1956-06-15

Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Apparently I was under a misapprehension as to the wishes of the house last night with respect to today's business. We shall take labour estimates first, then national health and welfare.



EXCISE TAX ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: May I
ask the Minister of Finance whether it is his intention to proceed with the resolutions respecting amendments to the Excise Tax Act in the committee of ways and means and, if so, when?


Walter Edward Harris: shall be proceeding with the resolution, but I think that next week's work has already been outlined, and it certainly will not be until the week after next.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is the government going to proceed with all the resolutions of which the minister gave notice in his budget address on March 20?


Walter Edward Harris: I suppose that is one of those things I will announce when we reach the resolution stage.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Can the minister make any announcement about the proposed 20 per cent tax on advertising matter in magazines?


Walter Edward Harris: I have made no announcement and would not do so until that time, sir.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce? Press dispatches today report an agreement having been reached between the United Kingdom and the United States for the exchange of information on atomic energy developments. I should like to know whether or not Canada is to get all this information which is now being made
available to the United Kingdom, in view of the fact that historically the three nations have been working together.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Canada was the first to sign an agreement with the United States for the exchange of atomic energy information. Whether the agreement with Canada covers all phases of the atomic situation that may be covered by an agreement with the United Kingdom, I will have to explore, but it is my impression that Canada signed an agreement some months ago which is parallel to the agreement recently signed between the United States and the United Kingdom.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps the minister could let the house know on Monday what the situation is.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, I shall be glad to inquire and get a more complete statement for Monday.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Under whose authority were Canadian citizens in British Columbia recently subjected to radioactive rainfall, and what measures is the government proposing to take to ensure that Canadians will never again be subjected to that sort of thing?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) is an expert on atomic rainfall. I was not aware that any part of Canada has been exposed to it, but I am sure that my colleague would be glad to make a statement.


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. friend will find comfort in the statement that I made yesterday. I suggest that he look at it and reflect on it.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether he could answer my question. Under whose authority were Canadian citizens subjected to this rainfall, and what steps is the government taking to ensure that it will not happen again?
5062	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Marlin: Mr. Speaker, perhaps after my hon. friend has read what I said yesterday, he and I can talk about the matter further, and he can give consideration as to whether he wishes to pursue the question.



NATURAL RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that a so-called confidential federal survey indicating control of Canada's oil industry as being 90 per cent foreign is referred to in the press, may I ask the minister if that survey or that document is not something which should now be tabled?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I know of no survey other than the survey of industry conducted by the bureau of statistics, and I have seen no publication bearing directly on the oil industry. I will make inquiries and if there is any such document I will, of course, be glad to table it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister in a position to confirm the statement made, which is based on a federal survey, that Canada's oil industry is controlled outside of Canada to the extent of 90 per cent?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, Mr. Speaker,
I am not. I would say that 90 per cent is very much too high, but I will be glad to look into the matter. In any case, our oil industry is not controlled outside of Canada. It may be owned outside of Canada but it is not controlled outside of Canada.



BOX CARS, QUOTAS AND MARKETING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. What plans has he under way in order to assure that a larger number of freight cars for the transport of wheat will be made available? Also, what is the hope of the quotas being increased, particularly the low figure quotas, and what is the general attitude of the minister toward action being taken to ensure that the largest possible portion of the wheat in storage on farms will be marketed before the new crop year?
[Mr. Regier.J


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was good enough to give notice of his question. Deliveries of wheat by producers to date this present crop year are well ahead of the same period a year ago. Up to June 14 wheat deliveries amounted to 248 million bushels against 218 million bushels in the same period a year ago. Deliveries of all grains are 12 million bushels ahead of the comparable period of the last crop year. As at June 15, all points have a 3-bushel delivery quota or better. One hundred and six points are at 3 bushels, 538 at 4 bushels, 509 at 5 bushels, 741 at 6 bushels and 168 at 7 bushels.
The Canadian wheat board is endeavouring to achieve as great a degree of equality as possible before the end of the current crop year. At the same time, the board must give preference to those grades and kinds of grain which have been sold for export or for which there is active demand. I might mention that exports of wheat and flour from August 1, 1955, to June 6, 1956, are 244 million bushels as against 215 million in the same period a year ago, an increase of 29 million bushels. Although later official figures are not yet available, I would think that as of today Canada has exported as much wheat and flour this crop year as during the whole of the crop year 1954-55.
There has been particularly heavy demand for grades of wheat No. 4 northern and lower and for malting barley. This has been one of the reasons for the differences in quotas at country points. I am hopeful, however, that before the end of the crop year most of the lower quota points will have been raised substantially. Certainly that will be the aim of the Canadian wheat board, the transport controller and the railways.
I may say that in my years of association with the wheat business I have never seen wheat moving at the rate that it is moving today. We have ocean boats waiting at all ports. Churchill will be opening shortly for a record movement already booked. Loadings in the country are running around 2,200 cars a day, and from now until the end of the crop year every effort will be directed toward levelling up the deliveries at country points. It may not be possible to do that completely. Points where there is a predominance of No. 3 northern grade are difficult to handle because No. 3 northern is the one grade that is not moving freely into export. Nevertheless, we will endeavour to find a place for that No. 3 northern so that deliveries can be brought up to correspond with those at points that have a free movement.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask an additional question in view of what the minister said. Ke said that all areas of the 3-bushel quota, as of June 15, have been filled. That must have been in the last couple of days. What is the hope of increasing those 3-bushel quota areas, particularly where No. 3 northern wheat is located, as it is extremely difficult for the farmer to get credit in those areas? Is there not something that could be done to increase the quotas in areas producing that grade?


Clarence Decatur Howe: As I said, Mr. Speaker, we are now finding a place for that No. 3 northern wheat in eastern storage and it is the intention to concentrate on the low quota points in an endeavour to balance them out. However, I may say that the advisory committee to the wheat board has agreed with the wheat board's viewpoint that the total movement from the ports should not be jeopardized by moving forward wheat that is not in demand, if there is any possibility that by doing so the export movement would be slowed down.



INCREASED BREAD PRICES DUE TO ALLEGED SHORTAGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It has to do with an article that appeared in the London Free Press of yesterday. The heading is "Bread Prices up Penny, Blame Wheat Shortage". In my opinion this is a misleading statement for the purpose of unnecessarily increasing the cost of living index. Has the minister anything to say about it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sorry but I did not
hear the first part of the question. Would my hon. friend read the statement again?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: The heading is "Bread Prices up Penny, Blame Wheat Shortage".


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, there is no possibility of any wheat shortage causing an increase in the price of bread. The price of wheat has not varied and the supplies are ample. I am sure there is no wheat shortage in any area in Canada.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to two cabinet ministers.
Inquiries of the Ministry


An hon. Member:: Is one not enough?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: You need two to answer this one. I refer to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) or in his absence whoever is acting in his behalf. What does the government intend to do to alleviate the serious and extreme shortage of mortgage funds available for the construction of new homes? I ask this question, Mr. Speaker, because this morning I received 18 telegrams from various groups and individuals in my city. They are very much concerned lest this lack of mortgage funds cause unemployment and a shortage of badly needed low-cost new homes.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Public Works I think all I ought to say is that he will be back here this afternoon and that I will draw my hon. friend's question to his attention. I should add, however, I have not received any copies of the telegrams he has received, and if he would give us the gist of them we would look into it.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I would be delighted to send the 18 telegrams over to the minister.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: On
May 21, 1956 at page 4114 of Hansard the Minister of Finance, in reply to a question I asked as to whether the government intended to introduce the new succession duties act for this session, said:
I am hopeful that we can introduce a new succession duties act, but it would depend on the length of the session whether we can pass it at this time.
Can the minister indicate whether the bill is to be introduced, if so when, and whether the intention of the government is simply to introduce it and not to ask the house to proceed with it at this session?


Walter Edward Harris: The bill is almost ready for consultation with my colleagues. I would expect that we could have that done within the next couple of weeks. I would doubt very much if we could pass the bill at this session.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I take it the minister has in mind that it is the kind of bill which should be brought in and considered carefully by the public before it is proceeded with.


Walter Edward Harris: I would think so.
5064	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry FREIGHT RATES



REPORTED INTERIM INCREASE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the unprecedented action of the board of transport commissioners in providing for an interim increase in freight rates even before the evidence was heard, what action, if any, does the government intend to take at the present session to meet the detrimental effects of this increase on Canada's trade, and in particular on the Canadian farmers who will not be able to pass on any portion of the increase in freight rates that is being made? The result of this will be that the farmers in general will suffer a further reduction in net income.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the board of transport commissioners is a judicial board. As my hon. friend knows, the government has no jurisdiction over its decisions. Personally, I have not seen a definite announcement of the judgment of the board granting an increase, although I did read a press story to the effect that the board intended to grant an increase. If any action of the government is indicated as a result of the action of the board, the government will consider the matter and take the appropriate action.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the government any immediate intention of taking action to meet the situation or has it been considered at all?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Until the judgment is in the hands of the government, the government is hardly in a position to consider such decision as the board may announce in due course.


Mr. Fulton:: May I ask the minister if he is not aware that although the board has not given judgment they have awarded an interim increase-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Of how much?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think it is 15 per cent.


Howard Charles Green: It is 10 per cent.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In any event, whatever the increase, they have awarded an increase and the hearings will be held later. I think it is that point to which my hon. friend's question is directed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My friend has stated the board has awarded an increase. I am not aware of that, and I doubt the accuracy of my hon. friend's statement.


Certainly, I doubt the accuracy of his statement that the award has been a 15 per cent increase but I will be glad to look into the matter.


John George Diefenbaker: When the minister says it is a judicial board, does it not strike him as strange that a judicial body would be providing an as yet undetermined increase before any evidence was heard? Does that not strike him as a strange action?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have been
brought up not to comment on the actions of judicial bodies.


Mr. Rowe:: You are getting a little better all the time.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: May I ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources whether or not a definite date has been set for his conference with the premier of British Columbia concerning the Columbia river and other questions of a similar nature?


Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, July 4 at Victoria.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: In the absence of the Minister of Justice, may I be permitted to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce? I am wondering whether it would be possible to ask the officers of the R.C.M.P. who are working in front of the parliament buildings in the torrid weather we have been having in the last few days, and which I am sure has reached 110 degrees above zero, to take off their tunics for a period, because I was really sorry to see them in the sun yesterday?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to call my hon. friend's comments to the attention of the commissioner of the mounted police, but I doubt whether anything can induce a Royal Canadian Mounted policeman on parliament hill to appear without his tunic.



COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance in his capacity as house leader. In view of the fact that the estimates committee is just about out of work except for one item that is standing, will the government consider referring the estimates of the Department of National Defence to that committee?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to give consideration to what the hon. member has said.

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



DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

[Stage Direction]
179. Departmental administration, $702,905.
Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Chairman, when the house rose last night I had just given a very short report from the estimates committee, and in the course of that I had said that early in the discussions of the estimates committee there had been a good deal said about the matters of professional and technical manpower. Since those are questions that come under a number of items, not only in my estimates but in others, I undertook before the estimates committee to provide at a later date some information on those topics. With your permission, sir, I would like to do so now.
I want first to speak about some of the steps we have been taking with regard to professional manpower and later with respect to other types of skilled workers and technicians who are non-professionals.
Although the training of manpower is essentially an educational matter and hence is the responsibility of provincial governments, the federal government is actively concerned with our resources of skilled manpower because they are vital to Canada's whole future economic development, and also because there is a need for national studies and analyses which are of value to the whole country.
Among the Department of Labour's activities directly related to professional manpower in Canada are: one, the provision of some financial aid to those at universities; two, continuing assistance to professional workers in finding employment and to employers in securing professional workers; three, the provision of information about careers in many
Supply-Labour
professional fields; and, four, regular studies of requirements for and supplies of professional workers, and the accumulation of a wide range of detailed information about professional manpower resources in Canada.
First of all, financial aid: Financial assistance to university students has taken two forms. The Canadian vocational training agreements with the provinces provide for sharing with the provinces on a fifty-fifty basis expenditures on bursaries to worthy and needy students at universities.
The second type of financial assistance to people studying at universities takes the form of grants made for specific research purposes. For several years, my department has been stimulating research in the universities on important labour problems by making financial grants to senior graduate students and staff members.
Second, placement of professional workers: The executive and professional division of the national employment service has the day-to-day responsibility of helping professional workers find suitable jobs and of assisting employers to secure the kind of people required for professional work. In addition to bringing together workers and employers in the same locality, these activities include scouring the country for certain types of professional people in scarce supply and, in some cases, recruiting such workers overseas. The national employment service also makes special efforts each year to help university graduates find continuing employment and to help undergraduate students secure jobs during the summer months.
Third, guidance information: The Department of Labour provides information to help youth make a wise career choice, and which also assists guidance and counselling people. This information includes both monographs and filmstrips on many professional and other occupations.
Fourth, requirements for professional manpower: Every two years, the economics and research branch, in co-operation with the executive and professional division of the national employment service, surveys the major employers of professional people to find out their requirements for such workers during the next three years, and to obtain other information about the demand for these workers. The 1956 survey, which has been enlarged to cover provincial and federal government agencies and universities, is at present under way.
A longer run forecast of requirements has to be based on a general assessment of the growth of the Canadian economy. Such an assessment is now being made by the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects

Supply-Labour
and, as was mentioned by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) the other day, the Department of Labour is preparing for this commission a study of Canada's resources of professional and skilled manpower and the long-run outlook for them.
In connection with the study of professional manpower, one of the most important activities of the department is that of maintaining in a systematic way detailed information on such items as education, experience and occupations, of the majority of Canada's engineers and scientists. Similar information is being maintained on doctors and other key health personnel by the Department of National Health and Welfare.
These data are the only comprehensive sources in Canada of information on the characteristics of our manpower resources in natural science, engineering and health personnel. It should be pointed out that this information is obtained on a voluntary basis. Not everyone replies to the inquiries made, although a high proportion does so. Under conditions of emergency, such information would be highly valuable and could be extended as needed very quickly.
I should mention that there exists also information about the number of people being trained each year in various professional fields. The dominion bureau of statistics publishes data on university enrolments and graduations each year by professional field, while the Department of Citizenship and Immigration provides figures on the immigration of professional workers. There also is information on the number of professional workers emigrating to the United States, and this is by far the largest part of all emigration from Canada.
I have referred to various sources of information about our professional manpower resources. We are regularly using this information as a basis for analyses and studies. Most of this material is published in a quarterly technical personnel bulletin prepared in the economics and research branch. Over recent years this bulletin has contained special studies of the important engineering
groups, physicists and mathematicians, geologists, and of the employment experience of several of the recent science and engineering graduating classes.
The Department of Labour recently convened an advisory committee on professional manpower to serve as a medium for the exchange of ideas and opinions about scientific and other professional manpower in Canada, and to act as a consultative body to assist the department in its work in this field. Representatives on the committee came from a number of professional associations, and from government departments and agencies interested in professional manpower problems.
I do not want to leave the impression with you that we know all the answers about professional manpower. Some of my earlier remarks have indicated we do not. What we are trying to do is to use our resources in the department in ways that will pay the greatest dividends towards increasing our knowledge about Canada's resources or professional manpower. There are many problems which should be examined, and this is being done.
I have here a number of tables and charts, not very long, which give statistics. Perhaps I might outline them and thereafter ask for permission to have them printed in connection with my statement. They are as follows. Table No. 1 shows immigration to Canada in professional occupations during recent years. Table No. 2 shows the new supplies of professional persons from that immigration and from graduations over the past four years. Table No. 3 gives the same for engineers. Chart No. 1 is on the new supply of professional personnel from 1946 to 1953. Chart No. 2 is on the growth in selected professional occupations from 1931 to 1951. Finally, chart No. 3 gives a comparison of the degree of shortage and graduations of engineers from 1947 to 1955.


The Deputy Chairman:: Is there unanimous consent that these tables and charts be printed in Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The tables and charts follow:

Supply-Labour
TABLE 1-IMMIGRATION TO CANADA-PROFESSIONAL OCCUPATIONS 1953-55*
19531	1954	1955	Occupation	From Over- seas	From U.S.A.	Total	From Over- seas	From U.S.A.	Total	From Over- seas	From U.S.A.	TotalAccountants and auditors	308	35	343	340	45	385	243	56	299Architects	130	3	133	133	8	141	107	6	113Chemists (other than pharmacists).	232	15	247	234	25	259	150	19	169Dentists	31	1	32	24	3	27	17	8	25Draughtsmen and designers	685	22	707	733	26	759	593	28	621Aeronautical engineers	152	4	156	130	8	138	106	4	110Chemical engineers	
Civil engineers (and other prof.	57	13	70	53	14	67	52	18	70engineers n.e.s.)	479	40	519	450	38	488	354	48	402Forestry engineers	25	2	27	10	3	13	3	2	5Electrical engineers	371	17	388	469	21	490	338	30	368Mechanical engineers	449	34	483	376	32	408	247	46	293Metallurgical engineers	9	3	12	23	4	27	3	1	4Mining engineers	
Laboratory technicians and assist-	51	7	58	46	10	56	44	19	63ants n.e.s	221	16	237	276	21	297	224	26	250Graduate nurses	1,285	69	1,354	1,375	83	1,458	1,156	71	1,227Physicians and surgeons	301	38	339	272	39	311	300	33	333Teachers and professors	546	93	639	854	142	996	814	129	943Other professional workers	2,332	769	3,101	1,471	559	2,030	1,286	578	1,864Totals	7,664	1,181	8,845	7,269	1,081	8,350	6,037	1,122	7,159
1 Prior to April 1, 1953, only totals for professional persons immigrating to Canada are available. This means that the occupational detail for 1953 relates to the last nine months of the year only.
* Data from Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
Table 2: New Supplies of Professional Persons in Canada, for the years 1946-1950 and 1951-55 Net
Year	[DOT] Immigration Graduations Total
1946-1950	
-5,116	67,649	62,5331951-1955	
17,710	66,142	83,852
Economics and research branch,
Department of Labour,
June, 1956.
Table 3: New Supplies of Engineers in Canada for the Years 1951-1955
Net
Year	Immigration Graduations Total
1951-1955	 4,124	8,123	12,247
Economics and research branch, Department of Labour,
June, 1956.



NEW SUPPLY OF PROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL, CANADA, 1946 TO 1955

[Stage Direction]
Thousands
25 -	__
Hi New Supply
E3 Graduation
M Immigration
20 -	£3	Emigration
Thousands - 25
15
-5 -
10
- 5
[Stage Direction]
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
(1)	Graduation - D.B.S. Survey of Higher Education.
(2)	Immigration, Emigration ~ Compiled by, Economics and Research Branch, Department of Labour* fronj Department of Citizenship and immigration data.
o
a
>
5068	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-Labour

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Labour

[Stage Direction]
Percentage Change
:d
i__
1931 to 1951
Percentage Change +50	+100	+150

[Stage Direction]
Engineers, Mining and Chemical Engineers, Mechanical Chemists and Metallurgists Authors, Editors, Journalists Librarians
Artists and Art Teachers Nurses, Graduate
Professors and College Principals Engineers, Civil (incl. Surveyors) Engineers, Electrical Osteopaths and Chiropractors Physicians and Surgeons Architects
Clergymen and Priests Teachers, School Veterinarians Dentists
Lawyers and Notaries Judges and Magistrates Musicians and Music Teachers 8.6^
-1_I_
mm
+200 ___i__
58.3
Y777//////////A///////////A 807.
7/////////////////////ZA\ isi.o
A7A///////Ax^
7777.:
/ 71 .7 69.4
'//////A 61.4
Y777777777A77777777A i58.
115.8
'] 37.0
y/z/y/A
7////A™.b

-A3.0
34.1
AA/\ 27.0
'A/A 26.7
15.2
^14.1 ^12.2 >.7
(1) Totals used to calculate percentage changes include both males and fenales
Source: Census of Canada, D.B.S, 67509-321i
.5070
Supply-Labour

[Stage Direction]
1325		1325
	1250	
1952	1953	19541947	1948	1949	1950	1951
(l) The degree of shortage has been calculated from N.E.S. data. The figure of employers registering vacancies is presented os a percentage of the number of oersons epplying for work. 100<S represents a situation in which vacancies are exactly equal to registrations. If vacancies exceed registrations this percentage exceeds 100.
(Mr. Gregg.]

What I have been talking about so far has been related in the main to Canada's professional manpower. I would now like to make some comment about a broad study of Canada's requirements for non-professional skilled tradesmen and technicians in relation to future supplies. Apart from the importance of professional workers, adequate supplies of skilled and technical manpower are fundamental to the healthy development of a dynamic and progressive economy such as ours.
The productivity of industry and our competitive position in world trade depend very heavily on the skills of our labour force and on their adaptability in the light of changing technological requirements. In addition, over the next decade, many more young Canadians will be coming forward for training than has been the case over the past decade, owing to the rapidly rising birth rates of the early forties. It is also possible that Canada will not be as successful in securing skilled immigrant workers over the next few years as we have been in recent years.
All these reasons strongly suggest that increasing emphasis should be placed on the training of skilled tradesmen and technicians if our resources of skilled manpower are to meet the technological challenge of today's world. A program of research had been developed to throw light on these problems with a view to providing reliable information to assist management, labour, government agencies and educational authorities in reviewing and assessing the policies and actions which might best be taken in this important field.
Present and future skilled manpower training needs have been under consideration at recent meetings of the national vocational training advisory council. At its last meeting, the council requested that a study of this kind be undertaken as soon as possible by the federal Department of Labour in cooperation with the appropriate provincial departments and other interested agencies. This request was subsequently endorsed very strongly by the national apprenticeship advisory committee.
This research program will, of course, be centred on vocational and technical training as distinct from general education. It is recognized, however, that technical training must be built on the basis of a sound general education.
This research program might be described in terms of a three-pronged attack on the problem of vocational and technical training. The first part of the program is a project designed to evaluate industrial requirements
Supply-Labour
for skilled and technical workers as they are being affected by the rapidly changing technology of industry in several important industrial groups.
As we are all aware, the pace of technological development is being stepped up very rapidly in this country and other industrial nations and, for this reason, its effect on training requirements for skilled and technical workers will become of increasing importance. Through interviews with key personnel in selected industrial plants, associations and unions and in other ways, an examination will be made of the relationship between technological change and requirements for skilled workers. Highly competent engineers on the staff of two of our leading universities are assisting in this part of the research program.
The second phase of the program is designed to secure information on typical ways in which skilled workers acquire their competence. This is important in assessing the adequacy of present methods of acquiring skills. In this phase of the work, experienced social scientists from university staffs are assisting in interviewing electronic technicians, tool and die makers and other selected occupational groups.
The third phase of the research program is designed to evaluate our existing resources, for training skilled workers and technicians: in public institutions, in private trade schools, and in industry. This will involve a review of physical facilities, staff resources, enrolments and graduations, the content of typical vocational courses and plans for future expansion.
When put together with the information from the other two projects, it will help in making an assessment of the adequacy of our training facilities in the light of future requirements and future technological developments.
This part of the project is being undertaken in co-operation with the appropriate provincial departments involved, with industries, unions and other groups having responsibilities for the training of skilled workers.
I am sure that hon. members will appreciate that this sort of study cannot be completed quickly. We hope, however, as the facts come in, that we shall be able to put together a picture of our resources for vocational training in Canada and a picture of the probable requirements for skilled and technical workers. This will enable governments, industries and other groups having responsibilities in the training field to evaluate their training programs in the light of changing conditions.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Labour
Mrs. Fairclough:: I had not intended to deal at the outset with the matter just raised by the minister in this statement which he has given to us. But, inasmuch as it is fresh in our minds now, it might be appropriate to say a few words on that particular point. When we were in the committee we spent a considerable length of time trying to secure from the minister's department some information on this most important subject. I think that without exception the members of the committee felt frustrated in those attempts. Certainly it did appear that, despite the best efforts of the department- and I must say now that I think an excellent job is being done by the economics and research branch-obviously they did not have at their command at that time the information which was sought by the committee.


Milton Fowler Gregg: May I just interject something?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Because of the fact, as was evident in my statement this morning, that a great deal of it had to come from other sources that were not available on that particular day.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Supply-Labour
know that, particularly in the civil service, there is a setup which is admirable and by which each person reports to a superior. I very much fear that, in the event of a breakdown in those communications, the persons who are charged with the local responsibility of maintaining order and of providing for maintenance of services will find that they will run into a stumbling block with regard to the procurement of the assistance which they need and which could be provided through the local offices.
Mr. Chairman, I think there is just one more point that I wish to raise on this first item, and that is the matter of a complete overhaul of the labour code. This is not a new point. I have spoken about it before. It is now several years since we were told in committee that this was being proceeded with. The rapid change in our working conditions and the changes which we face in the years immediately ahead of us have contributed in part to the outmoding or outdating of much of our present labour code. In fact, I do not think I would be guilty of any exaggeration at all if I were to say that the conciliation procedures and so on are antiquated. I know that in a department which has operated smoothly for a great many years there is likely to be a tendency to shy away from change, particularly overall change. There is a great tendency to feel that everything is quite all right as it is because nothing very serious has happened. But, Mr. Chairman, the time to make sure that nothing happens is in the comparative calm and quiet of times of industrial peace.
I suggest that we have had our danger signs. One of these was the necessity which the government felt it was faced with-with which we did not agree-of imposing compulsory arbitration on the railways five or six years ago. That action has had its reflection on negotiations with railway employees ever since. I must say that it is my opinion that the successful conclusion of the recent negotiations was due in large measure to the excellent services which were rendered by the chairman. I might point out that that chairman is a highly qualified person who has had startling success in that field, and that he is not a member of the judiciary.
Despite the very casual way in which the minister has brushed off the suggestion that some of the existing unions may run into difficulties over their certification, I feel that it may very well happen that the minister will be faced with a whole rash of judicial actions which will prove without doubt that the board actually has no power to recognize a bargaining unit where the name has been

changed. I greatly fear that result. I know the minister has repeatedly said that all is well and that this will not happen. I feel that this is one more place in which action should be taken immediately in order to make sure that these certifications will stand up.
With reference to the conciliation procedures which are currently in operation, may I say that I do not think there is any member of this house who does not recognize the fact that in many instances they are so prolonged that, instead of providing a cooling off period-as was said in the brief of the Trades and Labour Congress and the Canadian Congress of Labour to the Gordon commission- they frequently provide a heated-up situation which does little to help solve the dispute that is under consideration. Then, too, in those long periods of conciliation proceedings there arises at the time of settlement the grievous question of retroactivity of terms, and quite properly so because it is a fact that the worker feels that his advantage should extend back to the time when the contract was up for renegotiation. It is also difficult for the employer to make his concessions back to that date because in the meantime he has been carrying on business or supplying services under the old terms. Hence here you have a conflict of interests where you might say that both sides have a real point. Yet the whole matter could have been solved by a speeding up of the conciliation proceedings. I think that one thing that is needed is more effective conciliation board services. I must say that in some ways I agree with the brief to the commission which I previously mentioned, where it is pointed out that probably the best manner of accomplishing this would be to appoint qualified and highly paid officers who would be able to move immediately into the field and effect a settlement in the manner in which Mr. Taylor did just recently.
But I do not think these things can be done offhand. I believe the minister should take immediate steps to set up a select committee to investigate the position in which contracting parties find themselves today. I believe this committee should be composed of representatives from all those bodies who will be affected. There should be representatives from the labour congress, such representatives from management as may be appointed by their respective organizations, legal representatives, and such others as may be named by the minister, who have had long and successful experience in this field. In the last 50 years much has happened in this country in the field of labour negotiations. It is well to remember that where at one

time a member of a labour union was considered to be one step above a criminal, today he is a highly respected member of his community.
A survey conducted by the economic research branch on January 1 of this year showed that in Canada today there are, it is estimated, 1,346,000 persons who are members of unions. That is too many people, Mr. Chairman, to brush off lightly. It is true that where a man is a recognized, responsible citizen in his community, who takes part in civic affairs and who is recognized by his employer as a valuable and conscientious worker, that man, as someone has said in a brief which I read recently, though I cannot remember which one, does not change overnight into an irresponsible individual. If he is goaded into actions which may appear to others in the country as irresponsible, then I think it would be well to examine why he was forced into that position.
I have seen a man whom I respected very highly, whom I had known for many years, whose word had been taken by his neighbours and his associates in church work and civic affairs as well as other fields of activities, who suddenly was placed in the position of being a striker because of conditions which he and his fellows found completely foreign to them. This man then found himself, along with others, criticized publicly in the press and by speakers as an irresponsible individual. I saw quite a number of men in that situation just a few years ago. When I read these remarks recently which I have just described, they struck home. It is true that people do not change their characteristics overnight. If they are responsible members of the community they do not suddenly become irresponsible because they feel that they must take action which may be deemed by others to be violent. In this particular case there was no violence at all involved. It was a very peaceful strike.
Now, Mr. Chairman, for all of these reasons I feel that action must be taken by the minister's department to bring up to date the provisions of the labour code, and in particular those provisions dealing with conciliation procedure. I ask him to take another look at it. I ask him to listen to the advice which I am sure must have been given to him by responsible members of the labour congress. If he has been led to believe in the past that what was good enough for people 15 or 20 years ago is good enough for people today, then I suggest he take another look and consider this matter very seriously. I ask that we have no more delay in actually coming to grips with a complete revision of the code. We have seen no evidence at all that anything has been done, despite the fact 67509-322
Supply-Labour
that almost yearly we have been told it was under consideration. I have other things I should like to bring up, Mr. Chairman, but I think I will be content to deal with them when the appropriate items come before us.


Mr. Gillis:: Mr. Chairman, the question posed by the minister in his statement is one with which I am not going to deal at length. The hon. member for Hamilton West stressed that question of the shortage of engineers. I would advise any member of this house who thinks there is a shortage of engineers to take a look at the St. Lawrence seaway project. Most of the development of that project is on the Canadian side. I was there last Wednesday and took a look at it from Iroquois falls down to the Lachine canal. This project was mapped out and is being constructed by Canadian engineers. It certainly dispels the illusion that has been created over the years that we have to go to the United States for know-how because I think there is a much better job being done on the Canadian side by Canadian engineers than is being done on the other side. They are doing something on our side and that is pouring cement in the winter time which apparently they cannot do on the other side as yet.
If we are short of engineers, we sure have a lot of them working on that project and they are doing an excellent job. I shall have more to say on that at some other time. I think this talk about the shortage of engineers and the shortage of scientists has been overworked. I do not think there is anybody in this country in a position to give you any facts on it as yet because I do not think there has been any study.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is the trouble.


Clarence Gillis: Why anticipate it; why go into the realm of prophecy; why talk about something that we do not know anything about? It has been overworked. Any project in this country that requires engineering skills today will find engineers in Canada to handle the job.
I am not going to deal with the national labour code. I was a member of the committee that set up the code. I know its limiting factors. I think one of them is the enforcement of the code. I have argued a good many times in the house and I introduced a bill into this house that was designed to take the enforcement of the code, in the matter of certification, violations, penalties and fines, out of the hands of the courts of the country. Labour relations do not belong in the criminal courts of Canada. The department has a lot of trained personnel. Just as the government enforces the Income Tax

Supply-Labour
Act, the motor vehicles act and so on, a competent national labour board should function and the enforcement of the code should be in the hands of the labour board and not in the hands of the judiciary of this country. That is one of the things that are badly needed. I believe that if they were enforcing their code, handling the thing themselves, ultimately the limiting factors in the code today would disappear because I think they are largely matters of administration.
Then, there is the other point made by the hon. member for Hamilton West to the effect that in the event of an emergency the national employment offices should occupy the position of directors of safety in the different areas across Canada. That, of course, would mean that you would have to have national emergency powers. It was not popular in some sections of the house when we were arguing to retain it to meet the very things the hon. member for Hamilton West fears.
I was glad the minister decided to lay over any discussion of the Unemployment Insurance Act until he and his officials have had an opportunity of further studying the matter and making up their minds as to what might be done with respect to amendments, and then taking it back to the industrial relations committee, the committee which worked on the amendments to the act last year, for the purpose of further discussing it and finally bringing it back to the house and handling the matter here when there is nothing else in the way. That was a good decision. As a member of the committee I appreciate the fact that hon. members co-operated with the minister to the extent they have on this particular point.
There are many spots in the minister's department that we could be critical of, and we must be, but this department is doing a lot of good that is not generally known. I do not think the sending of the estimates to the estimates committee shortens the time or serves very much purpose except that it gives the members who are on the committee an opportunity to get a lot of information that they would not get were the estimates taken up in the house cold. I know the briefing we got in the committee from the minister's officials was valuable in so far as the members of the committee were concerned, and, of course, it is our job to pass on to the members of the house any information we receive.
There is one spot that I was rather critical of, and I still am, and that is the movement of workers in Canada from province to province. There are spots in this country where we have permanent unemployment which necessitates the movement of workers from
[Mr. Gillis.l
that area to other parts of Canada. For example, there are men going from my own area to the logging industry in British Columbia. That is a long way from home. They are going as far from home as an immigrant who comes in here from Europe. The transportation of those people to British Columbia is not assisted in any way by the government, but immigrants who come here from Europe under the department of immigration can go to a hostel in Montreal and be housed there and maintained while the immigration department goes out and finds jobs for them. If they have to move to another part of Canada they are assisted in their passage and at the same time they are guaranteed medical coverage for the first year of residence in any province of Canada while they are in the country and go out to a job. My criticism is that if we can do that-and I am not objecting to it-for immigrants, the same principle should apply in the movement of workers from Cape Breton island to Vancouver, which is taking place, or to Steep Rock, where others are being sent. I am asking the minister and his cabinet colleagues to take a look at the question of assisted transportation for workers who are moving within Canada. Never forget that many of these people are ex-service men and many of them were previously employed and were taxpayers for a long time. Unfortunately, their employment has disappeared because they were working at mining which is a wasting resource. They find that although they had an investment in the community they had to move on. The least that can be done is for the government to assist them with transportation.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Will my hon. friend permit a question?


Clarence Gillis: Yes.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Would he or would he not draw a distinction on the one hand between a large group of workers such as he has referred to moving out to work for the British Columbia lumbermen's association, perhaps hundreds or more, many of whom may come back, I would hope, and on the other hand a few people who are moving from a depressed area without any prospects of ever getting permanent work in that area and who are leaving the province for another part of Canada to settle and work and to make their homes there? I would like to have his views on that because in the latter case we do have some discretion, as he knows.


Clarence Gillis: No, I would not draw any distinction. When the British Columbia lumber industry comes down to Cape Breton island and takes a hundred men, as they have done recently, and moves that hundred men out to British Columbia, I think the government

should give the same protection to that group of people that they give to the immigrants who come here from Europe. I believe their passage should be assisted. Under the circumstances that the minister and I know with respect to that particular movement, the extent to which the government chips in is that if someone dropped off en route and did not make his destination the government covers it. I still think that once this problem is nailed down and the cabinet understands it the minister will have no difficulty in selling the idea of assisted passage. Most of these people who go to that industry and to Steep Rock-there is a movement of possibly 200 people to Steep Rock-will remain. I do not think 1 per cent of these people will come back.


Mr. Herridge:: Not from British Columbia, once they get there.


Clarence Gillis: It will be good for British Columbia, of course, if they stay. They will not come back because there is nothing to come back to; no new employment is being created in the area. I am going to leave it with the minister. I hope that the minister's colleague will consider this matter and amend the legislation.
As I said before, the department are doing many things which are beneficial but they are not known. Take vocational training for example. The officials of the department gave us an excellent brief on what is happening in that field. That brief was quite wide and comprehensive. It indicates that the legislation provides many opportunities for the provinces to do something with respect to training young people or retraining unemployed. I have in my hand the document with which we were supplied and it proved a real revelation to me. I try to keep track of all these things, but I did not know about much of the material in this document. It is a worth-while plan and hon. members of the committee should take a look at this kind of thing.
The minister is authorized to undertake and direct research work, to disseminate information in the field of vocational training. It is provided that the minister may enter into an agreement with a province for a given period to provide financial assistance up to an amount equal to that expended by the province. Many types of training are provided for. There is the training of supervisors in industry, rehabilitation training of disabled civilians, training to increase the skill and efficiency of workers in agriculture, forestry, mining, fishing and other primary industries, including homemaking.
The initiative in taking advantage of the legislation rests with the province. That is 67509-322J
Supply-Labour
something which is not generally known. Many people will ask what the federal government is doing in connection with vocational training and they do not understand that the initiative must be taken by the province. Agreements must be entered into. In my judgment the legislation can do a good job of work in any province provided the province is willing to co-operate.
As the minister knows, a school was set up in North Sydney during the war for rehabilitation services. It did a good job and trained a total of over 3,000 people, many of whom are scattered across this country in responsible positions. The school was allowed to run down and the equipment was practically all moved out. A couple of years ago the minister and I began to talk about the rehabilitation of that school to re-train unemployed. That was done and the school has been in operation for the last two years.
When I was home last November I visited the school and it happened that 20 students were being graduated in diesel mechanics. They have a very good setup there to train diesel mechanics, about as good as you can find anywhere in the country. They have over $200,000 worth of diesel equipment on which the boys are working under a competent instructor. Every one of those 20 young boys who were being graduated was going to a job, many of them to the C.N.R. shops, to work on diesel equipment.
The supervisor of the school is a most capable person and recently I wrote to him to ask how things were going. He tells me he has a course in diesel mechanics, sheet metal, two classes of auto body mechanics, and courses in welding, carpentry and plumbing. He is teaching six different trades. The enrolment shows that approximately 24 per cent never worked before; 33-8 per cent are receiving further training in their chosen trades, while 42-2 per cent were unemployed and are being re-trained in other trades. The school can accommodate about 200 pupils and I understand there are about 80 enrolled at the present time.
These students are learning trades which are most essential today. The brief I have here indicates that the Department of Labour is conscious of the need of training in various trades. It is indicated that there is a shortage across the country in the skills which are being taught in this little school. In my judgment vocational training and trade training in these centres is most important.
Of course every section of the country wants a vocational high school which would come under the department of education of the particular province. While trade training is carried on the entrance qualifications

Supply-Labour
are a little more difficult than in the case of the trade training centres. I hope to see a vocational high school on Cape Breton island before long, but the people I am chiefly concerned about at the moment are those who have been able to go only to the eighth or ninth grade and do not intend to go through a high school. A high percentage of boys and girls leave school after finishing the eighth, ninth or tenth grade. They are not interested in university training, either because they are mentally handicapped or because it is financially impossible for their parents to have them go any further. As I say, the department is doing an excellent job in connection with trade training, but I want to stress again that it is up to the province to take advantage of the federal legislation. The legislation is available to solve the problems which exist in that field.
There was another matter in connection with which we received a brief which was all information to me, and that is student's aid. I received many letters in this connection. A boy may finish high school and perhaps his first year in university and then find himself financially embarrassed. He wants to know where he can go to get a loan in order to finish university. I was not aware that the minister's department was able to supply an answer to that question until I sat in on this committee.
The mechanics are that a board is set up in each province which receives applications from students requiring loans. A student must be recommended either by his high school teacher or by a member of the faculty of the university to which he intends to go. But loans, grants and bursaries are available. With the legislation that exists and is being administered by the minister's department and other departments of the federal government, I do not think there is any need for any young person in this country who possesses the necessary capabilities to be denied a university education. I believe the machinery is there in the minister's department.
The first approach is to the local board in the province. I am putting all this on the record because I want this information to get out to the country where people may read and understand it and know exactly where to go. There have been many a young boy and girl who could have gone through university had they known about this legislation, but they did not. In my judgment the minister's department has the answer to getting a boy or girl through university, provided they know the proper approaches to make and the people to contact.
Another section with which I was very much impressed was the women's bureau.

For the first time in the committee we met the lady who administers the women's bureau and we were handed some literature. That bureau, in my judgment, is going to make a valuable contribution to the minister's department. The work that they are doing and the grasp that that woman has of her own particular section of the department in the short time it has been functioning were very encouraging, and, I might say, very complimentary to her. I hope that over the years that section will be built up and that more women will take part in studying labour relations, because it is a very important sector of our society, it is the wealth-producing end of our society, and women can play a very important part in it. I just want to compliment that lady for the job she is doing now in setting the mechanics for the future in that particular section of the minister's department.
Next I wish to say a few words about annuities. That, of course, is a very unpopular subject to some people outside the house. A few years ago the minister tried to amend the act and to write in a cash-surrender clause, which I think should have been written in, but with the barrage from coast to coast of pressure groups he retreated. I hope it is just a retreat and that he will organize and move forward at some time in the future. That is another branch that is not generally understood. The person who administers that department gave us a very good picture of what the annuities branch is doing, and I am going to put that on the record.
There are at present 64 full-time and 21 part-time annuity representatives located in 50 major centres from Halifax to Victoria. Overhead expenses, including the compensation of annuity representatives, are paid from general government funds. The proportion of expenditure to receipts is less than 2 per cent. That is not much to complain about.
The annuities branch consists of six divisions and is located in No. 5 temporary building, Carling avenue. These divisions are: group, actuarial, individual contracts, accounts, sales and administrative services and legal. There is a staff of 174. This is a reduction of 38 since 1949-50, even though there has been an increase in the volume of work. Contracts and certificates under administration are 100,000 more in number than in 1949-50, and there are 30,000 more cheques being sent out each month.
As of March 31, 1955, there were in force and under administration by the annuities branch 159,532 individual contracts and 190,129 certificates under 966 group contracts, a total of 349,661 contracts and certificates; payment of annuity is being made under

68,130 of these contracts and certificates. The annuities fund as at the end of March 1955 was $864,543,038, and the net receipts for the year were $68,594,250.
I just thought I would put those statistics on the record for the information of those who scream from time to time: "You should not be subsidizing these annuities." Well, there is not much of a subsidy, but the important thing to remember about the annuity is that it has been a yardstick for the insurance companies across this country over the years. It has at least kept them looking at their rates.
Another point I wish to make is this. The group insurance contracts that exist in industry all over this country are based on the actuarial work done in the annuities branch. Industry does not have the facilities to do that. That branch has done a very important job in setting those group contracts, and they are still farming them out.
I wanted to say that and to put those few statistics on the record, but I hope the minister will get around to writing in that cash surrender in the annuity. Mistakes have been made in taking in people, for example, veterans and civic employees. I am thinking of my own end of the country now. Many veterans established contracts under the annuities branch, and these veterans were taken in under protest. They said, "We do not have to go in; we have the protection of the War Veterans' Allowance Act." But they went in, and after one or two years the department finally permitted their release. They were released, but the money is still there for the two years when they paid in, and they cannot get it back under the present contract or under the present act. Many of these are young men who have since married and are building homes. They have a few hundred dollars that they would like to get out to use for building homes. I believe that is merely an administrative matter. I think that even under the present act, where there are extenuating circumstances such as that, the minister and the administrator of the act might be able to sit down and release the money that was tied up and that belongs to people who did not want to go in in the first place but were taken in by the town or city as the case might be. That is found right across the country, but it is a pertinent question in my own end of the country.
I notice that my time is just about to expire. Like the hon. member for Hamilton West, there are odds and ends that I have not dealt with yet, and I shall have to deal with them under the appropriate items.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Could I ask the hon. member a question?


Clarence Gillis: Yes.
Supply-Labour


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I did not want to interrupt when he was dealing with the shortage of engineers, but is the member aware that our engineering schools have announced that there are jobs available for 1,500 more engineers than were able to graduate this year?'


Clarence Gillis: I do not know, and I do not
know how they know.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The graduates are in demand.


Clarence Gillis: I do not think there are any data. I think everybody is guessing. I shall have to be shown some statistics. Universities are in business; taking in students and getting tuition fees is their business, and I do not blame them for looking for more students. We will not know until such time as there is some information available. I have talked to different government departments and tried to get statistics. We tried in the minister's department. There is no information. When we started to build the St. Lawrence seaway I heard the story that we would not be able to get enough engineers. There are 16 different contractors and there are all kinds of engineers. We are doing that job ourselves. Not one man came in from the United States. Actually our fellows are showing the Americans how to do it. The hon. member asked me if I knew. I do not know and I do not think anyone knows. The minister's department is going to make a study of it, but until the study is completed and we have the statistics we will not know. It is a hypothetical question at the present time.


Mr. Blair:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Clarence Gillis: Certainly.


William Gourlay Blair: Is he aware that the universities^ have had to increase their fees and that some-of the universities are running these courses at a loss? They are practically all running them at a loss. The hon. member made the statement they were in business. I cannot, agree with that. They are not in business,, and they are running these courses at a loess.


Clarence Gillis: They are not running charitable
institutions.


William Gourlay Blair: No, they are not.


Clarence Gillis: So they are in business.


William Gourlay Blair: Yes, but not for profit, not that type of business.


Clarence Gillis: I do not know anything about the question.


William Gourlay Blair: I know that some of these courses are run at a loss.

Supply-Labour


Mr. Hansell:: Mr. Chairman, I will let the hon. members argue between themselves whether or not the universities are in business. All I know is that they are doing a pretty good job of training men for the various professions for which they are responsible for the training. The hon. member for Cape Breton South said there were a lot of loose odds and ends that they would pick up eventually. I quite expect that will be so. These odds and ends, including the one we have been talking about, can be picked up during the discussion of the minister's estimates.
I am not going to deal with odds and ends. I am going to deal with what I think is something of fundamental and basic importance. I am going to deal with the matter in very broad terms. The minister is administering a very large department. We will have to vote altogether in the neighbourhood of $70 million to $75 million for his department this year. We know that labour plays a tremendously big part in the nation's business. It seems to me that the particular function of the minister's department is to see that labour and industry run as smoothly as possible and to make regulations here and regulations there in order to get out of labour and industry the very best that they can give to this nation's welfare.
1 do not place myself in any position of severe criticism of the minister or his department. I will say, however, that generally speaking I think that industry and labour in Canada will run smoothly enough while industry is able to expand, while we have a time of comparatively full employment. I wonder though what may happen should the eventuality arise where industry ceases to expand. What then? Suppose industry ceases to expand by reason of a recession or depression. We do not like those words. We hold up our hands in holy horror as we think of that possibility but we must not put on the ostrich act and put our heads in the sand.
We here are not only responsible for the things that happen today. We are responsible tor the things that may happen in the years to come, and we must legislate and discuss legislation on the basis of what is going to happen tomorrow. I do not look for any immediate depression. I am not going to appraise the future but I do believe that if a recession or depression should happen and industry fails to expand the country is going to be plunged into chaos.
My hon. friends who have preceded me have discussed the lack of engineers. I too do not know what the statistics are but I believe we have good reason to say that there

is a lack of engineers. I am told that engineers are given positions by private industry long before they graduate from our universities. I know that for a fact. I am not discussing the statistical aspect of the question. However, I am going to say that, should industry come to the point where it does not expand, should there be a recession or a depression, then, notwithstanding what the hon. member for Brandon-Souris says about our lacking 1,500 engineers, you would be able to buy them for a dime a dozen.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not that cheap, surely.


Ernest George Hansell: Of course, that is a phrase.


Clarence Gillis: They were in the bread lines in the thirties.


Mr. Lennard:: Anybody can make wisecracks but it is another question to back them up.


Ernest George Hansell: Well, you give me a phrase to use. I will use your phrase.


Frank Exton Lennard: Oh no, I will not.


Ernest George Hansell: I said a dime a dozen. Maybe they will not be that cheap. But I do know that if a major depression should overtake the country you will find that engineers and professional men as well as labour will be thrown upon the relief rolls of this country. I am not too much concerned about the phrase, "dime a dozen", but I am concerned about what might happen to the future of this country. We have all experienced the days of the hungry thirties. I experienced those days.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I make a suggestion to my hon. friend? Do not worry too much about the engineers. They do all right in good times and bad.


Ernest George Hansell: I can assure the minister I am not worrying too much about them. I was only picking up the loose ends my hon. friends were talking about.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is also a shortage of clergymen, is there not?


Ernest George Hansell: I am going to say to my hon. friend that some of us have experienced depressions. I experienced the depression, and although I was a clergyman in those days I will tell my hon. friends that I was on relief then. When I went to get my relief cheque every couple of weeks I stood in line with professional men. I do not know that there were any engineers in the line but there were one or two lawyers, and if lawyers cannot make a living in a depression I do not think anybody else can. Those are facts.


IS. 1956
[Stage Direction]
I am not talking about engineers or any particular profession. I am saying that everything is nice and rosy, everything goes along lovely as long as the country is going through a period of expansion, but as soon as that expansion ceases we are plunged into depression and chaos, and even the strong labour movements we have in our country cannot cope with that sort of situation. I would proffer this thought to the minister, whether he will agree with it or not. The labour movement have fought over the years for the position in which they find themselves today. That is well and good and I do not want them to lapse into any inferior position having regard to the position they are in today. In days of prosperity even the labour movements become stronger, if I might put it that way, and are able to accomplish for the working people of this country the thing that they are after; but as soon as depression comes, even labour movements begin to break at the seams and fall apart. That is something that I think even organized labour itself should take into account, and I think it should prepare itself for that possible eventuality.
Unless we get down to the basic and fundamental principles of our whole industrial system we are not going to solve what eventually might be a terrible problem that this country would have to face. I think that labour and management and government perhaps at all levels should take a new look at those basic principles which make our entire industrial system function. Several questions must be asked. There is no use in dealing with secondary things. If there is something basically wrong, you will not heal that basic ill by fooling around with secondary things that may appear to be wrong. We must ask ourselves some questions such as these: What is the purpose of industry anyway? Is the purpose of industry to give people jobs? As I have said before in this house, I say that the purpose of industry is to produce goods and services. I am not going to debate the pipe line but that, to my mind, is an advance in this country's expansion. If I had my way, we would have many pipe lines. If I had my way, we would have many trans-Canada highways. There is a great deal that we can do provided that the purpose of these things is recognized and provided that the basic principles are made to apply in order that we may serve that ultimate purpose.
What is the purpose of industry? Is it to give people jobs? We assert it is not. We assert that the purpose of industry is to produce goods and services that can be distributed to the people so that they can have a
Supply-Labour
higher standard of living. What is the purpose of production? Is the purpose of production to give people jobs? No; the purpose of production is to produce in order that the nation may consume. What is the purpose of labour? Is it to make money? Is it to make a fast buck? Is it to increase salaries? The purpose of labour, of course, is so to fit into industry that they are able to produce the goods. That is the purpose of a job. But of course we have lapsed into a complex where we have become so money-conscious that we think the purpose of a job is to get money; that the purpose of industry is to get money; that the purpose of everything in the country is to get that dollar which is so hard to get. We might go a little bit further and we might say, "What do we want to get the dollar for?" That is the thing. We want to get the dollar because we believe it will buy something. What do we want to buy something for? Because in the ultimate conclusion the things that make for life and happiness are the things that we produce.
We have said over and over again that we are living under a dog-eat-dog system and that is why, in a system that is basically wrong, one class is pitted against another. A man once said to me, "If you do not beat this system, the system is going to beat you". So what do you have? You have a scrap. I do not like to refer to dogs because I might get into trouble by referring to them. However, the system works like six hungry dogs fighting over five bones. What is basically wrong? There is no use saying, "We will have to produce better dogs that are able to fight a little bit better" or "We will have to produce better bones". There is no use in talking along that line. We assert that is exactly what is wrong with the system. So all we say is, "That should be easily remedied; throw in an extra bone so that there are six bones for six dogs". But no; that is not the government policy.
Stanley Howard Knowles: One dog might get the six bones. You still have the problem.


Ernest George Hansell: Supply-Labour
surpluses. The result is that you have starvation in the midst of plenty. Depression comes, with goods piled high and nobody working. That is the thing. How are we going to beat that situation?
I see that it is one o'clock, Mr. Chairman, and I will not go any further. I think that eventually it will be a case of either adopt Social Credit policies or go under. Of course eventually Social Credit policies will be adopted because eventually we are going to take over here some time or other. Then we will prove that you can have enough bones for enough dogs.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. Hollingworlh:: I should like to say a few
words this afternoon about part of the estimates that come under the minister concerning education. Some time earlier in the session I had the pleasure of introducing a resolution dealing with aid for needy university students, and I should like to take this opportunity of thanking all those in the different parts of the house who supported me that day. Today I want to speak more specifically about technical and scientific assistance.
I am not unmindful of the assistance that the federal government has already given in this sphere. For example, we all know that this year, 1955-56, the federal government has decided to give some $7-8 millions in unconditional grants to the universities in Canada. We also know that vocational training assistance in 1954 by the federal government amounted to $1,350,000. As I mentioned previously on another occasion, the house is also aware of the fact that student aid has been granted to students who wish to attend universities and who would not otherwise be able to attend because they have not the financial means.
I might say, Mr. Chairman, that a very good example of the lack of assistance was brought home to me once when I was coming to Ottawa one Sunday afternoon on the train. At that time there were some students from the collegiate institute at Oshawa who wanted to attend university next year. But upon questioning them I found that they did not have the means. Presumably they were both above average from an academic standpoint or they would not have been chosen to represent their schools at the Rotary convocation here in Ottawa. Neither one of these students knew where they were going to get the

money. Apparently they had not heard about student aid. I think possibly that has not been publicized sufficiently, and I say that with respect. I think the government, in co-operation with the provincial departments of education, is doing an excellent job.
In dealing with this matter of education, of course, it is necessary to reiterate time and time again that education generally comes under the jurisdiction of, and within, the ambit of the different provincial governments. In other words, the British North America Act gives general education exclusively to the provinces and it is most important that the federal government do not impinge upon this general constitutional right. But, Mr. Chairman, there are certain specific fields in which the federal government can give assistance without impinging upon this jurisdiction, and that is one thing I should like to talk about this afternoon, namely vocational, technical and scientific aid. I would hope that the federal department of labour would endeavour to assist in this field to a greater extent. I think we all in this house appreciate the sympathetic consideration and the very great administrative ability the Minister of Labour has brought forward in this field. I for one, and I think most members of the house would agree, feel that once the fiscal arrangements have been developed between the provinces and the federal government this aid could be greatly extended. I think we would all welcome that time.
It is rather interesting that in this house today the question of the need for scientific personnel was brought up. In an editorial in last night's Toronto Star there was one paragraph that I should like to quote to the house. The Star was discussing the conscription issue raised by a Canadian general. I am not going to discuss that, Mr. Chairman, but I do want to quote this one paragraph, which I think is relevant. The Star said:
What Canada desperately needs Is more engineers, technicians, doctors, school teachers and other qualified professional people. The federal funds which General Simonds would spend on compulsory military service would be better employed helping Canadian educational institutions turn out graduates required for the development of this country- and the health and progress of its people.
I am quoting that because I think that that is the general opinion in this country, that we do need more trained personnel. I think it is important to trace the historical background of the development of our country if this basic premise is correct, and I submit it is. Canada has changed in the last 50 years from a predominantly agricultural economy to one which is concerned with the processing of raw materials and the development of products of the mines

and the forests. In other words, it has been changing from an agricultural economy to a manufacturing economy with the tertiary industry of service. We have been changing our whole economy in this country, and of course agriculture in itself is becoming more specialized. It follows from that, Mr. Chairman, that we will be needing an increasing number of specialists in Canada. I am informed that in 1931 there were 420 engineering and science graduates; in 1952 there were 1,770; and in 1958, it is estimated, there will be 2,250. I am interested in the observation of my hon. friend from Brandon-Souris in which he claimed that 1,500 more engineers could receive positions if they were graduated this year. This seems to me to be reasonable and I would think that that conclusion would be correct, although I have no statistics to back it up.
It is interesting to compare those figures with the figures for the United States. In the 20 years from 1930 to 1950 there was an increase in United States engineers from
260.000	to 850,000, a growth rate of 227 per cent, whereas in the same period the population in the United States increased only 23 per cent. It is estimated that in Canada in 1975 there will be 16 million people over 14 years of age, and the non-farm labour force will be 7,500,000 as compared with the
4.600.000	now. We can, therefore, expect our requirements for professional workers to increase by more than 60 per cent over the next 20 years. Another reason for the increase in technical and scientific personnel will be seen in the growth of the country, the gross national output it might be called. In 1949 the gross national expenditure was about $16 billion; in 1955 it is estimated the gross national expenditure will exceed $21 billion. If one were to project this to 1975 it is estimated it would be $48 billion.
Again, we have the matter of technological changes. We all know what a tremendous impact on our country's growth the introduction of atomic energy has made. We are all aware of the vast and far-reaching effects of automation. New professions have come into being, such as town planning. For example, in my constituency of York Centre, where there is a tremendous housing and industrial development, town planning is very important, as is traffic control. Indeed when one picks up the Sunday edition of the New York Times one can see the demand for such specialized activities as designers of business machines; instrument engineers, semi-conductor engineers, telephone engineers, guided missile engineers, nuclear engineers, structures engineers, transistor applications specialists, and so on.
Supply-Labour
It is a very bewildering world, Mr. Chairman, and I submit it is going to become increasingly so the more science is advanced and the more technical knowledge is ascertained. Now, of course, the government does help out in this field. I have already mentioned vocational training. I think hon. members are aware of the scholarships of the national research council and the defence research board.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, a very important reason why we should train more technical men, more engineers and more scientists can be found in the struggle, shall I say, between the soviet orbit and the western world. The influential and authoritative British weekly, New Statesman and Nation, pointed out on Saturday, January 21, that there will be 4 million technical graduates turned out by the Soviet union in the next five years. As a matter of fact, Dr. Solandt, formerly chairman of the defence research board, now vicepresident of the Canadian National Railways, put it this way in the fall of 1955:
The present relative stability of the world depends upon a balance of defensive and offensive capabilities between east and west. This balance in turn depends upon the productivity of scientists and engineers in the two halves of the world. Since 1950 it has become increasingly obvious that, at least in certain selected lines of development, the Russians were actually overtaking the west. Recent attempts to find the explanation for this phenomenon suggest that it lies in the field of education. Because of this the output of scientists and engineers in the U.S.S.R. has overtaken and passed that of the U.S. and may soon exceed that of the major nations of the free world combined. The best evidence we have suggests that this increase in numbers has been achieved without any sacrifice in quality.
And now, Mr. Chairman, this statement shows more conclusively than anything else that unless we have an increase in the number of scientists and technicians in Canada and in the western world we may well lose the battle to totalitarianism in this field. Of course, I have not said anything about the humanities. It is interesting to note that the president of Du Pont of Canada Limited, I believe, was reported in the Montreal Gazette of yesterday morning as saying that it was a mistake to emphasize the engineering aspect too much; that we should also emphasize the humanities. I hope that nothing I have said today will be construed as implying that I wish to weigh the balance against the humanities. Probably it is desirable to stress the fact that in this world at the present time we need more engineers and more technicians, but we must not neglect the humanities, we must not neglect the arts. My plea would be for increased assistance both to scientists and to engineers and to those who are pursuing the humanities.

Supply-Labour
Just before one o'clock I heard one of my friends state that engineers might well be a glut on the market if a depression were to occur. Mr. Chairman, I think we on this side of the house and in this country have indicated that we certainly do not expect any return to the 1930's. The fact that more and more economists are being trained who are making specific studies into business cycles and the fluctuations in world economic conditions is one of the best reasons why we should continue to turn out more trained men. Actually, education is not a burden to anyone. The more university graduates that are turned out in the sciences, in the humanities, in the social sciences and in economics, the more opportunity we in the nation will have to prevent cyclical depressions, cyclical recessions, and so on. Therefore, that is one good reason why we should turn out more engineer graduates, more university graduates all the time.


Mr. Trainor:: Is the import of what the hon. member is saying the advocacy of increased federal aid to universities? If so, I would be glad to support him wholeheartedly.


Allan Henry Hollingworth: Certainly. I think I
made that statement at the beginning of my speech. Perhaps my hon. friend was not in the chamber at that time, but as I pointed out, I am making a plea for increased aid to universities and to technical personnel. I am not asking for increased aid for education generally. I think we must draw the line there, and I think my hon. friend will appreciate the distinction.


Mr. Hees:: Mr. Chairman, more than five years ago, in response to considerable public pressure for a rehabilitation program to meet the needs of disabled persons across the country, this government set up an advisory committee known as the national advisory committee on rehabilitation to study the whole question and bring in recommendations on which the government might hope to base a program. That was five years ago, Mr. Chairman. We have heard nothing, literally nothing, of any plans the government now has, after those five years, of introducing a rehabilitation program aimed at meeting the rehabilitation needs of disabled civilians in this country. It makes you believe that this was just another government committee, like the manpower committee and so many other committees that this government sets up when it is faced with a problem with which it has no intention of grappling. They simply make a big hurrah, set up a committee, and then completely forget about the whole issue. I would like to see some indication from the minister, if what I am saying is not correct, but there is no indication to the contrary so 
far, and it appears that the government intends simply to let the matter of rehabilitation die.
We have an order in council, known as the co-ordination of rehabilitation agreements order, under which the federal government is willing to share with the provinces in the co-ordination of rehabilitation services, provided that those services do not cost more than $15,000. Mr. Chairman, you cannot go very far in a program of this kind with $15,000. Therefore, that order in council will not get us very far.
Then, we have schedule R of the Canadian Vocational Training Co-ordination Act, which is administered by the Minister of Labour, and under which the federal government is willing to share equally with the provinces in a vocational training program. Useful though that is, it is only one small part of a rehabilitation program. So far there is no provision whatsoever for the federal government sharing with the provinces in the cost, first of all, of medical and surgical rehabilitation; second, the provision of artificial limbs; third, vocational guidance; and fourth, social services. Those are all very important components of a rehabilitation program.
One of the great weaknesses in this whole matter is that rehabilitation falls between two ministers, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Labour, with all the resultant confusion and lack of co-ordination that one would expect from such a dual responsibility. I do not think we will get anywhere in connection with rehabilitation until this matter is placed under one minister or the other, and until the government spells out what services are to be provided for, or purchased on behalf of, disabled persons and for which the federal government is willing to share the cost with the province. Until that is done, the provinces will simply not be able to know where they stand in regard to the division of cost with the federal government, and quite frankly, they are not prepared to go ahead on their own until they do find out.
There is no reason why rehabilitation services should not be provided in this country for disabled persons in exactly the same way as rehabilitation services have been provided for our veterans and as they have been provided in certain provinces for civilians who fall into certain definite categories. For instance, in the province of Ontario, excellent rehabilitation services are provided by the Ontario compensation board for accident victims, and the rehabilitation program provided by the Canadian National Institute for the Blind for blind people right across this country is well known to all.

What is the attitude of the United States government toward rehabilitation? It is both enthusiastic and progressive, and is at complete variance with the lackadaisical attitude which this government adopts toward this important problem. The United States government is engaged in a program to increase the number of disabled civilians who will be rehabilitated each year, from 60,000 last year to 200,000 in 1959. This is an imaginative, progressive and comprehensive program, which is at great variance wtih the attitude of this government toward this problem.
The United States government has found that rehabilitation pays off in dollars and cents. In addition to the greatly improved health, morale and usefulness of the disabled person, the United States government has calculated that during the lifetime of a rehabilitated person, $10 is returned to the federal treasury in income taxes for every $1 which the government pays out for rehabilitation services.
What is the situation in Canada today? So far rehabilitation services are provided only for special categories such as disabled veterans, industrial accident victims in certain provinces, the blind and paraplegics. A great majority of the disabled civilians in this country cannot obtain rehabilitation services.
In order to establish a comprehensive rehabilitation program for which all disabled civilians would be eligible as of right, financial participation by the federal and provincial governments and voluntary agencies would be required. Money properly administered for the purposes of rehabilitation is the one thing needed to initiate such a program.
I am advised by those who have studied this problem closely that what is needed is the introduction of a Canadian disabled persons rehabilitation act, which would provide money for the provincial governments and voluntary agencies on a shareable, grant-inaid basis, for the purpose of establishing adequate rehabilitation programs in the provinces and subject only to necessary administrative safeguards. I believe all hon. members of this house would gladly join in approving such legislation because I believe everyone is convinced of the rightness of the principle that all disabled persons should have the opportunity to lead normal and useful lives, and that this right should be regarded as a fundamental right of citizenship. For that reason I urge strongly once again that this government bring forward such legislation at the earliest possible opportunity.


Mr. Philpoit:: Mr. Chairman, I have a rather sad but proud duty to perform on
Supply-Labour
behalf of our late colleague, Dr. Jack Mac-Dougall, the late member for Vancouver-Burrard. As many hon. members know, for some months before his death he was very much concerned with one problem and I had been in consultation with Dr. Mac-Dougall, and with Mr. Tip O'Neill, the former member of parliament for Kamloops, about the matter which I am now going to raise. Jack MacDougall had told me that he intended to raise it at this time and I had promised to support him in his submission. The matter concerns a rather considerable number of superannuated employees of the Canadian Pacific Railway whose pensions have amounted to less than $60 per month. They are, of course, a minority of such superannuated employees.
I am sorry that I cannot give the exact number of such pensioners, but there is a goodly number all across Canada and their organizations, especially the Pacific coast C.P.R. pension association of 1953, had specifically requested the late Dr. MacDougall to raise this matter on the floor of the house at this time because they thought that by his so doing it would focus the attention of the Canadian public on this matter.
The crux of their grievance, which was embodied in a brief originally submitted in the year 1953, is that in January, 1953 the basis of the C.P.R. pension system was changed in two important respects; first, to increase the pensions the deductions from wages were raised from 1 per cent to 1J per cent and, secondly, future pensions are to be calculated either on the last five years of service or the last ten years of service, whichever gives the best results to the pensioner. The basis of the complaint was that those who had retired before 1953 had no way to benefit on a par with those who retired later although their living expenses had gone up the same as those of everybody else. Therefore the Pacific coast C.P.R. pension association made the following three specific requests:
1.	That the basic pension be not less than $75 per month to those under 70 years of age, and not less than $60 per month to those over 70.
2.	That the so-called single life plan be made
applicable to all-to apply to wives of men who retired prior to January 1,	1953, where their
husbands at that time elected to take the single life plan; and
3.	That all employees who had retired to January 1, 1953, be given the benefit of the 1| per cent computed on their present pension.
After considering the matter and hearing the representations of the men the management of the Canadian Pacific granted quite substantial increases as from February 1 of the present year. While expressing deep satisfaction at these increases the Canadian

Supply-Labour
Pacific pioneers' pension committee made the following submission in a letter to the management of the company dated April 12, 1956: Dear Sirs:
The pension committee, on behalf of those pensioners who retired prior to January 1, 1953, wish to express our appreciation and thanks for the revised changes in the pension rule, effective February 1, 1956.
These new rules will bring some relief to those specifically affected up to 70 years of age.
We find, according to statistics of ages of pensioners from the auditors' report, that the increase to $60 per month for those below 70 years of age, while of great benefit to those below that age, apply to few in number, which number is steadily decreasing, and would not seriously affect the solvency of the pension fund if continued after the age of 70 years.
Later in the letter, which is signed by Mr. A. S. Emms, chairman of the Canadian Pacific pioneers' pension committee, it is pointed out that the cost of living is still increasing and that many of the pensioners find it difficult to eke out a respectable existence.
I know that a narrow interpretation of our rules might hold that such matters should not be raised in this house on this vote. However, I would submit that the C.P.R. is an institution of which the whole of Canada is deservedly proud, and also, because of the existence of its great competitor, the C.N.R.- which is owned by the people of Canada-that any question concerning the equity of the pension fund of either or both railways is a matter of legitimate concern to every member of this house.
In any event, I feel it is a great honour to have the privilege of raising on the floor of this house a matter about which our late colleague, Dr. Jack MacDougall, had had so much correspondence with the railway pensioners.
On earlier occasions, I have had the privilege of supporting the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in his exhortations for justice for some of the C.N.R. pensioners- especially those former war veterans who are really in a pitiable condition, some of them drawing as little as $25 per month.
In this case I want to pay tribute to the C.P.R. for having made the limited improvements which they have made, but to urge with all my strength that they comply with the reasonable request of the C.P.R. Pioneer Pensioners' Association.


William Gourlay Blair: This matter of aid to university students has come before the house in the labour estimates today. However, during the last two or three months important organizations and institutions have been talking in the press about the need of training more students, especially in science, and the need for more engineers. I was rather surprised

this morning when the hon. member for Cape Breton South said he felt that the universities were in the business of training scientific students for the sake of training them and that there was a profit motive in this matter. I was also surprised that the hon. member for Macleod spoke about depressions and the fact that it was not certain that we needed students trained in this country. When the hon. member for Hamilton West spoke about the matter of training university students, I am sure that she was talking about the shortage of these students in connection with planning for the future.
In so far as students are concerned, I have had some correspondence regarding the difficulties of science students in earning their own way through college. I am perfectly aware that the income tax as such must have some rigid lines and must apply, but in the case of students over 21 years of age I am going to submit part of the letter written to me by a boy concerning this matter. It is true that there is a $1,000 deductible clause. In one case the boy is over 21, and that is the time when they are in the third or fourth year of science, and he is putting himself through college. They are usually healthy young people at that time. He has no other deductions, such as for sickness; he is not making any charitable donations; and so it all rests on that $1,000 deduction. I know this boy's people. They are a very fine family and they have already educated three sons. They are contributing a great deal to this country. This boy puts it in this way:
Dad paid $70 income tax for me on that summer's earnings, which was equivalent to the government taking away 70 per cent of the $100 scholarship I received that year.
That boy won a $100 prize for efficiency in some of the scientific subjects in that year, which was his third year. He goes on:
The average year at Queen's (engineering) costs $1,200; therefore, in order to put himself through a student would have to earn $1,800 in the summer; of which $400 would go for board and lodging for the five summer months away from home; income tax would take $160; leaving him $1,240 for his university year.
I hope that the Minister of Labour will talk to the Minister of Finance about this matter and that something will be done. If these boys are going to try to put themselves through university, there should be some relief in so far as income tax is concerned. It seems rather hard that they should try to educate themselves and at the same time pay income tax when it would be only a small matter, in so far as the government is concerned, for a student earning his own way through college, particularly in the engineering subjects, to be relieved of the necessity

of paying income tax. It seems rather hard that they should pay income tax and then not have enough money for their university year.
This has been recognized before, and I am going to quote from a speech of one of the Liberal members in the provincial legislature concerning this matter. This was Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer, newly-elected Liberal member for Waterloo North. He considered this of such importance that he made it the subject of his maiden speech in the Ontario legislature. He said that Ontario and Canada are lagging far behind other countries in producing university graduates and that this loss would soon seriously cripple the provincial and national economy unless immediate steps were taken to remedy it. He said that the problem was difficult, but the rewards to be gained by having more skilled university students would give Canada a wealth that would not be estimated in dollars. He went on to point out that in England 70 per cent of all university students were receiving government financial aid of some type.
Further to the question of the criticism that was made this morning of the universities, I want to bring before the house the position of these students. Many of the universities a few months ago announced increases in the costs of the university course. I am referring to the costs of the course of the University of Toronto. These increases are the third that have been announced since the end of the 1950-51 academic year. The annual fee for a general arts course was then $242; it will now be $335. That is in the faculty of arts, but one must agree that the course in science is much more expensive, and that is what we are particularly dealing with today. Applied science and engineering fees have risen from $347 in 1951 to the new level of $500-at a time when the shortage of engineers is impairing our development in this country. It is hindering not only our development at home but also the Colombo plan projects abroad.
With regard to what the hon. member for Cape Breton South said concerning this subject, let me point out that, despite these increases, tuition fees have been providing an ever smaller proportion of total university expenses. In the current year, they make up only 26-7 per cent cent of the University of Toronto's revenue. Thus, scholarships, which merely cover tuition fees, are costing the university more and more all the time.
With your permission, sir, I wish to read into the record on this subject statements made by Mr. James S. Duncan, C.M.G. We all remember that series of articles that Mr. Duncan wrote when he came back from Russia. My repeating some of the statements
Supply-Labour
of Mr. Duncan's does not mean that I approve of the present form of government in Russia in any way, but we are in competition, both in peace and in war, with that country-or in cold war-and Mr. Duncan says something in his report that deserves recognition. This is the twelfth article in the series and these articles were carried in newspapers throughout the country. I am certain that Mr. Duncan is a well known man who knows what he is talking about, and that the review he made of educational conditions in Russia, especially with regard to training scientists, can be accepted in this house by any person. In this article he points out;
There are over 30 universities in Russia, and many hundreds of colleges and institutions of higher training, including technical and polytechnic institutes. Although it is difficult to obtain reliable figures, I am informed that Russia turned out nearly twice as many graduate engineers last year as the United States did, and that their engineering training is not only as good as ours, but when they have completed their five and a half year university course, they have put in 50 per cent more study hours than our students.
I shall go on and read some other extracts from this article regarding the aid that is given in that country to train students in science. Some of this is rather amazing. Mr. Duncan says:
Each student receives a monthly allowance from the government which, when the merit bonus is added to It, is sufficient to cover his fees and living expenses. In the first year the student's allowance is 290 rubles ($72) per month and is just about enough to exist on. In the senior courses the allowance is increased to 500 rubles ($125) monthly.
I am only reading parts of Mr. Duncan's report. He says that all reading and textbooks are supplied free. Then he has this to say:
Out of their allowance, the students pay 400 rubles ($100) per annum for their tuition, 30 rubles ($7.50) per month for their rooms-
Then he goes on to point out that they are served meals in the canteens at a very low rate. But this is the important thing so far as we are concerned. Mr. Duncan says:
There is also a concerted drive in Russia to produce mathematicians, chemists, physicists and other scientists, and these are being turned out in rapidly increasing numbers.
I started by making an appeal for help to university students. Having in mind the small amount that it would cost the government, I ask the consideration of the Minister of Finance, and to the Minister of Labour may I say that he could use his good offices in bringing this matter before the Minister of Finance, so that university students who are trying to earn their own way will not be penalized by having to pay income tax and having to borrow money or have somebody

Supply-Labour
help them to pay their income tax in order that they can proceed with their university courses.
I leave this matter before the minister. I think there is something wrong when such a condition exists. Certainly we need more students in this country, and in spite of what has been said by the hon. member for Macleod with regard to the possibility of a depression, I still have faith in Canada, whatever the political complexion of the country may be. I think of a statement I made in the house two or three years ago when something like this came up. Political considerations might enter into this question but I think of a statement by an American, quite a philosopher, who, in dealing with the question whether a democratic or a republican government would do more for the United States, said, "This country is too big to be destroyed by any political party".
Canada will grow. We have natural resources and we do need engineers for the development of our country. Therefore I think every possible assistance should be given to these people in order that they may qualify and aid in the building of our country. That is all I wish to say on this matter. I again make the appeal that every assistance be offered to university students and that in cases where they are earning their own living it would be a small matter to relieve them of income tax.
There is one further question I want to bring before the Minister of Labour. It has to do with my own riding where a large industry moved away and left a lot of people unemployed. As a result skilled tradesmen, toolmakers, people of that type, men who had been employed in the industry for years, find it difficult to obtain another job. The situation has reached the point, and I think the Minister of Labour should take notice of it, that if a man is 40 years old or more it is practically impossible for him to get a job. Industries nowadays are looking for people who will fit into their pension plans. When a man who has been employed as a crane man applies for a similar job in another industry he is politely shuffled aside if he is 40 years old or more and is told that there is no place for him. If that were the situation, then there are many of us in the House of Commons who should not be here.
I maintain there is a place in industry for men from 40 to 65 years of age. From the point of view of experience alone they have a great deal to contribute. Put yourself in the position of a man 40, 45, 50, 55 or 60 going out and trying to obtain another job and being told very politely and nicely by the employment officer, "We have got nothing 
for you today." What is at the bottom of the whole problem is that industry does not want to employ men 40 years of age or more because they do not fit in with their pension plans or the so-called routine of the particular industry.
I think the Minister of Labour might well look into the matter, especially with regard to the industry to which I referred which was in a town in my own riding. There are a lot of very fine people there. Their unemployment insurance payments ran out on the first of May. They are qualified craftsmen but when they go to look for another position there is no place for them. Many of them are excellent citizens who own their own homes. If they sell their homes it is going to be the beginning of a drop in real estate prices. If they move to another area, an area where employment is easier to obtain, a booming area, they are going to pay a great deal more for their homes.
There they are in that position. Their unemployment insurance ran out on the first of May. The minister may say that other jobs are open. If a man 40 years or over is unemployed does it simply mean, so far as the unemployment insurance people are concerned, that he has to go and take a job as a road labourer or something like that? Other industries will not take him on, and so he is in a most difficult position. I feel sorry for these people. They are the best people in the world and yet they are in that position. Nothing is coming in. I repeat once more that their unemployment insurance ran out on the first of May and when they go to get another job they are too old because they are 40 or over.
I bring these two matters before the minister today, the question of consideration for university students and the matter of looking into the situation of people who are 40 years old or over. It may seem ridiculous when I say 40 years old but firms are not hiring them in spite of the fact that they are skilled tradesmen. In the situation they are in they need income at the present time and in view of the fact that they are unemployable and cannot get a job because of their age something should be done for them and every consideration should be given to their position.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, first of all r should like to indicate my unqualified support of the plea made a few minutes ago by the member for Vancouver South. In doing so, I am registering the support which the late member for Vancouver-Burrard knew would be registered by a number of us when the time came that he would have made the plea that has been made in his stead today

by the hon. member for Vancouver South. Indeed, I am satisfied that there are other members, members in all parties in the house, who will support the plea that has been made in the hope that even yet the Canadian Pacific Railway will give favourable consideration to the points that have been drawn to the attention of that company by organizations representing their retired employees.
Since the member for Vancouver South has put most of the details on the record, it is not necessary for any of the rest of us to repeat those details, but may I just say that it seems to me that the most serious aspect of the matter, the point over which there is the deepest feeling of grievance, has to do with the cut-off date of January 1, 1953. As the hon. member for Vancouver South has already pointed out, both in his own remarks and by reading some of the correspondence, the new pension rules of the Canadian Pacific Railway came into effect on February 1, 1956. In so far as any greater contributions that have to be paid by those still working for the Canadian Pacific Railway are concerned, those greater contributions are effective only from that date, namely February 1, 1956. Yet it is a fact that any who were in the employ of the company after January 1, 1953, even though they may have retired prior to February 1, 1956, or if they retire now, get the benefit of the new rules. Those benefits are in the main two in number: on the one hand an increased pension for the worker himself, and on the other hand a greater pension for his widow if the retired worker dies first. The other side of the picture therefore is that with respect to employees whose retirement date was earlier than January 1, 1953, they do not get either of these benefits. They do not get a greater pension as of right nor is there the greater protection for the widow when the employee dies first.
My contacts with these people, like the contacts of my hon. friend across the way and the many contacts that the late Jack MacDougall had, I think will bear out this statement, namely that although these men are naturally concerned and disappointed in that they do not get the greater amount of pension to which they feel they are entitled, what worries them most is the realization that if they die first the position of their widows will be an extremely difficult one.
It has to be recognized that this is not a matter concerning which the parliament of Canada normally legislates and I suppose in a sense it might be said that it is not a matter upon which parliament would be expected to legislate. But it is true that there are relationhips between the government of
Supply-Labour
Canada and a great corporation like the Canadian Pacific Railway, and I would feel that it is part of the responsibility of the government, in view of its desire to maintain good labour relations, to offer some good advice to the Canadian Pacific Railway in a matter of this kind. I also believe that if views on this subject are expressed by a number of members representing all parties in the house, the Canadian Pacific Railway might take our views into consideration.
To argue-as the railway does on an occasion such as this-that the matter is one of a contractual relationship, it seems to me does not meet the point; for the fact is that there are employees most of whose contributions were made previous to the change in the rules-in other words, when the contributions were at a lower rate-who nevertheless get the benefit of the higher pension both for the employee and for the widow. As I say, that applies to those who retired after January 1, 1953. There are instances of men retiring in December 1952 and in January 1953. The difference in the total amount of money paid into the pension fund by employees retiring in those two different months is practically nothing. Yet the difference in the pension earned by the employee can be $50 or $60 a month and the difference in the pension that would be paid to the widow can be of the order of $25 or $30 a month or more. As the hon. member for Vancouver South has indicated, there is a considerable file of correspondence, documents and memoranda on this subject. A number of us in the house have copies of it. From my study of it I feel that the C.P.R. has been most unfair towards employees who happened to retire just before January 1, 1953, and I hope that the company will reconsider that matter.
I say again that there are other jurisdictions that have increased the pensions of those already retired. I regret that is not true of the federal government with respect to its superannuated civil servants. I regret that it is not true with respect to the Canadian National Railways. But it is true in the case of at least three provincial governments in this country; it is true on the part of the government of the United Kingdom, on the part of the government of the United States and on the part of the governments of a number of states. I also know that there are some private corporations in Canada that have increased the pension not only of those still working for them who retire in the current period but of those who retired even in years gone by. I repeat another instance of which I have personal knowledge, namely that of the International Typographical Union to which I happen to belong which has been increasing its pension across the years.

Supply-Labour
In fact, the pension that is now paid to retired members of the union is twice what it was 10 years ago. May I emphasize the fact that persons who retired 10 or even 20 years ago, or at any time in the past, whose contributions into the fund were on the former lower rates, get the benefit of the increase in pension without having to pay any more into the fund. I regard a plan of that kind as human, fair and just and I see no reason why other jurisdictions or a company like the C.P.R. should not also be human, fair and just in its dealings with its former employees.
It is obvious that this is a matter on which any of us who are briefed could speak at some length; but perhaps it would be better if, instead of two or three speaking at length, a number expressed their support of the position that was to have been taken by the late hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard but which was expressed by the hon. member for Vancouver South, so that the Canadian Pacific Railway will know that as human beings, interested in decent human relations, we think the C.P.R. should take another look at this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I should now like to say a few words more directly to the Minister of Labour with regard to what I would consider to be the tremendous opportunity he has to play an important role in the future of this country. Because it is part of his task to listen to briefs and to peruse documents that are presented to him by labour organizations and because it is part of his task to keep in touch with what is going on in labour circles, he knows that in the main the requests which labour makes to parliament and to the government fall into two categories. On the one hand labour is constantly seeking legislation for the benefit of the community as a whole. In this category there are requests for national health insurance and for social security legislation such as adequate old age pensions, improvements in family allowances, improvements in unemployment insurance and so on. There are as well many other types of things that labour requests for the good of the community as a whole. In addition to that category, labour also requests of the government and of parliament legislation concerning procedures governing the relationships between management and labour. It is in this field that labour asks for revision of the national labour code. It is in this field that labour today is still asking for consideration to be given to any amendments that might be necessary to be made to the British North America Act in order to make possible uniform labour and social legislation across Canada. It is in this field that labour asks
Mr. Knowles.]
for such things as legislation governing hours of work per week, legislation governing minimum wages, vacations with pay, statutory holidays, equal pay for equal work for women and so on.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I said a moment ago that I would like to press upon the minister, if I could, the key position that 1 think he holds with respect to the future of this country. If he will consider for a while the philosophy that underlies these requests that labour makes, and also if he will consider the new era into which imperceptibly but in a very real sense society is moving, I think he will realize the key position he holds. The philosophy that underlies these requests is, I am sure, well known to the minister and to the house. It is that labour feels that the wealth that a nation like Canada produces, whether it be the more modest volume of wealth that was produced a generation or two ago; whether it be the $27 billion or $28 billion per year that is being produced now or whether it be the much greater volume that may be produced a decade or two hence, that wealth is made possible to a very large extent by the contribution made by the working people in this country in whatever calling, whatever category, their work may fall. It is the philosophy or the approach of labour, the workers in this country, that those who make possible the production of these great volumes of wealth, should enjoy its benefits.
It has indeed been the struggle of labour across the years to get the kind of legislation, the kind of relationships between management and labour, between both of those entities and the government, that will so order our economy that as great wealth is produced it will come, not just to the few, but to all of those who participate in its production. Hence, when labour asks for national health insurance on an all inclusive basis; when labour asks for old age pensions of $60 or $65 a month at age 65 without a means test; when labour asks for the 40-hour week or for a guaranteed minimum wage of a dollar an hour; when labour asks for vacations with pay or for statutory holidays with pay; when labour asks for unemployment insurance across the board rather than unemployment insurance part way and a form of relief for the rest, labour is asking not for some handout, not for a form of charity, not for the government to play the role of Santa Claus, but labour is asking rather for what it believes to be its right. It is asking for what it has earned and is asking for its share of the wealth that labour itself has produced. That is the basic philosophy which has been underneath the requests and the demands of labour from the earliest days when labour organized in this country or in other lands.

I suggest to the minister it is becoming a philosophy and an approach that is very important in the new era into which we are moving. Living as we are in the midst of days when automation is becoming a fact, living as we are at the beginning of an era which may see a tremendous increase in the available sources of energy because of the development of atomic power, we must realize how imperceptibly but nevertheless in what a real way we are moving into a new era.
I suggest that if in the past in order to hold society together, in order to make progress, in order to make it a human society, in order to make Canada a country that was important for human beings, it was desirable for labour to make these demands and win them step by step even through a process of struggle, that it becomes even more important in the years that lie ahead that this philosophy be accepted. The government boasts of the $27 billion or $28 billion of production which may be the result in Canada this year. If we move on into the era of automation, if we move on into an era in which atomic energy is added to the other sources of power we have with the result that we have greatly increased sources of power and energy, this $28 billion we are now capable of producing may some day look like a very low figure. What is going to happen if we do double or treble the amount we are producing at the present time unless we get established this basic principle that labour has fought for, namely that all this wealth that is produced should benefit, not just a few, not just those who control it, but everybody? We could find that the progress we are making could be our undoing.
Many of the things that are implied in what I am bringing to the attention of the Minister of Labour call for legislation that falls under the direction of other ministers than the Minister of Labour. But it seems to me he is the man who should be giving to the cabinet, to the government and to parliament, a vision of what could be done because of the new era into which we are moving. I call upon the Minister of Labour not to be the tool of the government in resisting those things that labour demands, a revision of the national labour code, amendments to the British North America Act to make possible uniform legislation regarding hours of work, minimum wages, and so on. I ask him not to be the tool of resistance against vacations with pay and to give us the usual line about it being a matter for collective bargaining, or to resist statutory holidays with pay or to resist other improvements affecting equal status of women and so on. Instead of resisting that kind of thing, I call upon him to recognize that right in this
Supply-Labour
type of legislation may be the key as to whether or not these great resources that we are tapping, this great volume of production that is going to be ours in the years that lie ahead, will hang around our neck like a millstone or whether it will be the basis for an enlarged life for all the people in this country.
In the same vein I suggest it is part of the minister's job as Minister of Labour and as minister for labour, the man who should be speaking in the cabinet for the working people of this country whether they work in the factories, on the farms, in the offices, the fisheries, the mines or what have you, he should be speaking on their behalf to the other members of the cabinet and saying that this great wealth which this country is now capable of producing should result, not 35 or 50 years from now but right now, in improvements in our old age pension, in other social legislation and in the early enactment of national health insurance and other things of that kind to get back to the millions of Canadian people who produce this wealth, not a handout, not charity but that which is their right because it is labour, the working people on the farms, in the factories and offices of this country who make possible the production of this great wealth.
I say to the minister that it is not only an administrative job that he has in this important department. As others have said, he does a good job in administering the department. I suggest to him that his job is much more than that of an efficient administrator. His job should be that of a visionary, indeed I might even say a prophet. He should see what there is ahead. He should see what tremendous progress we can make if we will parallel with this era into which we are moving, the era of automation and atomic energy, the kind of legislation that will get the wealth that our people produce back to them in the form of a higher standard of living, social security, protection against ill health, old age and all these other things over which we have no control. I call upon the Minister of Labour to match the administrative job he is doing with the job of a visionary; I call upon him to urge the government to take some real, progressive steps in the direction of the kind of social legislation for which labour has been asking across the years, which labour has presented to the government very strongly, very forcibly, in the platform of principles, and the other resolutions and pronouncements that were made at the recent founding convention of the Canadian Labour Congress.
I think it is significant that just at this time, just at the beginning of this new era, when

Supply-Labour
I feel sure we are moving forward, we have this significant event of the founding of this new congress. It was a pleasure to see the minister there at least one day and the Prime Minister on another day. I hope they will read again the resolutions that were passed at that convention; that they will read the powerful speech that was made by president Claude Jodoin when the convention reached the point where the new congress had actually come into being. I call upon the government to pay more serious attention to the suggestions that have been made by that new congress which, I suggest, have underneath them a philosophy that is good for Canada, a philosophy which, if acted upon, can hold the promise of a much better day for all the people of this land.


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to deal briefly with three specific points that have been discussed here in other years, and have actually been mentioned during the discussion that has already taken place since these estimates came before us. First of all is the fact that we have been urging now for several years that the government take the necessary steps to conduct the kind of inquiry that would result in a labour code for Canada that would be a source of pride to every one of us.
It is now more than 13 years since a general examination of our labour legislation took place. Those of us who had occasion to have some contact with the results of that inquiry will recall the very satisfactory results which flowed from the report of the commission headed by the Hon. C. P. McTague which reported in 1943. At that time we were in the midst of perhaps the most severe days of the second world war, and the results of that finding were brought into effect by an order in council which did in fact provide Canada with something in the nature of a labour code covering a very wide part of our labour legislation in this country.
I strongly urge the government to take the steps without delay which will start the work either of a commission or of a committee on which there will be representation of the government itself, of the organized workers of this country, of management and of all other interested parties. We have urged this continuously since 1950. I mention 1950 because it was in 1950 that we were all called back here, those of us who were members, to deal with the situation which had resulted from the strike affecting the railways at that time. We said then that what had occurred was an illustration of the inadequacy of our conciliation methods, and that the situation with which the workers of Canada and the people of Canada generally had been con-
CMr. Knowles.]
fronted emphasized the need for a full and complete inquiry which would give to us in Canada labour legislation of the most modern and most sensible type and which would be of advantage to the workers, to management and to the people of Canada generally. The things that have happened since that time have emphasized the need for such an inquiry. Only in the past few weeks have we been relieved of the concern which was shared by all Canadians, and certainly shared by the workers employed by the railways themselves just as much as anyone else, over the possibility of a repetition of the situation with which we were confronted in 1950.
As has already been pointed out by the hon. member for Hamilton West, it is not to be suggested that people who show the very highest degree of responsibility in their daily work, such as is shown by employees of the railways, would be any less responsible in dealing with the problems of labour relations, conciliation and the general activities of organized labour.
In the interests of our workers in all activities in Canada, in the interests of management and above all in the interest of Canadians generally, I urge the minister to recognize there are many reasons now why it will be more suitable than ever before that such an inquiry take place. All of us have expressed our admiration of the way in which the Canadian Labour Congress started on its new course under the guidance of a man who commands the confidence and respect of all Canadians, whatever their occupation may be. The speech of Mr. Claude Jodoin at the time that the new congress was formed was a model of responsibility and vision in regard to the part that organized labour plays in the life of our whole country.
Now, there is the great advantage of one large responsible body speaking on behalf of the greater part of organized labour. Part of the difficulties that might have been presented by the existence of two large congresses-and in fact, I should say three large congresses-is removed in some measure by the organization which has now taken form.
The minister has on different occasions suggested that we might expect some review of this kind. I think the time is now past for speculative suggestions as to when this may be done. I think we should have an unqualified assurance from the minister that he will seek the co-operation of the appropriate representatives of organized labour, of management and of other bodies who might be brought into this inquiry, and that either a commission or a committee with full powers to inquire and report be set up for the purpose

*of considering the labour legislation of this country and recommending a labour code which will bring to organized labour, to management and to Canadians generally the advantage of the most up-to-date labour code in the world. We should not be satisfied with anything else in this country which is progressing so rapidly in every field of human endeavour.
I think one reason that we should hope this would take place is that we see the advantageous results which flowed from the last inquiry. At that time I had some measure of personal responsibility in regard to labour legislation in the province of Ontario as premier of that province. Just as soon as the new legislation, which was based upon the report of that inquiry, became law we adopted that same code and made it applicable in the province of Ontario. Later other provincial governments followed the same course and as a result we have uniform labour legislation in this country affecting a large percentage of the workers of Canada. I think if we had an inquiry which commanded the confidence of the workers, of management and of the people of Canada generally we might be well on the way toward a very extensive measure of uniform labour legislation in this country. Therefore I repeat my request to the minister that he give us assurance at this time, which we have now been seeking for so many years, that an inquiry of this nature will take place.
May I speak of another subject. This has been mentioned over and over again but it needs to be mentioned until something is done about it. This government set up a manpower committee to which it appointed representatives of various activities in this country. That committee should proceed with its work so that we may know exactly what is the situation across the whole of Canada in regard to the employment situation generally and to the need of various parts of Canada. This is not just a matter of knowing how we can use manpower, it is a case of knowing exactly where the manpower is and exactly what the situation is in regard to manpower in every part of Canada. For instance, we know that in spite of the demand for workers in many parts of Canada there are other parts of the country where there is a substantial measure of very severe unemployment.
This is the sort of thing which should be examined. With a thorough examination of "that situation the government would be in a better position to exercise such influence as it is called upon to exercise from time to time in encouraging the growth of new industries in those areas where there is need
Supply-Labour
of new opportunities for work and employment. I do not need to mention several places in this country where at this time it would be of great humane value and of great advantage to the Canadian economy generally if encouragement were given to the growth of certain types of industrial and other employment which would take up the slack which has resulted from the changing nature of some of our activities in this country. Therefore, I urge the Minister of Labour to revise the activities of this important committee and to permit and encourage it to carry out the duties which were assigned to it when it was set up a few years ago.
I want to deal with one other subject which has been mentioned in this house on different occasions, the subject of vacations with pay. I would hope that the government would take advantage of this opportunity to introduce legislation as a government measure just as it has done in other cases where the leadership has been given by the opposition. We now have before us legislation in regard to equal pay for women for equal work which is before us as a government measure directly as a result of the repeated efforts of the hon. member for Hamilton West. I would hope that we might also have for the same reason legislation brought before us as government legislation to provide vacations with pay for all those affected by the federal labour law.
Here again perhaps I may be forgiven if I speak from personal experience. It was under the government which I had the honour to head at that time in the province of Ontario that the first legislation in Canada was passed to provide statutory holidays with pay. I know how satisfactory it proved to be and I know from my own experience that not only was it of great advantage to the workers but that management also regarded the legislation as having very real and substantial advantages. Since it became a statutory obligation upon all employers to give a certain minimum number of holidays with pay there was no chance that one employer would find himself in a position of disadvantage because he followed the proper, just and humane course in providing holidays with pay on his own initiative. By the statutory provision all employers were encouraged to extend this very desirable provision, which is to the advantage of all Canadians.
The fact that workers get holidays with pay and in that way have the opportunity for recreation and the restoration of their health in itself is not only of great advantage to them and to their families, as is their just right, but it has proved to be of great advantage to the general morale of our industrial

Supply-Labour
workers who have benefited from the legislation. Therefore in view of the experience which has shown the beneficial results of legislation of this kind, and in view of the fact that we shall be sitting here for some considerable time, I hope the government will take advantage of the opportunity that is presented to introduce legislation of this nature during the present session and make applicable to the workers of Canada, at least during the latter part of the summer months of this year, the proper benefits that would flow from legislation of this nature.


Mr. Richardson:: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that all hon. members have found the remarks which have been made today not only interesting but, I should think, instructive. I ask for but a few minutes of your time to deal with one subject which relates to the province of Quebec, one constituency of which I have the honour to represent. I was particularly interested in the remarks made this afternoon by the hon. member for York Centre in respect to university grants, and inasmuch as the constituency of St. Lawrence-St. George has within its boundaries one of the great universities of Canada I feel this is a matter which particularly concerns my riding and myself.
Constituting as we do a minority race or group in the province of Quebec, it is sometimes said that that province leans more to the classical side and the field of the humanities rather than to the technical or scientific sides of education. This afternoon I should like to say that at least in recent years that has not been quite the fact. I believe that in the province of Quebec we will be able now to find in the field which is perhaps incorrectly called labour-because we have moved in the last 40 or 50 years a long way from the time when the man who went out with a dinner pail was just a labouring man and we are all in some degree members of the labour group-men can now be found in the trades who are as skilled as in any other part of the Dominion of Canada, though it is true that they have retained to a very large degree the basic urge for study in the field of the humanities and classical education.
Therefore when the minister is prepared to answer questions, I would like him to corroborate the information, which I believe is true, that in the last 10 or 15 years the federal parliament has granted to the province of Quebec, as it has to other provinces in Canada, substantial sums of money in capital and bursary amounts in the field of technical and scientific training. I should like him, if he has the information handy, to tell us what those amounts were, say over the past 10 years, in what particular places

in the province of Quebec they were allocated, and what use, so far as his department knows, has been made of those grants.
After all, the one person who must be served, whether we as members act in the federal field or in the provincial field or in the municipal arena, is essentially that same person, Mr. Taxpayer. When grants are made of this or that sum of money to this or that area of life, Mr. Taxpayer in the final analysis is the person who must pay the shot. I have been given to understand that substantial grants have been made to the province of Quebec and that use has been made of those grants over the past decade in this field of scientific and technical training. Therefore, when the minister replies, I should like him to put that information upon the record.


Mr. McLeod:: I was indeed glad to hear the hon. member for Vancouver South mention the problem which had been the concern of the late member for Vancouver-Burrard. I have been one of those associated with this gentleman in discussing the problems of a small group of pensioners affected in the manner mentioned by the hon. member. I am going to say nothing more than that I am pleased the matter was mentioned and will lend my support to the hon. member at any future time he wishes to bring this before the house.
In speaking on the estimates before us, I wish to say that I was a member of the committee on estimates, and when the figures for this department were before us I was impressed by the sincerity of the minister and the various officials who appeared before us and with their deep conviction that something more than was being done at the present time would have to be done in training our labour force for the future.
First I should like to refer, as has already been done in this house this afternoon, to the provisions made for rehabilitation. This is one of the newer endeavours of the department. I understand it was inaugurated in 1953. Naturally progress is going to be slow, but I understand now that all the provinces of Canada are sharing in this scheme, contributing on a 50-50 basis toward the cost of educating and rehabilitating the handicapped and the aged. We all know that many employees affected by changes brought about by machines and the automation about which we hear so much have lost their jobs and have reached the years when it is difficult to find new employment. It is for these people that there is a growing demand for training at the present time. As regards the handicapped, we are beginning to find that men and women who a few short years ago we

thought could not be used in any manner in our labour force are now being trained so they can assume a fitting place in the circles of labour, provide a livelihood for themselves and contribute to the economy of Canada.
This has a twofold benefit. Many of these people, if it were not for this special training, would possibly be a charge against the welfare contributions of this country. So, by making them self-supporting, we are probably just taking a rather selfish view that it is cheaper and of more benefit to Canada to give them this training at the expense of the taxpayers than to have them continue on the welfare rolls.
Now we have this commission set up under our Department of Labour to provide this training. Each province that agrees to cooperate with the department must set up a committee, I believe, of three members to administer the affairs in that particular province. This committee consists of a co-ordinator, a representative of the department which provides the training, and a federal representative. In my own province of British Columbia this is handled by the Department of National Health and Welfare, and I know it is performing a wonderful service for those who need this special type of training.
All applications are referred to this committee, and they are carefully screened. The aim of the committee is to find the type of training which it thinks would be best suited to the applicant, depending of course on his degree or type of disability. As I say, it is proving very effective and producing very good results, but I sometimes think possibly the people of Canada and the people of various communities are not aware of just what is available to them under this branch of our service to the people. Possibly it would be of benefit if we were to give some publicity to it.
We have heard a great deal today about professional training. The hon. member for Lanark made a very good plea and put it before the house in a very plain and straightforward manner. I am in accord with what he said. I should just like to place on the record what is being done under the plans of our Department of Labour for assisting students to get this type of training. The province of British Columbia is also taking full advantage of the scheme, which was started some ten years ago and is steadily expanding. The last complete figures are for the year 1954, and in that year the following were assisted financially in British Columbia under the joint plan of financial assistance carried on by the province and the federal Department of Labour. There were 74 students in medicine, 14 in veterinary medicine, 58 in
Supply-Labour
dentistry, 32 in pharmacy, 86 in applied science and engineering, 11 in arts and science, 174 in arts, 15 in law, 22 in teacher training,
9 in home economics, 8 in agriculture, 19 in commerce, 6 in forestry, 22 in nursing and 28 miscellaneous. This is a grand total of 517 who took advantage of the plan which is available in Canada for university training.
Looking over the total for Canada it is rather interesting to note that this is 25 per cent of the total who received training in that year. I think you will agree that the province of British Columbia and the people of British Columbia are taking full advantage of what is being offered to them. In addition to this professional training, there is much being done in promoting technical training, again under joint provincial and federal financing. Under this plan each province is given an outright grant of $10,000 for administrative expenses. During the last year for which figures are available $2,070,000 was allotted to the provinces on a per capita basis, and this per capita basis involves only the teen-agers from 15 to 19 years of age. A further sum of $10,304,950 was granted toward the cost of erecting technical schools and purchasing equipment.
So we see that the department has started along these lines; and while I would certainly agree with every member who has spoken today that there is room for much improvement and that much larger grants of money are necessary in order to give the people of Canada who wish to avail themselves of this training which is so necessary today the opportunity to do so, I believe that not even yet have we reached the point where we are taking full advantage of what is being offered. Of course until we reach that stage the government has the excuse, though it may be a poor one, that there is no use providing any more money until people are prepared to make use of it. In addition to the technical training there are also correspondence courses available, and there is also the scheme of apprenticeship training.
Today, as we approach the era of complete automation, we are certainly going to find that everyone who has not a skilled trade or profession of some kind will be absolutely at a loss in finding employment. Even today the old fashioned ditch digger has been replaced by the machine, and the idea of hand labour and unskilled labour is pretty much a thing of the past.
As has been said, we cannot force our young men and women to take advantage of these courses. However, I believe that we as members of parliament can do a lot if we will just have the problem before us at all times and, as we visit the various parts of our

Supply-Labour
ridings, give greater publicity to what is being done and what is available. At different times we may have the privilege of speaking to school classes or even service clubs, boards of trade and so on, and I am quite sure they would be glad to hear about what is available through the provincial and federal plans for better education for the people of Canada.
We know there are shortcomings in our training system, but these are being ironed out. I say with all sincerity that whenever any constructive criticism was put forward in the committee by any member I found that it got a good hearing, and we got a promise from the minister or the appropriate official that some action would be taken to rectify whatever was considered amiss. But I think if we co-operated a little more with the authorities, promoted publicity for all these schemes, and reached the stage where there were possibly more applicants than could be taken care of, we would then be in a strong position to come back to the government and say this has been started, it has proved satisfactory, but we must have more money.
I listened with interest to the hon. member for Broadview, and was rather pleased to hear his outline of what has been done in the United States. What has been done there is, of course, a target at which we may shoot. Finally, I say that the way to move any government to further action is by popular demand, and I am sure if our people make use of all the facilities offered and demand expansion, we can then get that expansion.
(Translation) ;


Mr. Leduc (Gatineau):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to offer my congratulations and sincere thanks to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) on behalf of the bushworkers of the province of Quebec, for his humane and fair attitude with regard to unemployment insurance for those people.
On February 13, 1956, the Canadian International Paper advertised for bushworkers in every employment office in the province, offering $5.00 to $6.00 per 100 cu. ft. cord of pulpwood cut in its camps. These men, who were at that time receiving unemployment insurance benefits were advised of this offer made by the C.I.P., but the vast majority of them refused on the grounds that the amount offered per cord was inadequate. They declined to go and cut wood for $5.00 or $6.00 a cord. As a result, unemployment insurance officials suspended payment of benefits to these men. Those who were members of the U.C.C. then protested against this unfair decision. They asked their federal

members to have this injustice corrected by the unemployment insurance commission. An impressive group of federal members from Quebec therefore met with the Minister of Labour to explain the situation and ask that this injustice be redressed.
After a thorough inquiry into the matter by senior officials of the unemployment insurance commission, the minister made a statement in the house on March 15, 1956, but I shall not take the time of the house to read that statement.
Following this statement the vast majority of bushworkers received their unemployment insurance benefits, and the C.I.P. remained without the extra hands needed to cut its wood. In order therefore to secure the necessary manpower on April 3, 1956 the company offered through the employment offices in the province of Quebec, $7.50 to $8.50 per 100 cu. ft. cord, i.e. an increase of $2.50 a cord.
Without the intervention of the bushworkers and of the federal members, the Quebec bushworkers would have had to cut wood at $5.00 and $6.00 a cord. It is obvious that the Canadian International Paper has once more attempted to take advantage of the bushworker by offering $5.00 and $6.00 a cord, knowing perfectly well that these prices were below the average price paid by other Quebec lumbering companies.
It is fortunate that there is a professional organization representing the farmers of Quebec and known as the Union Catholique des Cultivateurs, whose directors are men of intelligence and insight, imbued with a spirit of social justice. These are the true defenders of the rights and interests of the farmer and bushworker.
It is obvious that the Canadian International Paper is capable of paying and should pay higher wages to these bushworkers, as well as the highest prices for the pulpwood it buys from farmers or settlers, since according to the financial reports for recent years, its net profit is increasing yearly by approximately ten million dollars.
Unfortunately the Union Nationale government failed to show the same willingness or eagerness to meet the request of the members of the U.C.C. who, in their brief submitted to the hon. minister of lands and forests, on January 15 last, requested that the government set a floor price of at least $20 a cord for pulpwood bought from settlers and farmers.

In February 1955, Mr. Goulet, Liberal member for Temiscamingue in the Quebec legislature, urged the Union Nationale government to set a floor price of $20 per cord for pulpwood bought from settlers and farmers by lumber companies, but the Hon. Maurice Duplessis replied that his government could do nothing to improve the situation.
It is therefore obvious that the Union Nationale government not only fails to protect the interest of settlers and farmers but does join hands with some powerful corporations in taking advantage of workers and farmers.
Fortunately farmers today are better acquainted with such matters and they are determined to elect in Quebec a Liberal government which will know how to protect and defend their interests.
(Text):


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, this group believes in an appropriate scientific division of labour. Consequently I am not going to deal with a number of questions that will be dealt with by other members of this group. But before proceeding to the main purpose of my few remarks I want to express my support of the hon. member for Vancouver South and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in their plea on behalf of a certain group of C.P.R. pensioners. I know that the late Dr. MacDougall intended to deal with this question quite fully. I wholeheartedly support the plea they made on behalf of this group of people this afternoon.
I have had the opportunity to discuss this matter at length on several occasions with Mr. "Tip" O'Neill and I must say that the pensioners are extremely fortunate in having a man as active and as capable on their behalf as is Mr. O'Neill. I have seen him riding a locomotive between Kamloops and Field for a good many years, and I know him quite well. I think he has done his very best on their behalf. I also had the opportunity to discuss the problem with a group of pensioners in Nelson and a group of pensioners in Revelstoke. I have also had the opportunity to read the brief and the correspondence supplied to me by Mr. O'Neill.
I think this group of pensioners have a very sound case. I hope that Mr. O'Neill's pleas, the pleas of others and the comments of members during this debate will move the company to the action that I think the case of these worthy people warrants.
When I was dealing in another debate with the question of the recruitment of labour in
Supply-Labour
Europe to work in the mines in Canada, in reply to certain questions I had raised with respect to Mr. Ramsay's trip to Europe, the minister, as reported at page 4993 of Hansard, said this:
The purpose of his trip was primarily to secure workers for the base metal mines.
I am quite sure the minister gave the house the information he had at the time, but I am under the impression that the minister has been misinformed. I should like to direct his attention to an article that appeared on the financial page of the Toronto Daily Star of March 5, 6 or 7 last. I am not quite sure of the exact date owing to a certain amount of disorganization in my office caused by the pipe-fine debate. Anyway, in that article I found that the president of the Canadian metal mining association stated that these people were being recruited in Europe primarily for the gold mines, and that representations were being made to recruit these people in Europe to work in those mines particularly. I just draw that statement to the minister's attention because I am quite confident that he has not been correctly informed up to date.
In the few minutes in which I wish to deal with this question I want to place a few figures on record. I want to give a few figures with respect to wage rates in base metal mines and in gold mines. As to base metal mines, I know that in the Kootenay area our base metal miners get something over $2 an hour. In Sudbury they get $1.96. In Steep Rock-that is iron ore-they get $2.20 an hour. In Cobalt they get $1.51. As to the gold mines, I find as follows. I have figures for only Timmins and Kirkland Lake. At Timmins they get $1.32 an hour. At Kirkland Lake mines, I am informed, the miners get $1.29 an hour. These are the wage rates in the base metal mines and in the gold mines.
I should now like to direct the minister's attention to a news item that appeared in the Ottawa Journal of June 14. It is a Canadian Press dispatch from London. The heading is "Canada Recruits Miners Overseas" and it reads as follows:
William Ramsay, personnel manager of the Canadian metal mining association, left today on a 10-day tour of Denmark, Sweden and Finland to recruit hard-rock miners for Canada.
He has been holding meetings in Britain in recent weeks, interviewing applicants who want to emigrate to Canada to work underground mining gold, silver, uranium and copper in most Canadian provinces from Ontario to the west coast.
"Altogether, 1,206 men have expressed interest in the idea", said Ramsay. "They still have to pass a medical examination, and some, I expect, will drop out."
Most of the meetings were arranged through the Canadian immigration service in Britain.

Supply-Labour
Ramsay, on loan to the mining association from his national employment service job at Kirkland Lake, Ontario, wants husky men between 19 and 35 years of age. He has had pamphlets printed in several languages offering wages-
This is in the mining industry, as miners.
-from a minimum of $1.05 to $1.53 an hour. Some jobs offer an additional production bonus.
"Wages are the same as paid in the locality in which you are working", the pamphlet says.
Now, Mr. Chairman, if that statement is correct and the men are being recruited for work in the mines of Canada at $1.05 per hour, they are being brought to this country under false pretences. They are being offered wages below even the lowest wages paid in the gold mines at the present time. I find that in the Kirkland Lake area out of eight mines, indicating the situation in gold mines as against base metal mines, only one mine is organized in a really effective fashion. There are two that have some form of association which the miners' unions term company unions and three have a recognized union but it is in a very weak condition. There are two that have no union organizations of any kind. I understand that situation prevails in the gold mining industry because many workers are apparently of the opinion that owing to present conditions in that industry they will have little opportunity of improving their working conditions or their wages by supporting a union.
In addition to that, the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, when answering a question I had asked during the debate on emergency gold mining assistance, stated that over a period of 10 years there were only 2,889 persons who had been recruited from abroad to work in the mining industry in Canada. I am quite sure the minister gave me what are technically the correct figures. However, the minister's figures do not tell the whole story. I know from personal experience and from complaints raised by miners in my own constituency that many of these people come to Canada under some other pretext. I know that some come to Canada who are supposed to work on a farm for two years, but it is very natural and very human that when they find the high rate of wages being paid in the mining industry they leave the poor farmer in the lurch. You find them in the mines within six months. We have had a good many cases of that sort. A good many of the people who have come over from Europe, supposedly to work at other employment, have entered the mining industry in the period mentioned by the minister. I do not think his figures represent a true picture in any sense of the word.
I am told by leaders of unions in the mining industry, that is types of leaders who are

recognized by labour as qualified and proper trade unionists, that there is no shortage of miners in the base metal mining industry. I have had that statement made very definitely. They all admit a shortage of miners in the gold mining industry, which I can well understand. It is the result of the basic wage rate as compared to base metal mining, and the result of the working conditions and so on. I have received a good number of complaints from the miners working in my constituency who say that these immigrants who are brought to Canada, as they will be possibly under false pretences in many cases and without a firm knowledge of the mining industry, are a hazard to the miners concerned for two reasons. I have had them tell me that men should not be in the mine who cannot speak the English language sufficiently to be understood by other men.
The second reason is their lack of experience. I know of one case in my own district where miners who have been working in the industry for a good many years had some trouble with the management and refused to go into the mine until some men were removed from the labour force. It was not that they had anything against those men personally. I do not blame these people for trying to improve their conditions. In this case the men did not speak the language and were not able to understand instructions with regard to explosives. They certainly lacked experience as far as hard-rock mining was concerned.
If I remember correctly the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys also said that five gold mines closed last year. I wonder if the Minister of Labour could assure the house that those men who lost employment because of the closing of those mines will find employment in other mines. I am particularly thinking of those who are over age and are not normally employed because of pension plans and things of that sort.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I have briefly dealt with this question again because I think it is one that demands a thorough investigation by the minister to get the facts. While we in this group believe that Canada requires immigrants, we believe in planned immigration. We do not believe in immigration that displaces long-time Canadian workers and Canadian citizens. Let the immigration that is carried on be conducted on a different basis from that on which, according to the news item, information is given to these people who are being recruited in Europe. I do hope the minister gives this matter very close consideration and makes certain the conditions complained of by the miners do not continue to exist.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I wonder if any other hon. member who is thinking of speaking this afternoon would forgive me if I took advantage of the time between now and five o'clock to answer some of the questions, because it may be some few days before my estimates are considered again. I should like to make some comments on some of the things that have been said today.
First of all the hon. member for Hamilton West, as well as other members, gave wholehearted support to our research plans so that we may be in a position to have more knowledge of our professional and technical working force. She referred to the United Kingdom plan with which I had made myself familiar and which I admire very much. Of course she would be the first to agree that you can do things under a unitary system such as the United Kingdom has in this field of education that we cannot do here. I do hate to hark back, but I must say that this whole field of training and education is within the provincial jurisdiction. Having pointed that out, however, I do agree with practically all that has been said, that it is the duty of the government and the duty of the Minister of Labour and his agencies to do everything in their power to forward the effort.
The hon. member for Hamilton West stressed the importance of the decentralization of authority in those agencies coming under the Minister of Labour in order that they may be prepared for an emergency.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: But only in time of emergency.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I agree with her up to a certain point. I do agree that a maximum of advance planning for emergency should be done and that it should encompass those agencies. It should, of course, be co-ordinated with all the other departments of government concerned. This is being done and will continue to be done and kept up to date. On the other hand, I cannot agree with her that agencies such as the unemployment insurance commission and the national employment service, in a time of peace such as we now have, should be on a semi-mobilized basis, whereby a Canadian worker who takes advantage of that service may have the feeling that he may be subject to certain compulsions-


Ellen Louks Fairclough: If the minister will permit, I had no such thought in mind. It was merely a matter of making the facilities of the office and its officers available in an emergency, without having regard for the authority which they might not be able to contact. It had nothing to do with any time except a period of emergency.
Supply-Labour


Milton Fowler Gregg: If these officials were to be available in such emergencies it would have to be after the appropriate legislation for that emergency had been passed by parliament. I can assure my hon. friend that, so far as the planning stage is concerned, that has received attention.
The Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Hamilton West and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred to the importance of the revision of the labour code. I have a notion, however, that the revision or the plan leading toward a revision suggested by the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Hamilton West might be somewhat different from that envisaged by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
I believe it is important for us to keep the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act up to date. I do not believe it has all the disadvantages that have been suggested to us today. In saying that I do not want to appear smug or to indicate that we are not giving it a great deal of thought and study. We have been doing that, and I stated in this house last year, when the railway unions were considering the matter of what should be done in their field, that we would be glad to co-operate with them in studying plans for the future. As we stand now, we shall continue to keep this matter under consideration and, when the appropriate time comes, to take action on it.
I agree with the hon. member for Hamilton West that we cannot take approximately 1J million union members lightly. In these postwar years they have displayed evidences of responsibility in their attitude toward conciliation procedure, toward disputes and toward the whole community, which is something that augurs well for the future of labour unionism in Canada in the new larger combined congress.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South said some good things about winter employment and trying to level off the ups and downs of seasonal variation. We did make some good progress last winter. I am not saying that all the improvement was due to the plans that were carried out by a great many people to improve seasonal employment. A good deal of it was due to the fact that there was more work available; but the high peak of unemployment that cropped up in the middle of last winter was not nearly as high as it has been in previous years. As far as my department and the unemployment insurance commission are concerned, they are going to co-operate even more aggressively against unemployment next winter.

Supply-Labour
My hon. friend said-I took down his words -"that the shortage of scientists was greatly overworked". Some other hon. members took exception to that. He may be interested to learn that yesterday or the day before the president of the Du Pont Company of Canada, speaking in Montreal, said almost the same thing. He said, "Grossly overemphasized". That may be so in his particular industry. However, I do not think we can overlook the fact that we do need more professional and skilled personnel, because it is not only the requirements of the industries that are well established and well on the way that we have to think of. We ought to have more of that kind of people to help initiate new industries and new efforts.
On the subject of the movement of workers, the hon. member for Cape Breton South said we were discriminating; that there was a difference, for instance, between the treatment those workers from Cape Breton who are going out to help in the woods industry in British Columbia and the workers who are coming in under the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. There is not as much difference as he indicated. The arrangement with those going west was that we, the Department of Labour, should pay their expenses out or issue them with warrants and in due course the company should refund all the money to the government. The arrangement with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is much the same, in that they pay the expenses and the new Canadian repays the money.
He spoke of the controversy between those who sponsor the trade school and those who favour the vocational high school. I think we could discuss that for quite a long time, probably with a good deal of usefulness. Certainly in his opinion the mature worker going to a trade school with nothing else on his or her mind than learning a skill is more effective than a teen-ager high school student between grades 10 and 11 who takes a course at the high school and goes down to the basement and learns some manual skills on the machines and on the lathes. The theory there is, of course, that these young people, having obtained a smattering of some skill, when they go out to work and do not go on to university, are better able to enter into the production force of the country. I want to thank him for his kind words regarding the women's bureau and its director. As a matter of fact she happened to be in the gallery at the time he spoke, and I was glad she was able to hear him.
The hon. member for Macleod referred to teamwork in industry and the importance of encouraging it. I thoroughly agree with him,

but I was rather surprised at his pessimism this morning. A member coming from that very rich province of Alberta, he used the word "depression" many times and he used such expressions as "dog eat dog" in industry. In my short period as Minister of Labour since 1950 I have not observed very much of dog eating dog. I believe that during the years since the war there has developed a very high level of responsibility on the part of those who are bargaining and arranging the settlement of disputes, and it is a responsibility not only to those whom they directly represent but to the community as a whole.
The hon. member for York Centre also referred to student aid and the importance of money for training. He said that he was more in favour of providing money for the training of young people in industrial skills than for military training of the old-fashioned type. In that I heartily agree with him.
The hon. member for Broadview criticized the rehabilitation program under the co-ordination arrangements with the provinces, with various departments of government and with the voluntary agencies. He referred to the fact that in the United States last year, through their program which is a great one -I will grant that-they had been able to place some 200,000 handicapped persons in employment. That is a great achievement. In Canada last year we were able to place some 19,773 handicapped persons in industry. We usually multiply our population by 10 and get something approaching the population of the United States. We have had those who were unable to work and could not be placed. Last year over 1,000 were rehabilitated. The first 472 cases originated in the provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. These 472 cases and the 228 dependents had been maintained by their families in institutions or by public assistance at an annual cost of some $203,000. In their first year of employment they earned collectively almost $1 million. I admit immediately that the plan under way is a co-operative one that must move reasonably slowly; but in conjunction with my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare I can report to the committee that good progress is being made.
The hon. member for Vancouver South, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Kootenay West referred to the unfilled mission of our late friend Jack MacDougall. Jack MacDougall, along with Mr. O'Neill who was here some weeks ago representing the superannuated C.P.R. employees, was constant in his efforts to have something done for these men, as were we all. I think most hon. members

know that at that time it was possible for Mr. O'Neill to go to Montreal to see the top echelon of the Canadian Pacific management. I know he made a great impression upon them but unfortunately the success he hoped for was not achieved. I pledge to those who have spoken any assistance I can give to achieve the objectives they have in mind.
The hon. member for Lanark again brought forward the matter of taxation on scholarships. I agree with what he said and I shall discuss this matter with my colleague the Minister of Finance. He spoke also on behalf of older workers between 45 and 65 years of age. We are doing something there. It is not perfect or spectacular, but good solid progress is being made.
I was inspired by the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who made me feel the importance of my role. As he pointed out, it is a great thing to be Minister of Labour for Canada, and I agree heartily that it is a great privilege to serve C nada in this capacity even for a short time. While the speed may not be as fast as he would want it to be, in the past we have made some real progress in carrying out the desires of organized labour and the thoughtful recommendations which they have made at their conventions. I listened to what was said in Toronto and at the C.L.C. convention and I read carefully the speeches and the resolutions. Then each year the government meets with the executive bodies of the labour organizations-this year it will be three instead of four-when we are given details of the projects which they consider to be of utmost importance. In recent years quite a large proportion of those that have been stressed have been carried into effect. I have noted the other points made by the hon. member.
The Leader of the Opposition referred to the importance of reviewing the labour code. I dealt with this when I was replying to the hon. member for Hamilton West. Reference was made also to the national advisory council on manpower. That body was appointed in 1950 at the approach of the emergency in Korea, and it did most useful work in the years following. I outlined that work in the statement I made earlier. The council is still in being and it is my intention to utilize it when we are in possession of more statistics and facts.


John George Diefenbaker: Did the council suggest at any time that there should be a national registration in order to have available the necessary information to ensure that manpower would be available in whatever requirements were necessary?
67509-323J
Supply-Labour


Milton Fowler Gregg: No.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Can the minister tell us when the council last met?


Milton Fowler Gregg: It was about a year and a half ago. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George asked for details with regard to grants and whether any had been made in the province of Quebec under the vocational training plan. The answer is yes. The hon. member asked for the amounts, and I may tell him that the cumulative amount to date spent in Quebec under the vocational training plan is $12,433,000. Included in that amount is $1,041,000 for students' aid to universities, and included also is $3,139,400 for capital expenditures for buildings and equipment. There is quite a large item included in that last figure made necessary by the rebuilding of the technical school in Rimouski. I might say also that in the administration of these moneys there has always been the most cordial relations between my officials and those of the province of Quebec.
The hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke suggested that the aid to students provided by the department should be made better known. I think all provinces know about it. I believe I should state here that in the main those who administer the fund in the various provinces are inclined to look upon it as assistance for students after they have entered university rather than as assistance for high school students in order to permit them to enter university. In other words, they administer it prudently for worthy and capable students, normally after their first year, in order that they may complete their courses.
I was glad to hear from the hon. member for Gatineau about the improvement in the condition of the bush workers in his riding.
The hon. member for Kootenay West referred to the statement I made with regard to Mr. Ramsay's mission to England. I gave him what information I had received about that situation when he raised the matter the other day. I am now informed that Mr. Ramsay was turned over to the mining association for no specific kind of recruiting. There was no stipulation as to the kind of recruitment that was to be made or the wages that were to be offered. Consequently the hon. member is correct in stating that I was in error the other day in that portion of my statement. May I say to him that I shall be glad to confer with the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys along the lines he has suggested, because I feel that when an industry is being subsidized by the people of Canada consideration should be given to see to it that workers are not asked to work for

Private Bills
depressed wages, particularly when they are brought into the country for that purpose.
Progress reported.


PRIVATE BILLS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: There are a number of private bills on the order paper for consideration in committee of the whole. Is it agreed that they be all referred to the committee of the whole, under standing order 54 (1), in one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READING
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 353, to incorporate the Albion Insurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Mac-naughton.

Edward Turney Applewhaite: There are a number of divorce bills for the committee. Is it agreed that they be considered as one?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder whether you would exclude the first one, as one of my colleagues wishes to say something about it. As far as I know, the others can be dealt with in a group after the first one has been considered.


JEAN BENOIT MAILLE
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 217, for the relief of Jean Benoit Maille-Mr. Henderson-Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to bring to the attention of the house something, according to information given to me, of a very unusual nature that occurred during the sitting of the committee on miscellaneous private bills last Tuesday evening. I am reliably informed that a Mr. J. J. Penverne, Q.C., of Montreal, who appeared for the respondent, admitted to the committee obtaining in an irregular manner four blank forms that would normally be sent out under the signature of the Speaker of the Senate to obtain the attendance of witnesses.
I am informed that in sending out these forms this queen's counsel changed the documents, which were headed "Senate of Canada", to read "House of Commons", and then admitted to the members of the committee present to forging the signature of Mr. Eufin Arsenault, chief clerk of committees of the House of Commons.
I am informed that the explanation given by the learned counsel to the committee on miscellaneous private bills, on being questioned, was that this was the only way to obtain the attendance of witnesses before the

house, because the house had no provision, unlike the Senate, to compel the attendance of witnesses.
I think that is a very serious situation when a queen's counsel admits to forging the signature of the chief committee clerk of the House of Commons on documents calling for witnesses.


Mr. Simmons:: May I interrupt the hon. member? I was on that committee and I do not remember seeing that the signature of Mr. Arsenault was forged. It was typewritten on the document.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am just dealing with the information given to me.


Some hon. Members:: The information is wrong. Check your sources.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have raised this question because, if that is correct, it is in my opinion a very serious matter indeed. I think this bill should be referred back to the committee for an explanation by the chairman of the committee as to what actually happened before the committee.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, if I may be permitted to say so, the chairman of the committee concerned is not present. Whilst I know there are hon. members here who were present at the hearings, and who could probably clear up the difficulty that may exist at the moment, I doubt whether the result would be anything more than perhaps to convince my hon. friend that his information is not wholly right. I think it would be better if we left the bill until the chairman of the committee could discuss it with the hon. member, and therefore I think hon. members would agree with me that we ought to adjourn the debate.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, Mr. Chairman, but before the debate is adjourned could I ask the minister one question? The hon. member for Yukon said the signature was typed. If the gentleman in question admitted typing the signature of the chief clerk of committees of this house and sending out a form that should come from him, I think that is an admission of a most irregular procedure. I move the adjournment of the debate.


Walter Edward Harris: I quite agree.


Mr. Wylie:: Before the adjournment is considered, may I say that I happen to be a member of that committee, and the hon. member for Yukon is another member; the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) was there and perhaps two or three others. This question was dealt with by our committee. Despite the fact that our chairman is not here today, I think what has been said throws rather a

reflection on our committee. I think it should be dealt with today. I must admit that the name of Mr. Arsenault was not written, it was typed by this lawyer's secretary, and I think we should dispose of this now. It was given a good deal of consideration by the committee. As a matter of fact we had two sittings, and we sat until ten o'clock one evening. I feel it has been given all the consideration that should be given.


Walter Edward Harris: May I speak a second time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are in committee; speak as often as you like.


Walter Edward Harris: I realize that, but I had forgotten for the moment. As a matter of fact the chairman of the committee spoke to me yesterday, though not about this particular point. He said that as far as he knew this bill would not be contested when it came into the committee of the whole but that if it were would I ask for an adjournment on any point contested, because he would like to speak to it. I do not know whether he had this in mind, but I hope members will allow the matter to be adjourned now so we may proceed to the other bills.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think the proper motion is for further consideration to be postponed, as was moved by the Minister of Trade and Commerce on another occasion.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I disagree.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: May I submit that if it is the wish of the committee of the whole, the chairman should be instructed to report progress on this bill and ask for leave to sit again.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 380, for the relief of Michael Costom.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 395, for the relief of Marie Theresa Gerega St-Jacques.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 396, for the relief of Julius Michael Cantor.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 397, for the relief of Gerald Zel-man.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 398, for the relief of Lucille Viola Arthur Ward.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 399, for the relief of May O'Connor Mackenzie.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 400, for the relief of Rita Cleevely Scott.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 401, for the relief of Leah Banfield Rideout.-Mr. Henderson.
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. 402, for the relief of Margaret Isobel Gillespie Mackenzie.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 403, for the relief of Edda Roehm Sackmann.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 404, for the relief of Joseph Ernest Adrien Joly.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 405, for the relief of Jacqueline Bussiere Sirois.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 406, for the relief of Doris Elaine Cameron Gladwish.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 407, for the relief of Myra Goodman Lobell.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 408, for the relief of Jennie Zalez-niak Wiseman.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 409, for the relief of Phyllis Elizabeth Jardine Williams.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 410, for the relief of Martha Hope MacDougall Fortier.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 411, for the relief of Hugh Oliver Semper.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 412, for the relief of Yvonne Elizabeth Thurgarland Brosseau.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 413, for the relief of Hugh Lawrence Byers.-Mr. Henderson.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: There are several divorce bills on the order paper for second reading. Is it the pleasure of the house to take them in one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


SECOND READINGS-SENATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 419, for the relief of Elizabeth Redling Lefebvre.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 420, for the relief of Marie Cecile Veronique Goudreau Johnstone, otherwise known as Lucille Goudreau Johnstone.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 421, for the relief of Claire Esther Cohen Weiner.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 422, for the relief of Vera Norine Tromley Ashford.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 423, for the relief of Jacques Demers.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 424, for the relief of Virginia Ruth Jones Lord.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 425, for the relief of Harold Barnes.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 426, for the relief of Geraldine Isabella Johnson Mole.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 427, for the relief of Adam Forbes.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 428, for the relief of Rose-Anna Rose Crombie.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 429, for the relief of Esther Pheobe Brunger Abels.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 430, for the relief of Lorna Elizabeth Cadorette Belinsky.-Mr. Henderson.
[Stage Direction]
Industrial Relations
Bill No. 431, for the relief of Benjamin Franklin Luther.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 432, for the relief of Gordon Frederick Collins.-Mr. Henderson.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, May 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Knowles for the second reading of Bill No. 211, to provide for annual holidays with pay for employees.
Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, I think the sponsor of the bill would like to move it forward, and on May 11, when this bill was last discussed in the house, I had just about completed my remarks at six o'clock. However, I find that just before I stopped talking I made a statement which was wrong and which I should like to correct now. At that time I was making a summary of the various provincial laws related to vacations with pay. I had said that two weeks' vacation with pay after one year of employment is a standard at the present time in effect in only one province. When I said that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked, "Which one", and in reply I said in error, "British Columbia."
The fact is that such a law has been in force in Saskatchewan for several years. In British Columbia a similar law had been passed but had not been proclaimed at that time, and I believe it will not be proclaimed until two weeks from now, on the 1st of July.
In my remarks at that time I made the point that I felt that within the highly organized industries which come under federal jurisdiction this matter should be left, as my hon. friend said this afternoon in that namby-pamby fashion, to collective bargaining procedures.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I said I did not like to see the minister used as a tool of resistance against progressive legislation.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I think there is something to be said in this respect. Because of the influence which does attach to federal legislation extending across the country, if we accept two weeks as the proper minimum standard our action may be regarded as pressure on some provinces to provide the same standard whether or not this is a standard which, in the light of their own experience and circumstances, is warranted. The Leader of the Opposition indicated this afternoon that when the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act was passed by parliament it was immediately copied or followed in the province of Ontario.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite).]
If, on the other hand, we were to decide that one week after one year of employment is the proper minimum standard, this might be regarded as placing a brake on an upward revision in provinces which may consider it expedient to provide for some increase over one week. We have been influenced in our own thinking up to this point by the fact that without legislation in the federal field, more favourable vacation with pay plans are being adopted year by year, by the fact that the trend toward annual paid vacations has developed in the United States without either state or federal legislation, and by the experience in the United Kingdom where legislation providing for paid vacations is confined to certain industries subject to the wages councils act which are, generally speaking, the industries in which the workers are to a large extent unorganized and which have no counterpart in our federal field.
I should like to call to the attention of hon. members the schedules which you, sir, permitted me to include in my remarks on May 11. Those figures indicate that workers in the federal field are making pretty rapid progress in getting vacations with pay, which is the object of the bill.
In view of the considerations I have mentioned, I am not prepared to support the bill at this time.
Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South
Centre): Mr. Speaker, I have been looking at the debate that occurred on May 11 on this subject. I find that on that occasion the sponsor of the bill introduced it, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) spoke, and the debate has not been resumed until now. The general principle of the bill is one that I should like to support, as was done by the member for Hamilton West. If we get, as we should, into the committee stage on this bill we can examine the details carefully and see what changes might be considered necessary, but at this stage of the debate the actual sections of the bill have to be left to one side.
I noticed that in his speech on this subject on May 11 the minister dealt with the problem of legislation and collective bargaining. In other words, he suggested and repeated today that matters such as vacations with pay might better be left to collective bargaining than be introduced by way of legislation. That is a standard argument when measures such as this are brought forward, and there is room for disagreement as to how much should be left to collective bargaining and how much should be enacted by parliament.
However, in this particular instance the idea of vacations with pay has become an

accepted condition of life fairly well across Canada. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the sponsor of the bill, pointed out that British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec all have legislation on this subject, and that New Brunswick has legislation on vacations with pay with a limited application. Hence when you look at the broad picture of Canada you find that 90 per cent, if not more, of the population has accepted the idea of legislation with regard to vacations with pay. I think that fact must be taken into account as an indication that public opinion is in favour -to the extent of 90 per cent of the population-of legislation rather than, as the minister suggests, leaving the matter to collective bargaining.
Then the hon. member for Hamilton West pointed out on May 11-and these are her words as reported in Hansard at page 3834- as follows:
. . . the virtue in the legislation is that it covers all workers, whether or not they are members of unions or negotiating groups. The main argument against leaving arrangements of this sort to negotiating bodies is that those workers who are not unionized are left out and do not enjoy the privileges which may be extended to those who belong to unions.
The minister has indicated that the 400,000 persons who come under federal jurisdiction in labour matters are highly unionized and to that extent, in his opinion, they are looked after in this regard. But I think there is great weight to the argument of the hon. member for Hamilton West when she says that those who are not in the unions and have not the advantage of collective bargaining should receive some consideration, and that this can be done through legislation.
I examined carefully the table which the minister filed on May 11. I checked that table with his statement as he was relating the facts in the table to the course of the argument. As his argument is set out in Hansard, the impression tends to be left that between 6 per cent and 7 per cent of the people under federal jurisdiction are not looked after in so far as vacations with pay are concerned. That happens to be set out in a paragraph by itself and naturally stands out, but it is a bit misleading when you look carefully at the table, because the table shows that over 50 per cent of the employees under federal jurisdiction do not get vacations with pay in the period of one or two years. They must wait for three years, five years or more than five years or else they do not get it at all.
Just recently the minister said that these workers were making-and these were his words-pretty rapid progress in achieving this desirable result of vacations with pay. I think
Industrial Relations
they are not making progress at all, or at least it is very slow progress when you look at that table and see that some of them must wait for five years before they become eligible for a vacation with pay.
Another argument advanced by the minister was that legislation authorizing, for example, one week's vacation with pay after a year's service might tend to put a brake on legislation in the various provinces or collective bargaining looking toward a greater period of vacation than now applies, and that federal legislation authorizing one week's vacation with pay after one year's service might tend to slow down some of these other proposals that are coming forward.
That argument deserves consideration, but I wonder whether it really is a brake on progress. Maybe on the other hand you could say-and I think you can say it with justification-that the general approval given by legislation is helpful to those who are wondering about what they should do with regard to vacations with pay; and if it is established by legislation that it is an accepted, normal practice, then those who are negotiating for better conditions with regard to this problem receive assistance. I therefore do not attach too much weight to the minister's argument with regard to the brake being applied by reason of legislation in this field.
I think this bill should be given second reading and be subjected to the scrutiny of the committee rather than be thrown out at this stage. It is the first time that a bill, in the detailed form required, has been brought before parliament. In other years the subject has been discussed by way of resolution, but on this occasion it has been formalized and the bill is now available for members to look at very closely. Consequently I think it should advance beyond this stage so it can be examined with great care in committee, where there is more opportunity for questions and answers to be exchanged and, of course, for amendments to be brought forward.
I think the general principle is sound, namely that there should be vacations with pay. That principle has been developed over a great many years. As the minister pointed out this afternoon, in the United States of America and in the United Kingdom the idea has been adopted. It is immaterial, for the purpose of what I am saying at the moment, whether it has been done by collective bargaining or by legislation. In these modern industrial states such as ours and the two I have mentioned it has become almost universal practice to provide vacations with pay.
The purpose behind that practice is sound. It is basically for health reasons. If the health of the population is sustained, the industrial


S106 HOUSE OF COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
Industrial Relations
strength of the nation is greater. In view of the fact that this practice has become accepted in this way over such a large area of Canada and in other progressive states, I think the time has come for parliament to consider this matter and, as the Leader of the Opposition suggested this afternoon, to accept the suggestion from the opposition side of the house. There is no harm in the government accepting good suggestions that come with such frequency from this side of the chamber, and this happens to be one of them.
I think the federal government should not be lagging in progressive matters. Sometimes the federal government, in moving forward ahead of some of the provinces, shows the way and gives the provinces a lead as to what might be done. In this particular instance I think federal legislation would be helpful to the provinces which perhaps have not yet seriously considered this question of vacations with pay. I see no objection to the parliament of Canada giving a lead to the provinces generally. It is done in other matters and I do not see why it cannot be done in this field. For these and other reasons that I might bring forward, I am prepared to support this bill.
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I for
one, in rising to support the bill that is before the house, would like to see a bill of this nature go before the industrial relations committee. I am quite sure, though I cannot recall him mentioning it, that the mover of the bill would have no objection to that course being followed. The hon. member informs me he so stated when he opened the discussion on second reading.
When this matter was discussed on May 11 the Minister of Labour set out in some detail the position he intended to take, which position he again summarized for the house this afternoon. I must say that I regret he was not sufficiently moved by the exhortation made earlier this afternoon by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that he might act a little more in the role of a visionary or a prophet by putting forward to his colleagues advances in labour and social legislation. Perhaps he does more of that behind the scenes than he does on the floor of the house. He may have noticed that we on this side were encouraged by his fairly forthright statement in respect to wages that are paid in the gold mining industry.
I would say that had he seen fit this afternoon to rise and state that he would be prepared to support the principle of this bill and have it go to the industrial relations committee for study, he would have received an even more vociferous round of applause from some of us over on this side of the house.
I must say that having looked over some of the remarks made on May 11 I find it difficult to call the line of reasoning which he sets forth there as "liberal". Rather it is much more the line of argument that has already been described, that this is a matter that should be left to be decided by the process of collective bargaining. I am going to read briefly from the minister's remarks, just to refresh the minds of hon. members. This is found on page 3838 of Hansard for May 11, 1956:
Where working conditions for a large proportion of employees in any jurisdiction are already established by collective bargaining, it could very well be that standardization through legislation is not desirable. When working conditions are left to collective bargaining there is the ability to inject into them a flexibility in determining standards which is lacking when any government introduces minimum standards. In some instances an increase in wages or salaries or an improvement in some one or more fringe benefits may be more acceptable to the employees than a longer paid vacation leave.
I may say, Mr. Speaker, that in relation to the subject matter of this bill, I found the latter part of the minister's argument to be rather specious. In the first instance the statistics he gave us on that occasion indicate that only 46-7 per cent of the employees who come under the jurisdiction of federal legislation in the field of labour now enjoy, through the collective bargaining process, the proposal that this bill makes. In my opinion he entirely disregards the fact that the people who do not enjoy that position, by and large, are those who certainly have not the bargaining power to secure the other fringe benefit to which he referred in the latter part of his statement.
I think the truth of what I am suggesting is demonstrated by the fact that the organized labour congress and the strongly organized unions, who have holiday provisions as good as or better than those the bill would provide, are the strongest advocates of the adoption of suitable minimum legislation in the field of annual holidays, as they are in other fields of labour legislation. They do not need it, but they recognize that there are large elements of the working force of this country who are not in a position to organize as effectively as they have organized and to win the conditions which they enjoy through collective bargaining.
Certainly I have never, at the large number of trade union conventions of various kinds which I have attended, heard the complaint that the provision of minimum standards by legislation reduced the flexibility of the trade union movement in its bargaining position. I do not know from what source I have heard that argument except
TMr. Churchill.]

from the conservative-minded Minister of Labour, or should I say a Minister of Labour expressing a rather conservative attitude on behalf of the government. I feel that even now, in spite of what the Minister of Labour has already stated, he might consider the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre that this bill be allowed to proceed past second reading and go to the standing committee on industrial relations for detailed study.
At this point I should like to appeal to some of my colleagues on the other side of the house who come from British Columbia to express their personal views on this subject matter. I remember being rather delighted on one occasion, I am not sure whether it was last session or the session before, when a bill affecting the rights of labour was introduced by my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and all the British Columbia members on the other side of the house rose in support of that bill. I am quite sure they could have a great leavening effect upon the conservative position which the minister has taken if they would get up and extol the virtues of the legislative provisions for annual holidays which we have enjoyed in British Columbia for a good many years. I am sure if they got up they would say this legislation was introduced by a government in which the Liberal party comprised certainly the largest element.
I am sure they would confirm what I have been saying. This matter is so generally accepted in British Columbia at the present time that the provision which was put through the legislature at the last session in Victoria created very little stir. In my opinion it was thrown in at the tag end of the session in Victoria as something of a sop to the labour movement of British Columbia because of the fact that every other demand that organized labour had been making in British Columbia had met a flat refusal by the administration there. Nevertheless I will say that, as far as I am aware, from no political quarter in British Columbia was any objection whatsoever raised to the fact that next year our holidays with pay act will include this provision of two weeks instead of one week of annual holidays with pay.
I do not think there is a great deal more that I can usefully add to the discussion that has taken place, Mr. Speaker, except perhaps to say in closing that to my mind this is one of the subjects which is almost self-evident as a suitable field for legislation in this era in which we live. Because of the pace of our modern industrial society it is becoming almost universally recognized in the minds of 67509-324
Industrial Relations
all people with any liberality in their minds at all that an annual holiday from the hectic pace of the society in which we live is as essential to the maintenance of a decent standard of living as food and clothing.
Apart from anything else, if we are going to take corrective measures to reduce the number of cases of people who break down under the strain of our society and who have to find protection, at heavy public expense in some instances, in various sorts of institutions which society provides, we have a responsibility to the people of Canada to reduce the incidence of that sort of thing by providing by legislation that every working person in this country will have the opportunity of at least one period of annual respite from his labours.


Elmore Philpott: Mr. Speaker, in response to the eloquent appeal of the hon. member for Comox-Albemi that some of us on this side express our opinions on this matter, perhaps I shall do some thinking out loud for a change and just say that sometimes some of us on this side find ourselves on the spot. I for one would certainly not speak or vote against any subject on which the government had taken a firm and final position, and certainly not on any matter of want of confidence. But, as the hon. member has pointed out, on these private bills we do enjoy a very wide measure of discretion.
I think there has been every encouragement from all ministers on this side, from the Prime Minister down, to private members to express their personal opinions. I believe hon. members know that on some occasions, even when the hon. member for Hamilton West was introducing a bill which I did not think was a particularly good bill, we have followed that line. I thought the hon. member for Hamilton West was trying to do what was the right thing, but I did not think her bill was a particularly good one; yet I both spoke for it and voted for it because I thought it was a step in the right direction.
I frankly confess I am not sure whether it is a good thing to try to do by legislation what all hon. members opposite have pointed out is being pretty well done already by the ordinary processes of collective bargaining. The hon. member who has just taken his seat has pointed out that in British Columbia, where we come from, this has no practical bearing at all for, as he has said, we have had for a good many years not only legislation but action as the result of collective bargaining which goes a good deal further than this proposed legislation goes.

Industrial Relations


Stanley Howard Knowles: Only with respect to employees under the jurisdiction of the provincial legislature.


Elmore Philpott: Of course, only with respect to employees under provincial legislation. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre knows that they are the overwhelming majority and this would apply simply to a small minority. As the hon. member for Comox-Alberni pointed out, the great labour organizations of Canada, the new amalgamated labour organization which is so powerful and of which we all have such great hopes, and which we think will contribute much to this country, even though their members will not benefit in any great way from the legislation proposed, they have given it their moral support.
Contrary to what my hon. friend has just suggested, I think some of the speeches which were made on May 11 had some pretty good points on the opposite side. It seems to me that some of the speeches at least tended to show that one of the weaknesses of this legislation might be this. We all know that when you pass legislation that legislation tends to set the floor, tends to become the standard. If one effect of the passage of the legislation is to minimize rights which it is said unorganized workers or unprotected workers have already won, then it seems to me that it is a bad thing to have the law.
It might be said that I am thinking out loud. I frankly confess that I would be better pleased if our ministers and our government took a slightly different attitude on some of these welfare proposals that come up from time to time. I will frankly mention things like the check-off, and holidays with pay, and I could mention two or three others. I know very well the general argument is that these things are already being looked after by the collective bargaining process, or by provincial legislation, and therefore there is no particular need for us to have federal action along that line. But the federal government has a responsibility to help to set the pace in these things from time to time, and even its moral effect can be important in that regard.
As the hon. member for Comox-Alberni pointed out, during the long life of the Liberal regime in British Columbia, in which we had a very enlightened minister of labour even in the days when it became a coalition government, the attitude we took was quite different from the attitude that is sometimes expressed in this house. Our attitude was this. We felt that harmonious relations between employers and employees were in the interest of the whole country. We know

that in most cases disputes between the two branches of industry centre on wages and hours. We know there is another category of dispute which concerns what we might call fringe benefits. I think this is one of the things that would be included in that category. We also know that there is one other great category of labour disputes. In fact some of the most damaging labour disputes we have ever had in Canada were in a different category altogether; that is the category of whether unions have the right to organize and be recognized legally after they have signed up 51 per cent of the workers.
I know there are many hon. members who have been in this house a lot longer than I, but I do not think there are many who remember more of the history of the improvement in general labour laws and labour relations in this country than I. I am sometimes amazed and greatly encouraged by the great improvement which has occurred even in my lifetime. I remember that when I first went to British Columbia about 20 years ago I went to a town, the name of which I shall not mention, to make a speech before the Canadian Club. An organizer for the mine union arrived in the town the same day I did, and within half an hour the brakes had been taken off his car and the car was allowed to run down a hill to be smashed to bits and pieces. At that time the whole atmosphere of labour relations in this country was in a most primitive and backward state compared to what it is now.
We know that chiefly as the result of an improved outlook on the part of the public, certainly in British Columbia, a great improvement has taken place. One of the reasons for improvement in that province was the enlightened legislation placed on the statute books by the minister of labour, who believed it was a good thing to take these matters out of the category of what were termed fringe benefits, certainly to take out of the category of controversy the right of a union to organize peaceably and be recognized by the employer and by the law if it could get 51 per cent of the workers.
We know that as a result of legislation introduced in British Columbia by a Liberal minister of labour that province set the pace for the entire Dominion of Canada. The labour laws which went into effect officially right across the country and which gave to the unions of this country the right to organize in peace and be recognized under the law dated from that enlightened legislation passed in British Columbia.
It seems to me that the attitude adopted by the British Columbia minister of labour has some slight bearing on this particular

case today. He thought it was better to grant these things by law than to have them fought over in the ordinary process of collective bargaining. He thought it was better to take these things entirely out of the realm of annual dispute and annual negotiation which would take place between the employer and the employee.
There is one other consideration that appeals to me in connection with this particular bill. Even though it does not do anything to protect those who are protected already, that is those who have the protection of a powerful trade union, it seems to me that the proposal would go a long way toward granting justice to the classes in the community which need protection the most, that is the young girl, the young man or perhaps the new immigrant who has come to this country and knows nothing about the way we operate, knows nothing about our trade unions and so on. This would give a certain protection by law to those people who do not have the support of powerful trade unions.
There is a negative side to this bill, in that it would tend to lower the general level of holidays to be granted, just as a floor price under butter tends to fix the price at that
15, 1956	5109
Industrial Relations
level. If a floor under holidays were set by the government, that would tend to become the general level. I think that has been true in connection with minimum wages covering the lower classes of workers. My thinking at this time is that on balance I do not see how I could vote against this legislation. I would certainly be in favour of voting for the legislation at least to the extent of sending it to the committee on industrial relations, where it could be examined.
On motion of Mr. Philpott the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: On Monday we shall take second reading of the amendment to the Navigable Waters Protection Act; second reading of the bill standing in my name to amend the Veterans Business and Professional Loans Act; then the resolution with respect to the Indian Act; then the house in committee on the Farm Improvement Loans Act, and then second reading of the Income Tax Act.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
67509 -3'24£
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 18, 1956