinions I have heard expressed, I found employers of that day very anxious to take back men who had worked with them before enlistment. I found that very general; certainly it was true of the plant with which I was associated. We took men back who were not able to accept employment within three or four months after discharge, and we took back many men after a period much longer than that. My knowledge of employers convinces me that the three or four months limitation will not prevent them from taking men back later than that. I remember one engineer who came back and who did not feel like starting at his old job after his return. He had been through many fights, had been blown up two or three times, had the experience of men who face fire and shell and bayonet charges and who suffer very seriously in consequence. It was nine months before he applied and he was taken on again. Even if he had not been fit after nine months he would have been taken on. I know of another man, a shipper, who did not return to work for over six months after his discharge. He was unable to do so.
Forces-Reinstatement in

Employment
With quite a number of machinists it was between five and ten months before their nerves permitted them to go on their old jobs. There was a chauffeur who did not go on for fourteen months. So I hope it will not be considered that with regard to employers-at least those I have been in contact with, who were mostly men who themselves graduated from the ranks of labour to the position of employers-the three or four months' limitation will prevent them from taking men back later than that, but I wonder whether there might be the odd one who would try to escape under that limitation. What does the minister think of that limitation?


Humphrey Mitchell: When the national labour supply council was in existence-that was the council of employers and employees-we discussed this matter from the angle my hon. friend mentions and came to the conclusion that three or four months was the most satisfactory approach to the problem.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Were many of the members of the committee former employees themselves?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes. We had the chief of personnel of the Canadian Pacific Railway and on the labour side the representatives of the dominant organizations. There was no disagreement.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: I think we had discussion in the committee on that very point. At one stage the limitation read "one month." Much has been said about the impracticability of this bill; we had to have something agreed on. After considerable discussion we arrived at this three or four months as a compromise to make it workable from the point of view of both employers and employees. It was a step in the right direction. Section agreed to.
Sections 5 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
On section 10-Prosecution on behalf of employee.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I understood from one hon. member who was on the committee that if an employee found it necessary to obtain legal advice, that legal advice was to be supplied by the government.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes, by the government.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But only when the minister thinks a prosecution is warranted, they undertake the prosecution; free legal advice is not provided.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is what I meant, if legal advice is necessary the government will supply the legal advice at no cost to the employee?


Humphrey Mitchell: At no cost to the
returned soldier.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That section is not clear. According to my impression in the committee legal advice was not to be provided where the minister considered a prosecution necessary, but it would be where the employer would not listen to any other argument; if the employer would not recognize the claim made in due course and in conformity with the measure.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think there has to be some provision for nuisance cases, that the decision should rest with the minister, as with other prosecutions under the crown. What I think would happen would be that the welfare officer or those charged with the enforcement of this bill would go to the employer and the employer would see the penalities laid down. In my view the number of cases that would go to the courts would be very small and of a kind that would require getting the approval of the minister before a prosecution.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That is all very well, and apparently compliments are in order.
I agree that the minister is one of the most outstanding ministers of labour who have been in the house since I have been here. There have been only two. But when a man is away out in the wilderness somewhere and an employer would not reengage him, provided he conformed to the provisions of the bill, my impression was that the minister would automatically take action. It is all very well to say that these things cannot happen; judging by some of the hon. members I have seen who might possibly be in the government, anything could happen. A soldier should have this right, just as he has now a right of appeal in a pension case and is entitled to the services of the soldiers' advocate. That is his right by statute, and I think it should be my right if my employer refuses me my position, that I can demand a lawyer paid by the crown to prosecute my case.


James Arthur Ross: That was rather my understanding in the committee. At one time the onus was on the employee. There was considerable discussion. The matter of the soldiers' advocate was discussed, as mentioned by' the hon. member for Fraser Valley. Now that the matter has been turned around, with the onus on the employer, the onus is

Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
taken off the employee to institute action. There has to be some discretion in the department. We have to have faith in the department seeing that the employee receives justice.


George Hugh Castleden: I wish to support the contention of the hon. member for Fraser Valley. Previously the employee had to go and get counsel. Now he will have to put his case before the minister. My experience in trying to get things through these various government departments is that there is interminable delay.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He will
go to the welfare officer in the community first, and that officer will take it up.


George Hugh Castleden: But he takes it up with the minister, and the minister decides whether the case warrants action. It will then come back to the advocate, and perhaps proceedings will be instituted. But if the minister does not wish to institute proceedings, the man will be out entirely. It is entirely in the hands of the minister whether or not the man shall have his case taken on by the government or whether he will have to employ a lawyer himself. The greatest improvement made in the bill in my opinion was instituting this protection for the employee. It seems to me it would be much more in line with what the committee wanted if it were made possible for the employee to have at his disposal the services of someone in the same position as the soldiers' advocate in the matter of pensions. It seems to me this complicates the matter more than ever.


Thomas Vien: Shall the section carry?


George Alexander Cruickshank: No. We spent three months on a bill that apparently is not to mean anything, the plebiscite bill. Surely we can take a little time on something that is going to help the returned soldier. I for one am not going to be rushed, if I stay here for three months more.


An hon. MEMBER:: You will stay alone.


George Alexander Cruickshank: All right. Probably I would accomplish more if I did. As I see it, there are too many loopholes. It could happen. I know it would not happen with any of the parties represented in this house at present; but do not make any mistake, such things have happened in Canada before. This government might not be in power; it might be any government. There might be a very particular friend of the administration; I could name them, both on behalf of the official opposition, possibly some of the government side and even some on the
part of our friends down to the far left. I am very doubtful about any prosecuting that would be done in connection with any of these firms, to put a man back to work. We all know these things happen. I for one would not want to be 3,000 or 4,000 miles away pleading my case with the minister in charge at the time, asking that he prosecute a certain firm which refused to put me back at work. I think it should be mandatory, with all due deference to the minister. I am speaking as a returned soldier. I do not want to be accused, as the hon. member for Yorkton was accused, of saying anything that would deprecate what we are trying to do for the returned men in this connection, but why not be fair and honest about it? I am also a member of the Canadian Legion, a charter member, but unless you put some teeth into this bill I do not think it will amount to what it is intended to amount to.


Clarence Gillis: I do not share the apprehensions of the hon. member for Fraser Valley. This clause as it stands automatically gives the soldier the right to counsel in the event that lie has to prosecute an employer.


Humphrey Mitchell: Absolutely.


Clarence Gillis: And I agree with the minister that there has to be a stop block somewhere. I cannot view this clause in exactly the way that it is viewed by the hon. member for Fraser Valley. In the event of a dispute with an employer under this bill a man is automatically given the benefit of counsel.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Only if
the minister agrees.


Clarence Gillis: I cannot see him not agreeing. After a case goes through the unemployment insurance and welfare offices and finally reaches the minister, I should think it would be very apparent that something is wrong.


George Alexander Cruickshank: And the employee
would be starving.


Clarence Gillis: That is a bad angle to it.
Unfortunately you fellows are still making these regulations, and we will have to go through these slow processes of law until somebody else makes them.


George Alexander Cruickshank: They will be
awfully slow, too.


Thomas Vien: Shall the section carry?


George Alexander Cruickshank: No.


Thomas Vien: On division.
Section agreed to on division.
On the title.
4122	COMMONS
Forces-Reinstatement in Employment


Thomas Vien: An amendment has
been moved, that the title be changed to read:
. ac^ to provide for the reinstatement in civil employment of discharged members of His Majesty's forces or other designated classes of persons.
Shall the amendment carry?


George Alexander Cruickshank: No, Mr. Chairman. That is not to be the title, as I understood it. It is six o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


Humphrey Mitchell: I suggest that we carry on until we finish. The house is under tremendous pressure, and so are the ministers. I think we should go on.


Mr. CRERAR:: I would appeal to the
hon. member. We are on the last section of the bill; let us try to finish it to-night and not call it six o'clock. We might carry on for a few minutes.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Veiy well; I withdraw my suggestion. But this is a most important bill, and I do not think it should be rushed. Not two members in this chamber can remember the title as it was read. Let us know what we are doing.


Thomas Vien: The amended title reads:
An act to provide for the reinstatement in civil employment of discharged members of His Majesty's forces or other designated classes of persons.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What is the meaning of "other designated classes of persons"?


Humphrey Mitchell: At the moment it means merchant seamen and civilian fire fighters who have been called up. I know what is bothering my hon. friend. He thinks it refers to industry, but he can take it from me that it has no connection whatever with industry.


George Hugh Castleden: As I understand it, this bill has reference only to persons who were previously employed.


Humphrey Mitchell: Absolutely.


George Hugh Castleden: Do you not think it would be well to include somewhere in the title words to this effect, "to reinstate individuals who were previously employed, and who enlisted for service"?


Humphrey Mitchell: The word "reinstatement" connotes previous employment.


Clarence Gillis: Would these "other designated persons" include men who enlisted but who were taken from the army and placed in other employment, by virtue of their techncial training? Under the bill as it now stands I do not think they have any protection.


Humphrey Mitchell: If they are taken from the army they are given leave of absence, and are still technically in the army.


Clarence Gillis: No, they have been discharged.


Humphrey Mitchell: I know of no such cases.


Clarence Gillis: I have had two people write me who have been discharged from the army and employed in industry, but there is no protection for them.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Title as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
On motion of Mr. Crerar the house adjourned at 6.10 p.m.
Monday, July 13, 1942