1960-12-09

CUBA-RESTRICTIONS ON STRATEGIC EXPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of the presence in our country of an official trade mission from Cuba. The question is, does the government propose to control in any way the export of strategic materials to that country?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in so far as strategic materials are concerned, the course to be followed will be that followed in other similar cases, namely that the strategic nature thereof shall at all times be taken into consideration.
I think I should add that the presence of a group from Cuba to which the hon. member refers does not mean that the Canadian government will fix or determine the volume of trade between Canada and that country, because Canada is not a state trading country. The opportunities for normal trade exist, and the outcome of the trade mission, subject of course to strategic materials, will depend on the decisions of individual Canadian businessmen and the prospective purchasers.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question arising out of the Prime Minister's reply to my question a moment ago. Is it the intention of the government to include Cuba in the list of countries to which export controls are applied in respect of strategic materials?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: There is no change contemplated with regard to export control at the present time, or to provide for other than the export controls which have been in existence in the past.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: In
view of newspaper reports to the effect that the premier of British Columbia has rejected
the offer of financial co-operation with the government of British Columbia in the development of the Columbia river basin in Canada, would the Secretary of State for External Affairs care to comment on these newspaper reports?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the
premier of British Columbia is quite a good horse trader. The statement, as reported in the Globe and Mail this morning, indicates that he is asking that the federal government take a second look at the problem. In addition, he has made some statements which are rather far of the mark.
For example, he is reported as saying that the federal government is trying to interfere in the development of British Columbia resources, and again that the federal government would be making a loan to the province of British Columbia.
The facts are that the federal government has offered to enter into a joint program with the province for the development of this self-liquidating project. This is the actual fact of the situation. Further, the federal government must make the treaty with the United States and, under that treaty, will be obliged to enter into a covenant to build various dams in British Columbia. This means that we shall be obliged to have an agreement between the federal government and the province of British Columbia which will bring about compliance with the terms of the treaty. In other words this is a three-party deal, with the federal government in the middle between the United States government and the province of British Columbia.
The Minister of Justice and the Minister of Agriculture and, I believe, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources are in Victoria now negotiating with ministers from the British Columbia government. I have no doubt that all these different factors will be given consideration at this conference. The meetings commenced yesterday and they are continuing today.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Notice of intention to ask this question was sent to his office yesterday. Is the minister aware of a proposal to have express freight

Inquiries of the Ministry shipments by rail from southwestern Ontario to western Canada go through the United States, thus by-passing northwestern Ontario? If so, can the minister assure the house that before such a proposal is approved the cities of Fort William and Port Arthur will be given an opportunity to study and appraise whether such a move would affect employment of railway workers?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: I am not aware of any such proposal, but I have made inquiries of the management of the C.N.R. and as soon as I have any information on the matter I shall be glad to communicate it to the house,



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Since housing contracts awarded in November, 1960 are down more than 25 per cent from November, 1959, will the government give immediate consideration to lowering the National Housing Act interest rate?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minisier of Public Works):: The government is considering all these matters in connection with housing at all times. Any time we have an announcement to make, Mr. Speaker, we will make it first to the house.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question arising out of the deterioration and the dangers of the situation in the Congo. It is this. Has the government considered requesting permission of the security council to participate in the debate on this matter now going on there, in view of our immediate and extensive interests in the Congo question and of our participation in UN operations there?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, a delegate from the Canadian delegation is actually sitting in at the security council meetings, but has not been participating.
I would like to point out to the Leader of the Opposition that Canada is a member of the 18-member advisory committee on the Congo because of the fact that we have quite a substantial number of troops in that country. There have been meetings of this
[Mr. Badanal.l

advisory committee almost every day. Therefore, we are closely in touch with the situation. But if all 18 members of that advisory committee asked to participate in the deliberations of the security council, the house will understand how impossible it would be to make any progress.
I think the Leader of the Opposition can be assured that Canada has been keeping very closely in touch with this situation and is doing so now. Canada will do everything she can to keep tempers from getting too high and having this very difficult situation become even more serious than it is at the present time. Throughout we have tried to exercise a moderating influence, and I think we have had considerable success in this effort.



VOCATIONAL TRAINING


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, December 7, consideration of the motion of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) for the second reading of Bill No. C-49, respecting technical and vocational training assistance.
Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, this bill before us today has been received, I am sure, with rather mixed feelings. Certainly I must confess that my own feelings on this bill are rather mixed. Basically and in general the bill is quite a good one, but I think one of the difficulties is that this bill has been very badly misrepresented both to the public and to this house.
While the bill is a good one basically, I believe this house and this country as a whole were expecting something quite different. We all know that for many, many months, and in fact over a period of two or three years, this government has refused or failed to admit that there was such a thing as an unemployment problem in this country. We are very happy to see that has changed and that the government has Anally admitted that there is such a problem. This is an improvement, and we are very glad to see it. But unfortunately there has been an attempt to pass off this bill as a solution to the unemployment problem that we face. I think we will And, on examination of this bill, that it is no such thing. I think this is rather unfortunate; I think it is unfair to the bill, it is unfair to the government and it is unfair to the people of Canada.
This bill is a step in the right direction In fact, Mr. Speaker, I might say that s good description of this bill is that it would be a good C.C.F. bill under normal conditions. But certainly it does not and cannot meet the emergency we have facing us at the

present time. I think the minister and the government realize this. I think this is an admission we find in this bill in clause 4, subparagraph (c), which refers to a 25 per cent bonus, in its aggregate, payment by the federal government which will apply:
-for the purpose of providing a technical and vocational training program for unemployed persons-
That is after March 31, 1963. This is a tacit admission by the government that it has no cure for this problem, that it expects it to continue; and that is why at this time the house is being asked to take action to prepare for the conditions we shall have to meet by 1963. I think this is a serious admission by the government.
On second reading we are dealing, of course, with the principle of the bill. I do not want to discuss the various clauses at this time, because I know there will be an occasion to do that later. However, before we can understand the principle of this bill I believe many explanations will have to be made with regard to these various clauses.
For example, in clause 3(l)(b) we find provision for training persons in regular secondary schools. One wonders just how this would be arranged. Is the federal government intending to enter this field, a field which I believe, comes entirely under provincial jurisdiction? Is it the intention now to pay subsidies toward the teaching of the regular school curriculum in the provinces? Some explanation is necessary before we should be asked to vote on the principle here.
Again, in subclause (c) reference is made to the training of persons as teachers, supervisors or administrators. How is that going to work out? Is it to be something additional to the present system, or something parallel with it? What are the government plans, or in other words what is the principle of this bill in this respect? Again, further on in the clause reference is made to supervisors in industry. Is this something new? Another item is to be found in subclause (h). where reference is made to disabled persons. Persons are disabled for various reasons, some as a result of accidents in industry in respect of which they receive workmen's compensation. Does this apply in the circumstances envisaged in the bill? As I say, I think there are many explanations which the minister should make with regard to all these matters before we are asked to pass this bill in principle.
To carry this a step further, I think some explanation should be given, in particular, with regard to clause 4 in which we find the aggregate of the various portions of the cost to be paid by the federal government. In clause 4(2)(a) there is reference to 50 per cent of the capital expenditure incurred by the
Vocational Training
province on training facilities, and the next subclause (b) refers to 25 per cent of the capital expenditure incurred by the province on training facilities before the 1st day of April, 1963. The following subclause goes a little further than that, and I should like to read what it says:
(c) twenty five per cent of the capital expenditure incurred by the province after the 31st day of March, 1963 for the alteration or repair of premises and the purchase of machinery and equipment, under circumstances specified in the agreement, where such alterations, repairs and purchases are for the purpose of providing a technical and vocational training program for unemployed persons.
Is this entirely different from the first two items? Is there, for example, to be assistance only for the purchase of machinery and equipment after 1963? If it is not different, why is it listed separately in the clause. Here again I think an explanation should be given by the minister. Otherwise this provision would really be meaningless, because it would certainly fall in the category of pie in the sky by and by.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the hon. member is anticipating the debate which will be possible in the committee stage. The principle of the bill is a contribution to the cost of the various forms of technical and vocational education but the details, percentages and specific objectives are more properly discussed when they come before the committee, except in so far as general comparisons can be made and it is necessary to refer to details for that purpose. It seems to me the hon. member is getting into a rather detailed examination of the bill on second reading.


Murdo William Martin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When I started out I mentioned that I felt required to refer to specific clauses, hut only as they apply to the principle of the bill. We are now asked to pass a bill in principle. Before we can take an intelligent decision I think we must have some explanation of what are the principles involved in these various clauses.
If I may continue for a moment with regard to clause 8, I believe it introduces an entirely new principle in this country. This, of course, refers to technical training of members of the armed forces. Is the Minister of Labour going to take over this type of training? Is the government going to institute parallel training? I believe this is a vital factor in regard to the principle of the bill.
The next point I want to deal with is in my opinion the most serious of all. You have to be something of a bloodhound to trace it throughout the various twists and turns. I refer hon. members to page 3, subclause (b) (ii) of clause 3, referring to technical and

Vocational Training
vocational training programs of the type described in paragraphs (c) to (h) of subclause (1). Turning back to that reference in the bill we find that it refers to clause 8. Following that diligently through we find it refers to the training of any person serving in the naval, army or air forces of Canada.
In reading the balance of the clause we find the principle involved. Referring to the contributions payable it is provided that 100 per cent will be paid-we have always paid that amount-and then it goes on to say "or such lesser percentage thereof as may be specified in the agreement". That is certainly a brand new principle. It appears to be an attempt by the federal government to shove off on the provinces through various agreements that will be made the responsibility of technical training for our armed forces.
We have seen the Prime Minister trying to shove off on the provinces the responsibility for income tax. We cannot help wondering if this is part of an over-all pattern that is developing in the country.
I believe this is an important principle. On the face of it this appears to be an innocent clause, but my experience in dealing with agreements, contracts and negotiations suggests that the innocent clauses are the ones to which the most attention should be paid.
I believe there are three main weaknesses in this bill, the first of which was dealt with in part by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) when he spoke the day before yesterday. This bill, like so many others introduced by this government, unfortunately places the provinces in a position where those which need assistance most can afford it least; those which have the greatest need for this assistance are the ones least able to take advantage of it.
The second and I think the biggest weakness is that despite the search I have made of the bill from beginning to end there is no apparent provision for the families of the unemployed to enable them to take advantage of this training if and when it is set up. It is not enough to provide facilities. We have university facilities in this country today and have had for many years, but unfortunately not enough of our people are able to take advantage of them. According to the last figures I saw, seven people are going to university for every 1,000 pupils who started elementary school. It is not going to do much good to set up technical training schools across the country if we do not have the pupils to attend these schools. We solve nothing.
In my view this might be a good bill to prevent a crisis at some future date, but I

should like to reiterate that we have a crisis on our hands now and now is the time when we should be meeting it. This bill is certainly not the answer to meet the crisis at the present time.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few words to say on Bill No. C-49. I wish to congratulate the minister first on bringing in the bill because of the training that will be given many young people who otherwise would only swell the ranks of the unemployed and, second, for spearheading this movement and for the payment of 75 percent of the cost of training these young people. No one can argue against the bill in a country like Canada. As a matter of fact I am sure the minister must have been embarrassed over and over again as praise was heaped upon him for introducing the bill.
It has been stated that 40 per cent of our unemployed are under 24 years of age. This legislation will cut right into that age group of unemployed young people, many of whom are still capable of being trained and should still be in school. The bill will allow them to acquire the skills and training that they need in order to become usefully employed.
I wish to bring to the attention of hon. members a press release concerning a report by the Department of Labour which was issued after a recent meeting of the apprenticeship training advisory committee. The report emphasizes that there are not enough apprentices being trained at the present time to meet either normal losses in industry through retirement or to replace those who are upgraded and so on, let alone to provide for the future needs of this country.
I wish to refer, Mr. Speaker, to a firm that came to Midland in 1952, a firm that we are very proud to have in my riding of Simcoe East. I refer to the Ernest Leitz company. Guenther Leitz came to Canada, established the firm there and became its first president. Basically they wished to do lens grinding and manufacture cameras, and the firm looked forward to the time when they could manufacture nearly all the camera parts in Canada except very special parts. Primarily what they wanted to do was to train young Canadians to do the lens grinding so that after a period of time there would be six skilled Canadian workers to every skilled German. The remainder of the German employees would return to the parent firm in Germany.
I wish to quote from the article in Saturday Night of December 10, 1960, to show just how well the plan has worked out:
The scheme to train Canadian youngsters in this exacting but highly paid trade has failed miserably. According to Walter Kluck, who is in charge of sales and finance, the attitude of young Canadians is such that "they simply do not wish to spend

about three years of their time learning a highly skilled trade which would ultimately enable them to earn very good money. They started here with good intentions, high hopes, and ambition, but when summer came the lure of more pay for transient jobs took them away and the training was wasted."
It was not for want of courage and determination on the part of the German firm, nor from lack of co-operation from the Ontario department of labour which, as long ago as 1956, expressed great interest in what was happening in the Leitz firm and lent its support to the creation of a set of standards to govern the requirements in the province for skilled precision optical workers.
Guenther Leitz, the president of the Canadian firm, has said that "in Germany apprentices start at the age of 14 to learn a skilled trade, but the educational system in Canada precludes young people from starting to learn a trade until 16 or later, by which time they tend to be attracted by higher rates of pay elsewhere-which are immediate but not long term."
As a specific example of these youngsters, Walter Bauer quotes one young man who stayed with the company three years and had only six months to go to become a skilled precision worker but threw it up and left when he found that he was not making as much money as a man who had been with the firm for over twenty years.
The Leitz people, and many other firms, wish that the provincial and federal governments would really do something about apprenticeship instead of talking about it. Perhaps there should be a system, as there once was, whereby the trainee enters into a binding contract. After all, the company is teaching him skills which will be of great financial value to him all through his life. But no company has any such guarantee now . . .
I wanted to refer to that to suggest that perhaps we should change our educational system enough so that young people could start apprenticeship training at the age of 14. Perhaps some system should be worked out whereby, if they have not enough basic education at the age of 14, they could take not only their apprenticeship training but also some of their basic studies. There would have to be some changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act to meet these requirements. There would also have to be some exemptions under the income tax law.
Perhaps this might solve the problem, because there does not appear to be any great number in Canada who are qualifying through apprenticeship training. This is not a problem of today, Mr. Speaker. This condition has existed since long before 1950. Over the years we have been bringing skilled workers from Great Britain, Germany and other countries in Europe. If we had been watching we would have known that these fields were drying up. As we watched Germany become a great industrial giant again, and as we watched Great Britain and Europe rise from the ashes of decadence and destruction to the position they now occupy, we should have known that this situation would be facing us and we should have been training apprentices to do the necessary skilled work.
Vocational Training
In order to prove this statement I think all we have to do is look at the facts in the labour field. Of those who have not finished their primary education we find that 19 per cent are unemployed. We also find that 8 per cent of those who finished their primary education are unemployed, while in the case of those who completed their primary and secondary education the number of unemployed is just about one third that figure. I think that points out to us the necessity of seeing that our young people are educated. In my view the manufacturer should be protected to some extent by having the apprentice agree to finish his training, and in return the manufacturer would agree to give such training that when the young apprentice had finished he would have the necessary experience to engage in industry anywhere in Canada in whatever line he had been trained.
Surely the thinking that has built up over the years must be changed. The young people must be encouraged to enter those fields that will not only be very rewarding for them but also very productive for the state. This is a very necessary step for Canada to take. The old idea, as I have said, of importing key workers in an industry has now gone. The policy of the past government has dried up. There are no more key workers obtainable from industrial Germany and Europe. We have now approximately 250,000 young people coming into the labour market every year. These young people must be looked after. Our young people must be trained so they are equal to the best in the world. Nothing short of this is good enough. Canada must reach the heights and the destiny that the fathers of confederation predicted for her.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the hon. member permit a question? I was rather startled at something I thought I heard him say. Did he say that Great Britain rose from the ashes of decadence?


Philip Bernard Rynard: Decadence and destruction.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Decadence? Surely it was from the ashes of glory.


Philip Bernard Rynard: My hon. friend is playing with words. Any country that was destroyed to the extent she was is decadent.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Decadent? You do not understand the English language.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope this private debate could go on at another time.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I was referring to the industrial, not the moral, aspect and my hon. friend has, perhaps, not grasped the intent of the words.

Vocational Training


Mr. H. M. Batten (Humber-Sl. George's):: stand to support the principle of this bill. Bill No. C-49, which we have before us, is one of the measures introduced by the government to combat the economic emergency which we now have in this country. I say this because of the statement made by the Prime Minister in his broadcast of December 21, in which he said that the plans were already made and would be presented in detail at the next session of parliament. He was referring to unemployment. Naturally, he said, "I cannot say what those plans are in connection with those matters which will require the approval of parliament, but I can assure you they will be based on a current and realistic appraisal of the unemployment problem".
The Minister of Labour, in introducing the bill on technical vocational training said, as recorded on page 231 of Hansard for November 25, I960:
Mr. Chairman, this resolution introduces legislation to stimulate technical and vocational training and broaden its scope throughout Canada. It is designed to undergird the government's program to increase employment and foster national development.
I support the principle of this bill, Mr. Speaker, for a number of reasons; first, because it is a measure which in the long term will tend each year to eliminate one of the greatest causes of unemployment which we have in this country today. I support it, too, because I think it will broaden the educational service which is now being given to Canadian youth. I further support the measure because I think it will increase the number of trained personnel, whether the personnel concerned are employed or unemployed at the moment.
Plowever, sir, there are some considerations in connection with this bill about which I am not very clear, and I hope when we get to the committee stage the minister will be able to give us some clarification. I recognize, of course, that in talking about this particular type of bill we are probably not able to get all the answers we would like to have, for the simple reason that the arrangements which will be made by the provinces should be more properly discussed by the provincial governments than by the federal government. While those of us who have some idea as to what we would like to have in a technical and vocational scheme of education would like to have the thing spelled out in the bill, still I say it is more properly the concern of the provincial governments.
I think we have to face the fact that we do have in this country a changing pattern of unemployment. I think at the moment we have a hard core of unemployment that is not similar at all to the unemployment we have been accustomed to in years gone by.

Any attempt which is made by the government to ease the present unemployment problem must be based on the fact that the unemployment problem is a changing one.
I contend, Mr. Speaker, that this is not only a problem for government but is also a problem for industry. I think it is a problem for the educational departments, and I certainly think it is a problem for the Canadian people as a whole. I say this problem is one that must be faced by a great many sectors of the Canadian population. I think it is the government's responsibility to give the proper lead in providing the services that are required. In these days we hear the statement that the cause of our unemployment is the fact that there are not enough jobs provided to meet the demand. I think there is a lot of truth in that statement, Mr. Speaker, but I also think the statement leaves a wrong impression in some instances, because it is my considered opinion that we not only have to provide more jobs for young Canadians but we have to change the nature of the demand.
Here, I think, is the importance of the measure before us. If we are going to allow young Canadians to enter the labour force and demand jobs that do not require skills, then we are allowing a type of labour force to be built up in this country which in the years ahead will be of great proportions. I say that while it is true we have to find more jobs for our Canadian people in order to meet the demand of labour, we also have to change the nature of the demand This, I think, is the importance of this bill. I hope that when the bill is implemented and the provinces have taken advantage of the provisions which are included in it, in the years that lie ahead we will be able to show that the demand for labour has changed and young Canadians are able to take advantage of the types of training that are being offered.
I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that in the long run automation will make fewer jobs in this country. In the short run that may be true, but I do believe that automation will make more jobs for those who are prepared to take them. If we are going to continue in the years ahead to have somewhere between 175,000 and 220,000 young people come out of our high schools and allow the majority of these students to be forced into the unskilled labour market, then I think we must also accept the fact we will have a large amount of continuing unemployment for some time.
I think we live in a country in which there has been a gradual transition to the manufacturing and industrial aspects of our economy. If this is true, as I think it is, then in order to have people take their places in that

type of employment they must be trained to do the jobs that are required to be done. Nature, of course, has decided that there are those who, in their educational endeavours, will go through high school and on to university. Nature has also decreed that there are those who will be obliged to make their living through their special ability to employ certain skills. But those skills must be trained, and I believe those skills can be trained under the type of bill we have before us today.
We must also face the fact that we are living at a time when it seems there is more production with the employment of fewer people than was the case a few years ago. I believe that is a result of the last recession. If we look back over some of the statistics for employment and production, I think we shall find that more production is taking place with the employment of fewer people. The manufacturing industry is an interesting case. The employment index for the manufacturing industries in 1953 was 113, based on the 1949 figure of 100. In June of 1960 the employment index for the manufacturing industries was 112.1. Here we see that the manufacturing industries now are employing fewer people than they employed in the year 1953. However, when we look at the index for manufacturing production, we find that in 1953 the index for production was 147.4, yet in June, 1960 it was 157.8. In other words we are today producing larger quantities of goods and are using fewer people than we used in 1953.
The reason for this situation may not be easy to find. I suggest that it may be owing to the fact that some manufacturing concerns are operating in a more efficient manner. Again, other manufacturers have employed all the devices of automation which they can use in their industrial plants. But whatever the reason, we must face the fact that an increase in production does not necessarily provide a proportionate increase in the number of people employed. I therefore think it is necessary to train young people not only to take their places in the industries we have at the moment but also to take their places in industries which may be developed in the years that lie immediately ahead.
We are going to have a tremendous increase in the labour force within the next five or ten years. The possibility of the Canadian economy employing those young people will depend largely on the skills they have to offer. We know that today too many of our young people are leaving school at too early an age. When the Minister of Labour was introducing the resolution he made some comments in this regard, and I thought he put his finger on the real nerve end of the problem. We have too many young people leaving school at too
Vocational Training
early an age, with too little formal education, and having nothing to offer an employer who is going to pay the monthly cheque.
Suppose a young lad comes out of school at grade VIII or grade IX, goes up to a prospective employer and asks for a job. The employer says, "Yes, I can give you a job", at $150, $200 or $250 a month, as the case may be, "but what have you to offer me in return?" I think this is the question that every young lad coming out of school and looking for a job must answer. He must be able to go to a prospective employer looking for a job and, in return for the renumeration which he is to receive, must be able to offer something to his employer. In this day and age I do not think he can offer to his employer the things which can be expected unless he has a good formal education and some training in the field in which he wants to work.
Possibly part of the reason some of our young people are leaving school too early is that our schools are not offering those subjects which are interesting to the pupils concerned. I have had some experience in this field. In a large high school in which I worked for a number of years, we had some students who left before graduation. We had other students who failed in the final examinations. One of the things that always bothered me was that I thought a large percentage of those students failed not because they did not have the ability to reach certain standards of training, but because the school failed to offer them training in the things they would like to do.
In saying that, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I am not a proponent of progressive education. However, I believe that the schools of our country should offer to our boys and girls training in the fields in which they and their guidance counsellors feel they have some capability. I know that many young lads who fail in mathematics, for example, would have a great deal more interest in the subject if they were going to an institution where the importance of mathematics in relation to mechanics-if the young lad wishes to take mechanics-was demonstrated. If the relation between mathematics and mechanics was shown to the young lad and he had an opportunity to get some training in mechanics, I have no doubt in the world that he would be much more interested in mathematics.
I therefore say again, Mr. Speaker, that maybe one of the reasons many of our young people leave school too early is that our schools are not offering the type of training which these young lads would like to have. Others, of course, leave for much different reasons. I think maybe we have reached the time in this country when educational authorities should sit down together with

Vocational Training
parents and discuss this matter in a thorough manner. I might also say that I believe we have in this country a large number of people who, even after they have left school, still have a good deal of time to give to some extra training, for example to go to night classes or take advantage of whatever opportunities are available.
I was interested the other day in reading a little pamphlet put out by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. This is the issue of November, 1960. It gives a table showing the number of hours worked annually by workers in six different countries. This table was compiled by the international labour organization. It shows that in Switzerland the annual number of hours worked is 2,416 or, based on a 50-week year, 48.3 hours per week. In West Germany the figure is 2,296 hours or 49.5 hours per week. In Sweden the figure is 2,212 hours annually or 44.2 hours per week. In the United Kingdom the figure is 2,192 hours per year, with a weekly average of 43.8 hours. In the United States the figure is 1,984 hours per year, with a weekly average of 39.7 hours. In Canada the figure is 1,928 hours per year, or 38.6 hours per week.
The interesting thing here is that the average Canadian works almost 500 hours less annually than his counterpart in Sweden, or his weekly work time is short by from five to ten hours. I believe this is a good thing, Mr. Speaker. What I am trying to point out here is that since we are living in a country where a man is able to make a living by working a shorter number of hours every year, he has the time to partake of any extra educational services which may be offered to him. I believe we have many young men in this country who are employed today and who could profit greatly by being able to attend evening classes, technical school, vocational school, or even the regular classes, and improve their formal education.
I was also interested in the investigation that has been made in the other place. I refer particularly to a statement made by Mr. Denton, who was then before the committee of the other place. This is the statement which he made, as it is found on page 30 of the first report of the Senate committee on manpower and employment:
There is a strong relationship between education and unemployment. In February of this year the dominion bureau of statistics undertook a special survey of the educational attainments of persons without jobs in connection with its regular monthly sample survey of the labour force. The results were striking. The unemployment rates for people who did not complete primary school were more than twice the rates for people who completed primary school but did not complete secondary school, and six times the rates for people who completed secondary school. These results relate to a single survey at the seasonal

peak of unemployment, but there is every reason to believe that, broadly speaking, they represent a general situation, that although the rates vary from season to season and year to year, they are typically much higher among people with little education, and that the rates decline sharply as the number of years of schooling increases.
I believe this is a very significant statement. I think it is a statement that should be made all across this country so that employers, educational authorities and parents may give to it the really serious consideration it deserves. It has always been my opinion that the Canadian people have never spent enough money on education. These are days when we hear from cities, municipalities and all the provinces that they are unable to find the amount of money required to meet the educational demands being made on them. In the year 1959 Canada spent approximately $1J billion on education. This was 4.2 per cent of the gross national product.
When I was looking for some information to include in my remarks on this bill I tried to find the relation between the amount of money which Canada spends on education as compared to its gross national product, to compare it with the same figure for other countries. I was unable to obtain all the information that I had hoped for, but I would hope that the surveys which are now being made by the department and also the inquiry being made by a committee of the other place will make some effort to compare the amount of money being spent on education as compared with the gross national product in Canada, compared with similar figures for other countries.
While we spent $1J billion on education in Canada in the year 1959, a very small percentage of that was spent on technical education. Around $57 million was spent on technical education in Canada in 1959, or only 3.7 per cent of the total amount of money spent on education of all forms. I say again, Mr. Speaker, that we live in a country where I believe this amount is too small to produce the type of young Canadian this country is going to need within ten or fifteen years. I say this for the simple reason that we have a changing economy and we have, as I said before, a changing type of employment. There is something seriously wrong with this situation, and I believe it is the type of thing that is not going to melt away and is not going to be decreased unless it is attacked in a proper way with a proper knowledge of the problem.
In my own province we have been devoting a considerable proportion of the total expenditure of the provincial government to education. It has shown results. We have, too, a program for technical education which I hope will be able to show some real results

within the next few years. In my own home city of Corner Brook we have one of the finest apprenticeship programs in Canada in connection with the Bowater paper mills. I was in Corner Brook when this program was started some years ago. I have always had the greatest respect for it, and when I look now at the type of young man this scheme has been able to develop, I feel it has been most worth while. My only regret is that we have not been able to provide a similar service to a greater number of Newfoundlanders.
In my own home city, too, the association of university women is taking a real interest in technical and vocational education. Over the last year or two they have had a series of meetings in which they have tried to acquaint themselves very thoroughly with the problems of technical and vocational education. When they are in a position to make their report I think they will be able to make a substantial contribution to the thinking on technical and vocational education in Newfoundland.
Mr. Speaker, I believe one of the things we have to do here is build the type of building necessary for technical and vocational education. We have to produce the type of instructor who is well qualified, not only in terms of education but qualified also to be accepted by industry and by a number of professional institutes in Canada. We have to provide those courses in technical training which will engender public confidence in the scheme, because one of our difficulties with technical and vocational training in Canada is that somehow or other there is a feeling that this type of education is inferior to the type of education given, for example, in the professions.
I believe that if this problem is attacked in the proper way we can develop the proper attitude toward technical and vocational training. I think it is a problem that really needs some attention in this country today. Mention has been made during this debate of what is happening in Russia. We all agree that great advances are being made in Russian education along certain lines, but I would hope that a country like Canada would never be stampeded into developing a system of education that is loaded on the scientific side. I believe that a true system of education must be balanced to suit our needs at any one particular time. I think it should be flexible enough to produce the technologists and technicians that are required at any one time. But we must never lose sight of the fact that no democracy will ever be able to maintain itself without a true respect for the arts and humanities. I do
Vocational Training
hope that those who look at what is happening in Russia will never feel that we would sacrifice one side of the educational picture for the other.
On the other hand, we must face the fact that education must produce the trained personnel required. All hon. members will agree that one of the most important things about education is that it helps us to live our lives. It must also help us to make a living. I do not want to be irreverent when I say that one cannot live by bread alone. Nevertheless, it might well be remembered that bread is mentioned. While education helps us to live our life, it must also help us to make a living.
Finally, if we can take this theory of education and carry it to the Canadian people and get them to dignify technical and vocational training to the extent that they have dignified other types of education, then I think we shall have served the Canadian people well. There is one thing we must remember. Man is not only another link in the long chain of evolution; he is the very reason for its development.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Herman Maxwell Batten: By all means.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The hon. gentleman used an interesting phrase. He said, I believe, that he did not want to see education loaded on the scientific side. Did he mean by that statement that he did not wish to deny opportunities for technical education to those who did not want to take advantage of opportunities for academic education?


Herman Maxwell Batten: I do not think I meant quite that. I believe that scientific education should follow a certain line. The young people who receive education of that kind should also receive instruction in some of the arts and humanities as a balance. I think education which is loaded very heavily on the one side, in science, would not produce the results we would like to see. In Russia, for example, a large number of students undertake scientific training at the expense of the arts and humanities. It may be because of the opportunity, it may be because of social pressure or it may be because of political pressure, but I suggest there is one other reason; there is no ideology which can interfere with the conclusions of mathematics, of physics, of chemistry and the other sciences. I often wonder whether many of the Russian students who go for the study of science do so because it is the only intellectual field in which they can find freedom.


Mr. E. W. Brunsden (Medicine Haf):: Every parliament produces important legislation. Every session of every parliament produces

Vocational Training
important legislation. As one of those whose main role in this house is that of observer, may I say that in my humble opinion the legislation now before us is of paramount importance. This is because we are dealing here with human material; we are dealing with men, and perchance women, who in a few years will take over the leadership of industry, commerce, agriculture and government. I believe the government and the minister are to be sincerely commended for having introduced a bill of this type.
It is not my intention to repeat what has already been said in this house. The field has been very carefully covered. I should like to be specific with respect to one phase of vocational education, however, and the desire to do this was prompted in me the other day by the hon. member for York-Humber (Miss Aitken), who in the course of a very thoughtful address containing a number of valuable suggestions drew a picture of the transition which had taken place among the population from farms to cities in the last few years. She quoted figures showing the drift of our people from the farms into the larger centres, and she had some very responsible and helpful comments to make with respect to them.
My main interest is in agriculture, as you know, Mr. Speaker, and I am concerned about this drift from the farms in western Canada. It is not my wish to be regional in any recommendation I may make, but we do have a situation in western Canada where our young people, along with their fathers and mothers, are leaving the farms and endeavouring to find employment In industry and commerce in the centres of the prairie provinces. Alongside this situation there is the development, by the inspiration of this government and by the activities of the provinces, in the field of irrigation. We are changing the type of agriculture in western Canada by the use of water from our snowshed on the east side of the Rockies, removing from agriculture the hazards that lie in the path of a dryland operator who may have experienced drought or who may have found his water supply totally insufficient for the successful production of livestock.
Thus when we get into this vocational training program I do think a great opportunity presents itself to train some of our young farm people, not for work in industry or elsewhere but for work in their own industry of agriculture. We could render a great service not only to them but also to the country. Hon. members may ask what specific action can be taken with respect to vocational training in irrigation. Let me say in answer to that question that any type of farming in Canada today is a highly technical operation. That is the case in Ontario, in Quebec, in

the maritimes or in western Canada. The operation of an irrigated farm is particularly technical because it requires a knowledge of survey and of water application as well as the intricacies of the machines which are used in this particular field of agriculture.
Here my mind goes back to the days of the dark thirties when there was a need for taking up the slack with respect to a great many young people who were unemployed, and as a result of the action of the government of that day in co-operation with the western provinces, youth training centres were established. I had the privilege in those days of playing a small part in connection with those schools. I can see today in my neighbourhood and in other neighbourhoods in the province of Alberta the far-reaching effect and value of those youth training centres. It may sound very casual when I say we taught them blacksmithing, carpentry and something about crop sequence and community life, but all these things go to make up the building of a country. Were it necessary I could quote chapter and verse to show where this councillor, this member of the legislature, this member of parliament, this leader is a product of a youth training centre in the province of Alberta during the thirties.
In the province of Saskatchewan we are spending a lot of money on the South Saskatchewan dam. We are pouring millions of dollars into irrigation developments in southern Alberta. Yet there is no centre in Canada where a young person having the desire to do so may go in order to become a skilled ir-rigationist. So I say to the minister that those who will have to formulate the actual plans as a result of this legislation can render a great service and be of great value not only to this generation but to the nation if they will take cognizance of the fact that this remarkable transformation of western agriculture as a result of these vast irrigation projects is worthy of some attention.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour, after listening to the comments from all sides of the house, must be getting a swelled head; because his greatest critic said nothing, in effect, but that this is a dandy bill which hon. members of his party would support. Then he introduced the usual "but" and brought out a few points that he would probably describe as criticism, differences of opinion, etc. Even the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) in his great tirade did not have too much criticism to offer, as you will see if you examine his speech closely.
However, there is another reason why the minister might well get a swelled head, and

that is because of the nature and quality of the speeches that have been made on all sides of the house. A fine example this morning was the speech made by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's (Mr. Batten). The hon. member made a factual speech, and a lot of work must have gone into its preparation. If anything, it bears out the need for a measure such as the bill presently before us. I liked the way the hon. member developed his speech and tied in all the ends. To those hon. members of the house who glance over Hansard occasionally I commend the reading of his speech.
It has been said before that Bill No. C-49 is designed to give a stimulus to technical and vocational training throughout Canada. The bill is another government measure brought forward during this session in an effort to combat unemployment. This is an effort in which we all must co-operate, but I would go a step further and say that we should get rid of the word "unemployment" and say instead that this is another measure introduced for the purposes of assisting employment in Canada. To my mind this is a much more constructive way of approaching the subject.
After examining the various measures that have come forward this session I am appreciative of the fact that the object of this bill is to look ahead and on a short term and long term basis combat the ever-growing unemployment situation. The fact that we have an unemployment problem today is not a situation unique to this government. We in Canada have had to face an unemployment problem throughout the years, and we will probably be faced with this problem in varying degrees for many years to come. It is something with which all have to grapple.
This bill seeks provincial co-operation and financially we are upping the ante, as it were, because the federal government is increasing its contribution, which is a welcome step. I do not want to go too much into detail in discussing the various aspects of the bill but will content myself with throwing out one thought which I believe has been expressed in one way or another by other hon. members who have spoken, principally by the hon. members for Simcoe East, York-Humber and one or two others. The idea I wish to contribute is that the whole country must train and develop itself in just a slightly different way in relation to the question of employment.
What I should like to see is an all out effort on a national scale to prove to all boys and girls, men and women, that it is a mistake to leave school unless it is absolutely necessary, and that to remain in
Vocational Training
school, on the other hand, is to provide for oneself a form of job insurance.
I am wondering if it would be difficult to sell this idea to all young Canadians. It certainly should not be. The problem has been aggravated by the fact that youngsters were able to leave school and take unskilled jobs at fairly good pay. Most of those who left school during the last five years felt they were launched on a career, but as we all know times have changed and there has been an altered picture in the manpower demand.
Look at the employment and unemployment figures. I believe they hold a rather grim lesson. All of us should study and examine these figures. Boys and girls in school and their parents should be aware of these figures from month to month and know exactly what they mean. I refer, of course, to the employment and unemployment figures supplied each month in Canada. The latest figures I have are for October, 1960 broken down into five-year age groups, as
follows:	No. of
Age group	unemployed
14-19 			 72,000
20-24 			 61,000
25-34 			 71,000
35-44 			 69,000
		 50,000
55-64 			 36,000
65 up 			 9,000
It is interesting to note that there are only 560,000 employed in the 14-19 age group as compared with 1,441,000 employed in the 25-34 age group. The thing that strikes me about these figures is that there are more unemployed in the age group 14-19 than in any other five-year age group. When you consider the actual numbers who are employed in this group this is out of all proportion. I believe it points up a moral. If you have a trade and are a skilled worker there is not so much chance of your being unemployed. I wish to repeat that the best form of job insurance is education and we must sell this idea to our young people. Once this is accomplished we must make the means of education available to our young people, as this government is doing through the measure before us.
Various hon. members who have participated in this debate have suggested that this training should perhaps start at an earlier age, and I think I am in agreement with that idea. They have a fine educational system in England, where at the tender age of approximately 11 years the students are segregated according to ability. These are not hard and fast rulings and the system is flexible. A student who has been directed

Vocational Training
to vocational training will perhaps two years later show an aptitude for academic training and be redirected in that field. I believe it would be worthwhile to introduce a similar concept in the Canadian educational system.
Another point comes to my mind. The federal government will participate very heavily in the further education of unemployed persons. The age at which one may leave school varies from province to province; in some it is age 14 and in others age 16. It seems to me rather ridiculous that the federal government should pay for what in effect are unemployed children in the 14-16 age group when they should be in school and should not have left unless for a very valid reason. So far as those aged 14, 15 or 16 are concerned, might it not be a good idea for the government to step in and say, "All right, we will subsidize"-I hate to use the word "subsidize" but I suppose it is one way of putting my point across-"education at that level so that these young boys and girls, 14, 15 or 16, will not leave school but will receive further training, technical or otherwise". They would then remain in school and not enter the employment field until such time as they would have had further training in a skill and had become tradesmen of one sort or another.
With federal participation being boosted, I can see no reason at all why the provinces will not grab at this idea and go ahead with the building of more schools of the type required. In this regard I feel that in the province of British Columbia there is need to expand considerably and, coming from the Okanagan valley, I should like to see a technical or trade school constructed there. Where it should be located would be a matter for further study.
(Translation) :


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieile-L'Assompiion-Monlcalm):: Mr. Speaker, since this session started, we have heard many a touching and whining speech from opposition members with regard to the labour problem.
I need hardly refer the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) who is an expert in the matter, and other members like the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl) and the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Meu-nier), to a statement of the latter who, as we may see on page 593 of the official record for December 7, 1960, said among other things:
The province of Quebec, which has more unemployed people than any other province-
I strongly advise him, as I would also strongly advise the hon. members for Laurier and Cartier, to read once more the following statement of their leader, the Hon. Rene

Hamel, which was published in La Presse of November 23, 1960. This is what he said: The ratio of unemployed people is decreasing in Quebec.
And I need hardly remind the hon. members for Laurier, for Papineau and for Cartier, and others, to look once more at this paragraph in an open letter from a taxpayer of Drummond South, in the province of Quebec, which was printed in La Presse of September 14, 1960:
The Liberals are shedding tears over the unemployed. Why did they not shed any when there were 500,000 unemployed the last year they were in power?
I also strongly advise the hon. member for Laurier and his friends to read a few most interesting paragraphs of a letter bearing the signature of their fellow member and friend, the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. A. Brassard), and which may be found in La Presse of August 20, 1959. I quote from that letter:
righting unemployment is the responsibility of both the ruling and the ruled, of both the management and the unions; it is the concern of public men and businessmen, of manufacturers and bankers. In a word, each and every one has the duty to co-operate constructively towards the gradual disappearance of that social plague while refraining from playing on people's feelings and emotions.
A little further on he says:
All attempt at promoting some political cause or ideology at the expense of those who are suffering distress from unemployment should be strictly avoided. There are too many demagogues and politicians whose first and foremost ambition is to sell themselves and blow their own horns by taking advantage of the least social disorder which to them is only an accident, or one more opportunity in the well planned pursuit of their own political aims.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is at liberty, of course, to call in opinion by reading brief quotations, but I think they ought to relate to the bill. I could see no connection between what the hon. member was reading and the bill before the house. (Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker.
I would also point out that the hon. member for Laurier should follow the advice contained in that open letter from his distinguished colleague, the member for Lapointe: "A little less gloom and demagogy . . . less exploitation of popular prejudice".
I wish to commend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) for submitting to the house a measure which is so constructive and so beneficial to every Canadian.
Do I need to point out that the province of Quebec has not fallen behind in the field of training? For the past few years, it has

had over eight large technical schools, 35 arts and crafts schools, and a great many schools for specialized training. In that regard, the province of Quebec is comparatively ahead of the other provinces of Canada.
May I recall that the province of Quebec has approximately 13 training centres for the building trades, including one in Joliette, while there are only one or two in Ontario.
The province of Quebec supplies two thirds of the qualified tradesmen in Canada. May I refer here to an article which appeared in Le Devoir for December 8, 1960, and contains a statement by Felix Guilbert, provincial vice president for Quebec of the Canadian Construction Association. I quote:
The C.C.A. vice president for Quebec also pointed out that Canada is meeting stiff competition from a certain number of other countries with respect to the relative scope and calibre of training programs. "It is a well known fact that, on a per capita basis, some European countries are spending up to ten times as much on training as does Canada. That is an important competition factor, and it is reflected on the recruitment of a body of skilled workers for the export industries. A large proportion of the people who are generally or seasonally unemployed are unskilled or semiskilled workers. We have commended the federal government for its decision to offer subsidies of 75 per cent on the construction of technical schools and training facilities and for offering similar subsidies to promote the training of unemployed people by the provincial administrations. No time should be wasted in developing our training facilities to meet the needs of our young people and adults who need retraining in order to find a new job or get into a new trade".
Mr. Speaker, before closing my remarks, I would again advise the hon. member for Laurier-who hopes to win over Quebec- and also his friends, to consider the following statement made by Mr. Jean David at a Liberal convention, as reported in La Presse for December 8, 1960, and I quote:
It seems, however, that respect for the individual is something the Liberals, as party members, have little use for.
Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly support the scheme put forward by the Minister of Labour.
(Text):


Mr. Nicholas Mandziulc (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, it must be pleasant to the ears of the Minister of Labour to hear such complimentary remarks not only from his colleagues but from members of the opposition. I wish to join with those who have already spoken in complimenting the minister and the government on introducing this bill, because in my opinion it is a measure which is going to go a long way in solving some of the problems about which we are so concerned today.
Vocational Training
I take exception to the remarks made by some members of the opposition in which they tried to scare us by talking about a crisis now. The government realizes that whatever this bill is intended to do, it is not all going to be done now. It is going to be done within a few years. This government is not invading the field of education, which is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. This government is prepared to subsidize and assist the provinces in establishing certain schools.
We have in the ranks of the unemployed young men and women who find it difficult to fit into any of the occupations or industries named in this bill. I refer to manufacturing, construction, commerce, fishing and agriculture. When a young man or woman completes high school in any of our provinces, he or she has an academic training which does not fit him or her for any of these jobs. These young people naturally are anxious to get into jobs where they can earn their own money, so they try to get positions in which they will not need to spend too much time learning how to operate, say, a lathe or some piece of machinery in a manufacturing establishment.
I am very pleased indeed, Mr. Speaker, to note that according to the interpretation section of this bill, it is intended to offer training facilities to men and women who intend to enter the field of agriculture. Coming from a farm constituency such as Marquette, I know from experience the difficulty my farmers have in obtaining farm labour-I am referring to those who can afford to hire farm labour-when springtime comes. They have approached the unemployment insurance offices in the province-the nearest one is at Brandon-but in spite of the fact that there will be a long list of unemployed who presumably have indicated by their applications that they are fit, ready and willing to take jobs, nobody comes out of this office to go on the farm. I personally know of half a dozen farmers near my town of Oakburn who complained about this as late as last July.
What is the reason, Mr. Speaker? Is it the wages the farmer is prepared to pay? No, I do not believe so. I believe the wages compare very well with the wages paid in other industries if you take into consideration the fact that board and lodging are included. The wages range anywhere from $150 to $175 per month for eight months of the year or until freeze up. The board supplied by our farm women, Mr. Speaker, compares with anything you can find in the city. They often mislay their can openers. When the farm table is laid for the family and the hired help, it is a sight to see. But in spite of that, sir,

Vocational Training
it is difficult to obtain farm labour. It is difficult to get young men who are without work to go out to the farm. Do you know why? I believe it is because they are afraid they are not capable of handling the farm machinery. Our agricultural industry has been mechanized to a great extent. Anyone operating farm implements must know how to use them, how to take care of them and how to take care of himself when he is using them.
Gone are the good old days. In the pioneer days when my father came out to this country, the farmer who hired him gave him an axe. The farmer cut one tree to show him how it was done, and my father learned that job right away. Anyone who came out to work for a farmer and was expected to milk cows was shown where he could pick up the stool and under which part of the cow he should sit. He was shown the four parts of the cow that provided the milk, shown how to squeeze, and the job was learned. It takes more than that to learn how to operate a milking machine, how to keep it clean and how to repair it if it does not run. It took no mental exertion or time to learn to harness a team of oxen. It did not take long to teach your hired man how to currycomb an outfit of horses, usually four. You had to get up at five o'clock in the morning to currycomb the horses, harness them, feed them and hook them on to a gang plow. It did not take long to show how to adjust a plow and raise the coulter, how to deepen the cut or how to get off in time if you happened to approach a stone. The same conditions applied to a seed drill or a simple binder drawn by oxen or horses. These things did not take long to learn. The most complicated part was threading the twine into the needle in case the threader lost the twine and that was easy.
Today, Mr. Speaker, the farm labourer is expected to know more than that. Any farmer who can afford to hire farm help cannot afford the time to teach the farm help. The farm labourer must know how to operate a tractor, and we have many different makes of tractors today. We have diesel tractors and gas tractors, and the farm labourer must know how to operate them and service them, as well as make minor adjustments instead of waiting for the farmer to come or running back to the farmhouse two or three miles away to get help. The farm labourer must be familiar with the bulldozer. The farm labourer must be familiar with the combine, which is an extremely complicated piece of machinery which cuts and threshes the grain. The farm labourer must be familiar with the farm truck. There is more to looking after a farm truck than there is to operating

an ordinary automobile. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but the farm labourer must be capable of operating electric tools in order to make temporary repairs when necessary. But above all he must be familiar enough with the machines to be able to take care of himself. There is danger to life and limb in almost every piece of machinery the farmer uses today.
I have not the slightest doubt, Mr. Speaker, that every one of us could learn to operate the old horse-drawn machines. Those of us who do not know how to operate the old horse-drawn or ox-drawn machines could learn to operate them in half a day. However, I greatly doubt that many of us who are not familiar with the farm machinery of today could learn to operate it in a month. What farmer wants to hire help he cannot trust with expensive farm machinery such as the tractor worth $7,000 or $8,000 or the $8,000 combine? What young man wishes to go on a farm when all this machinery is not familiar to him? He is afraid. I have said that the farmer has no time to teach a novice how to carry out his duties if he hires him.
There is another aspect of the matter. We want young men on the farm. We want young men who will start farming. They may be sons of teachers, ministers or small town merchants. They are not like the boys who were born on the farm and grew up there, and who served their apprenticeship with their fathers. How do we expect them to go into farming? No matter what inducement you offer them by way of loans or by way of extended credit, or even if they are financially able to start farming on their own, they are afraid to go through their apprenticeship on their own expensive machinery.
I personally know of young men in my constituency who love the soil and would love to go farming. What do they do? They find that agriculture is an unknown field to them. They find them barging into the cities and swelling the ranks of the unemployed; or if they get a job, they are hooked on to the dinner pail for life.
I am pleased to note that agriculture has been given some priority in this bill. It has been placed first in the interpretation section. As I have mentioned before, this government, including the Minister of Labour, hopes that the provinces will co-operate. I believe the provinces have a duty to help to solve the difficulties. I hope the whole ten provinces will take advantage of this wonderful opportunity to establish technical and vocational schools. I hope my native province of Manitoba, which I am proud to say is under an extremely progressive Conservative government-will take advantage of the opportunities afforded and will teach our young

men what a tractor is, what it is made up of, what makes it tick and how it should be serviced, and will give the same instruction about the combine, the swather, the milking machine, the bulldozer and every bit of machinery that is used on the farm. If they were armed with that knowledge I am satisfied there would be hundreds and hundreds of men who would be prepared to take farm employment. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that my farmers would be glad to pay good wages to men upon whom they could rely to look after that machinery, who would know how to operate it and how to take care of themselves.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Mr. Speaker, I will not take up very much more of the time of this house. When I called it one o'clock I had only one more aspect of this bill to discuss. I should probably tie it in with what I said before we adjourned, but that is pretty difficult after a heavy lunch. Talking of lunches, Mr. Speaker, out in the west on good farm land we are accustomed to lunches, but to us a lunch means a hunk of beef or pork and a thick slice of home-made bread. What you call lunch here, to us is dinner. What you call dinner, to us is supper and then some. So I am not going to tie it in with anything I said prior to one o'clock.
There is only one aspect of this bill to which I would like to draw the minister's attention, namely publicity. I am glad to see -I have mentioned this in the course of my few remarks-that there is a deadline, or an urgency is indicated and the date March, 1963 is set.
We also know that everyone is presumed to know the law. That might work in relation to prosecutions or proceedings in our courts, but not everyone will know what this bill purports to do. We should not depend on the press, because whatever this bill tends to do will probably appear in small print, unless the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) does something sensational, in which case he would make the headlines. Therefore I urge the Minister of Labour to transmit that urgency to the provincial governments to publicize this particular bill, just as he publicized the winter works program with the poster "Do it now". I think that had the desired results. I see some of my hon. friends smiling; I think they agree with me.
Vocational Training


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, could I explain. I was smiling because the hon. gentleman is wearing socialist colours.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I swiped that from my Liberal predecessor and in his honour I wear it from time to time. The hon. gentleman who just interrupted me wears a blue tie in honour of the Tories on this side of the house.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that if proper publicity is given to this bill it will have the desired results. You cannot do a thing without publicity, and it is the duty of the government and the department to give this publicity. I am sure that the young men who are interested in agriculture-and I am concerned with agriculture; at least, that was my theme this morning-will then find employment on the farms and will find an opportunity to start farming on their own.
If these trained men find employment on the farms the farmers will not be afraid to trust them with $20,000 or $30,000 worth of farm equipment. Farm equipment is expensive and must be looked after properly. I hope, therefore, that if this is done it will relieve the city fathers of many of our cities of the worry of this problem and the charge that our farm boys are leaving the farms and going into the cities looking for work.
I have spoken as I know thousands of farmers, and in particular those in my constituency, would speak if they had the opportunity. They will probably appreciate my speaking on their behalf in this way.


Mr. R. C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should first of all like to join with the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk) in saying just how much I feel this bill could do for agriculture and for those who are interested in joining that industry. I think the hon. member has performed a very excellent job in explaining the tremendous advances in methods of farming in this country. I am sure the farmers in my constituency will be very pleased with the attitude taken by this government in trying to promote the interest of young men in that industry.
Mr. Speaker, I intend to speak on a somewhat different aspect of this bill, in the main as it refers to the retraining of persons in new vocations. Coming from Nova Scotia I know the difficulties with which people are confronted when they find themselves unemployed through no fault of their own and their vocation destroyed.
It is a sad day in a man's life when he learns that the vocation in which he has been trained and in which he has spent the greater part of his life is no longer one in which he can usefully be employed. In this realistic legislation the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr)

Vocational Training
is trying to replace the frustration of this situation with hope for the future, and he is deserving of great praise for his efforts in this regard. Coming, as I do, from Nova Scotia and representing the constituency of Cumberland I am well aware of the frustration which many in my province have faced and are continuing to face in connection with this problem.
In the town of Springhill as a result of two tragic disasters in 1956 and 1958, the citizens saw the industry disappear upon which they had depended for generations, and with it the need for their highly skilled vocation. It is difficult for a person to comprehend just what happens to an individual when his life long vocation is taken from him and he is left in the later years of his life with nothing he can do except ordinary unskilled jobs.
There are two things that a highly skilled vocation gives to an individual. One is creative ability, together with an interest and pride in the work done, and the other is a higher standard of living than he could expect to obtain in a semi-skilled or unskilled position. Many of the people in my constituency have had to forego a relatively high standard of living in exchange for a standard of living at subsistence level. I do not think that I, personally, am able to appreciate just how difficult it must be to face such a situation. Certainly it is a great shock, especially to persons in the later years of their lives, to have to make these difficult changes.
It is not only the people of my constituency who have had to face these difficulties. In Pictou county this situation occurred at an earlier date and today all Nova Scotians are anxiously watching developments in connection with the proposed closure of mines in the area of Cape Breton which will produce the same unhappy results.
In this country of ours today we cannot afford the luxury of destroying the vocation of an individual without providing a suitable alternative in order to retain that individual as a contributing force in our society. In Springhill I have watched highly skilled miners who have given the best years of their lives to this vocation, and who have made a tremendous contribution to the overall stability of my constituency, become not only unemployed but, worse still, unemployable because of the lack of a suitable program which would allow them to be retrained and, thereby, to continue to be an asset to society. Today the demand is for highly educated and highly skilled personnel. If a person has either of these qualifications he is in demand no matter what age group he finds himself in, but a man who is highly skilled in a vocation which is no longer in demand finds

that his chances of employment are slim if he is over 40 years of age, while if he is over 50 years of age his chances of employment are almost negligible.
The situation in Springhill is still capable of solution if the unemployed are provided with an opportunity for retraining; retaining not just in a vocation which might provide an opening but in one for which the individual appears suited. Individuals applying for vocational training should be carefully screened to determine their aptitude for the positions available, thereby eliminating as far as possible any failures that might result after training. I have talked with a great many people in my constituency who have come to me on different occasions, and said, for instance, that they would like to receive training as meat cutters, or carpenters or plumbers. I do what I can for them and telephone the individual in charge of placing these people in vocational training schools. But I am told, for instance: Sorry, but we do not have an opening for a meat cutter or a carpenter; however, we have one here for a cook; do you suppose this man would be interested in taking a course in cooking?
There is not much sense in trying to train a person in a vocation for which he has no aptitude, but I am afraid that is often the case today. There are not enough schools available and, as a result, there are not enough courses to make it possible for people to take the courses in which they are interested. We must try, in co-operation with the provinces, to provide a wide variety of courses and as many facilities as possible in order that the people who wish to be trained or retrained may have an opportunity to receive instruction in the course for which they have an aptitude.
Further, we must expect and, indeed, demand, the full co-operation of industry in this program. Without this co-operation we will not be able to secure the on the job training which the individual needs after he has finished his training course. If industry does co-operate, as I am sure it will, this program can be a tremendous success. There is no greater crime than that of throwing men out of work and out of a vocation to which they have contributed the best years of their lives,	without providing some alternative means	by	which they	can	continueto contribute	to	their areas	and	to theircountry. This	bill	appears to	have	the key
which, if used to its fullest degree, can open many doors for the people of my province.
This measure provides for more generous assistance to the provinces in the establishment of vocational and technical schools. With respect to unemployed persons the contribution can be as much as 75 per cent of

the cost of the program, and for veterans as much as 100 per cent. In addition, there is a contribution by the federal government of 75 per cent of the cost of the capital expenditure incurred by the province in the training facilities up to 1963, and 50 per cent after that date. In the light of the more generous assistance now available the provinces will no doubt be very willing to undertake a more concentrated attack on our unemployment problem especially as it applies to the semiskilled and unskilled workers.
As the result of the technological advances which have taken place there has been a marked change in the demands on our labour force. Employment has shown a marked increase in the professional and skilled categories with a much smaller increase apparent in the unskilled categories. If we are to accept the benefits of technological advances we must at the same time accept the responsibilities that are associated with them. This bill provides the means to do just that and it is my hope the opportunities inherent in it will be seized upon at the earliest possible date.
There is one area that is deserving of further consideration. Where a man is unemployed or employed in an unskilled or semi-skilled vocation and wishes to obtain the necessary training that will place him in a skilled category it should be available to him. Many today would like to obtain training but are held back through financial obligations to their families. If we are to have an effective program we must provide the means whereby a person can obtain this training and have a sufficient income available to him during the training period to allow himself and his family to survive what in many instances might be a very difficult period. It is my understanding that limited funds are now available to persons on these courses, enough to allow a single person to exist during the period in question but if we are to accomplish the retraining of persons of the type that find it a necessity in my constituency we must develop the system of assistance still further.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breion South):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this occasion I must first congratulate the minister and the government upon bringing forward this legislation which I feel will provide the necessary incentive in my area for the construction of a long sought after vocational school. For quite a number of years the people of my constituency have required a school of this nature not only to alleviate the unemployment problem but to help meet the problem faced by workers in all parts of the country whose lack of skill and training precludes their taking part in the general expansion of the Canadian economy.
Vocational Training
It has been brought out by previous speakers in this debate that over 60 per cent of the unemployed in Canada today have grade VIII or less in the way of formal education and this is proving to be a great detriment in their seeking work in various fields. I do not wish to repeat what has been said by those who have already participated in the debate. However, I should like to commend some of those who have spoken for the constructive approach they adopted in relation to this bill. The negative approach adopted by some hon. members of the opposition leads me to wonder just what their purpose is.
The main feature of the bill is to make provision for a 75 per cent federal contribution to new schools up to March 31, 1963. The intention here is to provide an incentive for the undertaking of such work immediately. It is perhaps not too optimistic to anticipate that this provision will result in a 50 per cent increase in the present facilities. It is here that I feel the measure will be most effective in the communities adjacent to my riding. Attempts have been made there to meet the problem but the financial difficulties faced by the municipalities have been considerable. As a result of the announcement of further assistance it will perhaps be possible for the city of Sydney to undertake construction of a vocational school. The city has said that if necessary it would undertake the building of the school and I am sure the legislation now before us will be a determining factor in making possible the construction of a school in that area.
The federal government will pay half the cost of operating technical schools and will pay half the cost of training technical teachers. Anyone who has carefully studied the bill will have to admit that it is the most positive step forward in the training field ever taken in this country. It will go a long way toward increasing the supply of skilled workers in Canada and by that very fact will make it easier for such people to obtain employment.
The report of the committee of the other house on manpower indicates that lack of training is one of the primary reasons why people are without employment in Canada today. There is a diminishing place in industry at present for those who lack training in the skilled crafts which are so necessary for the working force to provide itself with the deserved standards of living worthy of the working people. This bill will go a long way toward making up that deficiency.
I listened with great interest the other day -as I always do-to the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). I would suggest that instead of coming into the house and

Vocational Training
making that kind of negative speech on every occasion the hon. member should make a recording and simply play it back. One advantage would be the time the house would save. Surely when the government brings in a measure as constructive as this which surpasses anything previously done in this field the least that could be expected from hon. members of the opposition would be support which would stress the positive aspects of the measure.
I fail to understand the attitude of the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl), as exemplified in his remarks as reported at page 599 of Hansard of December 7 as follows:
We are just pointing out how inadequate it is, how inept it is, how useless it is, and how much it lacks.
The hon. member, of course, was referring to the measure before us. Perhaps I may be forgiven for my failure to understand why hon. members of the opposition would vote in favour of such a bill after making such comments about it. It represents a most confusing approach to the whole matter.
I know that this bill will be very welcome in the maritime provinces. I am sure the provincial authorities will do everything they can to co-operate as they did in the past under arrangements not nearly as favourable as these. One of the first effects will be that shelved plans for the future construction of new training schools will be now taken off the shelf and implemented through taking advantage of the incentive provision. In this connection I should like to quote from an editorial in this morning's Globe and Mail, as follows:
The scheme outlined by Mr. Starr tackles two national problems at once. One problem is the shortage of skilled workers which has been with us for an entire generation and-as business and industrial executives are well aware-remains very much with us today. The other problem is the surplus of unskilled workers which has been with us-in the form of large scale unemployment-off and on for the last ten years.
There is no doubt that this bill will hit at both these problems simultaneously and in a more effective way than has been previously attempted.
All hon. members are reminded of this problem each and every day when the circulars from the civil service commission reach our desks advertising positions in the service. I find it most discouraging to read these circulars advertising positions which I realize cannot in any way be helpful to the unemployed persons in my constituency. These circulars advertise technical jobs and jobs which could be filled by students with a high school education. I suggest to the minister that these circulars would be more effective if they were directed to the high schools of this country.

I try at all times to bring this to the attention of high school students who unfortunately are not in a position to look forward to university education with the hope that they will recognize here a field in which they can train themselves for a very adequate position in life without the necessity of having university training. I humbly offer the suggestion that possibly these circulars could be directed to the high schools in order, as I say, that pupils who cannot look forward to formal university education will realize that here is an opportunity that only requires some initiative on their part and some further study to qualify themselves for positions that may be advertised.
I should like to quote briefly from the report of the committee of the other place on manpower. It has this to say:
There is a strong relationship between education and employment. In February of this year the dominion bureau of statistics undertook a special survey of the educational attainments of persons without jobs in connection with its regular monthly survey of the labour force. The results were striking. The unemployment rates for people who did not complete primary school were more than twice the rates for people who completed primary school but did not complete secondary school and six times the rate for people who completed secondary school.
This again emphasizes the remarks I have just made in respect of positions advertised daily by the civil service commission of Canada which does make opportunities available to students with at least high school training. The hard fact which is staring us in the face today, Mr. Speaker, is that in order to maintain security of employment in industry we must have skill and we must have training. It is this situation which the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) and the government are trying to deal with by bringing down this bill. In the face of a bill of this scope and showing the imagination and logic which it does in coming to grips with the problem one wonders what the opposition hopes to accomplish by its constant negative attitude.
We in the maritimes have a great respect for education, so much so that it has often been said that our chief export is brains. I might point out that day to day this has become more apparent to me when I review the list of appointments to high office throughout the country and in government circles and note the appointment of more and more maritimers. As far as my own province of Nova Scotia is concerned, the list of appointments of people from that province to high government posts is an outstanding one.
In looking for some solution to the problem the former Liberal government set up a royal

commission some years ago and its only suggestion in this regard was a one-way ticket out of the maritimes. The bill before us today provides the possibility of not requiring such one-way tickets but of providing necessary and most essential skilled training to workers who, by reason of automation or technological change of some kind, find themselves without work. It is most necessary that steps be taken in this direction to deal with the problem and not follow the recommendation of the royal commission report that the people of the maritimes be given one-way tickets out of that area.
In the United States presidential campaign recently there was a lot of talk about a new frontier. The frontier of the future in this country, Mr. Speaker, is the frontier of education. Too much emphasis cannot be placed upon the merits of the bill now before us. Everybody realizes, of course, that education is a provincial matter but where automation is having such a direct effect on the working force of the country education is everybody's business. This does not mean that there cannot be areas of co-operation between the federal and provincial governments. I say that these areas have been too much neglected in the past and I say that the people of Canada have suffered as the result of this neglect. The time has now come to repair that neglect. The time has come to broaden the frontiers of knowledge in this country.
In the way in which we in this country tackle that problem and resolve the problem of more education for our people, of increased technical skills and increased skills of every sort, there will lie the future progress of this country. The report of the committee of the other place has shown the need. It has shown that many thousands of Canadians do not have the skill, the education or the training necessary to hold a job in industry today.
There is a great gap somewhere in our system of constitutional responsibility. That gap must be closed. It can be closed by a joint effort on the part of the federal and provincial governments. This bill provides the means by which the gap can be closed. It provides an opportunity for Canadians to acquire the necessary degree of skill and training necessary at the present time. The problem before us is a very serious one. It will not be solved by the faint-hearted approach we have heard put forward by members on the opposition side. It will be solved by joint action and the bill provides for such action.
Before resuming my seat, I should once again like to thank the minister and the government for the opportunity which this legislation will provide, in my own constituency particularly, to initiate the necessary action to bring about in the very near future
Vocational Training
the much sought after vocational training system which for the past number of years has been to the forefront of local problems. It will provide the municipalities, as I mentioned before, with the opportunity to be able to meet their share of the cost. Despite what the hon. member for Essex East may have to say about the city of Sydney and its rundown condition, it is enjoying a high level of employment and everybody appreciates very much the announcement by the city that it is willing to assume the whole responsibility of building a school in order that unemployed workers and workers generally will have the opportunity of availing themselves of such training as will add to their skill and provide them with a much better chance to have a decent standard of living in the very competitive field of industry and business today.


Mr. J. A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, before the motion is put for second reading of the bill I should like to join with other members of the house in speaking about the problem of vocational training and more especially as it applies to the unemployed section of our labour force. The emphasis on vocational training, as has been pointed out, points to a great need in the changing picture of the Canadian economy and that need is to utilize properly the skill, knowledge and know-how of our young people.
In introducing the resolution the minister said that 15 per cent of the work force unemployed are unskilled. I would hazard a guess that of the 15 per cent a very small portion could be classed as high school graduates, and I should like to speak for a minute on the question of high school graduates and the opportunities that are afforded in our economy to absorb the thousands of young men and women who every day and every year are entering into the work force of the country upon graduation from high school.
What do we have to offer these young boys and girls today? The day of the apprentice system in this country is gone. A young man used to sign himself up with a tradesman, work for a period of say five years, and upon completion of his period of training he would be qualified in that particular trade. This was a good system for that time, but time marches on. The economy is such today that this apprentice system is no longer adaptable to our society. We must, therefore, look for a new means of providing people with the necessary skills to do these jobs. In my opinion, that is the merit in this legislation. Earlier in this year, I believe, the minister announced that the federal share of the cost of vocational training was to be

Vocational Training
increased from 50 per cent to 75 per cent. This bill that is now before the house is an enlargement of that policy of increasing the federal cost of participating in vocational training.
I should like to give to the house an illustration of the problems connected with providing jobs and, more particularly, the training of people so that they may acquire the skills to fill the jobs. In my part of the country we have one of the oldest, if not the oldest, iron ore mines in Canada. Over the years a relatively large population has been built up around this single industry, until today there are about 14,000 people in this small mining town. Obviously this mine has not increased in size or scope to enable it to absorb the increase in the working force resulting from this increased population. The men who have worked in the mine all their lives and who, perhaps, have hoped to see their sons follow them, are now finding it necessary to break up their families and send them away to find new jobs.
In addition to that, the operations at this particular mine were cut back considerably more than a year ago. Incidentally, this mine is part of the Dosco empire, and when it was taken over by the A. V. Roe interests one of the three working mines was closed down, thereby adding to the list of unemployed by some 600. However, to illustrate the changing scene in our mining and other industries, I may say that at about the same time new mining industries were opening up in the north, particularly in northern Quebec and Labrador. One would naturally think that the people who were let out when this mine was closed would find work in these new mines. However, what do we find? We find that these mines employ different methods of operation which make it virtually impossible for these miners who were laid off from the Dosco mine to acquire a job. Applicants for employment were obliged to write an aptitude test which was designed specifically to determine whether or not a man had certain mechanical aptitudes adaptable to the modern, heavy mechanized equipment used by these mines. Consequently, these men did not qualify. Here is where this bill could be put to work, and could be put to work immediately.
As another hon. member pointed out during the early stages of this debate, I believe one of the real difficulties connected with legislation of this type which deals with education is the fact that you have 10 systems of education in Canada by virtue of the fact that, under our constitution, education is within the sovereign rights of the provinces. I think the real problem in taking this very useful

and very commendable step is the necessity for making the legislation adaptable, in the best possible way, to these various provincial systems of education. It would seem, in order to do this in the best possible way, that it is going to require the officials of the minister's department sitting down with the officials of the various provincial departments of education to ensure that the provinces are utilizing this measure to the fullest degree.
I feel that perhaps a start could be made in this direction with the high schools. I do not believe it is enough to provide vocational training for students who have left high school or who are not going to finish high school. You have, first of all, to start in the school itself. This could be done by the adoption of a standard aptitude test which would be applicable right across the country and which every provincial department of education would make a part of the regular curriculum. In my opinion, these tests should be given in the high schools in order to determine the type of trade or occupation to which a student is best suited. The application of these aptitude tests, which are now such a common part of modern industrial policies, will require certain highly trained teachers.
As I say, this points up one of the real problems in Canada today, the problem of the student who does not have the means, either mentally or financially, to go to a university. Too often we see these young men wasting some of the most productive hours of their lives standing on street corners, frequenting pool halls and so forth. These are the people to whom we have to adapt this legislation more specifically because, after all, they are the Canadians of the future. These are the men upon whom the industry of this country will have to depend in future years. I feel great emphasis should be placed upon this aspect.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister if, in his reply, he would cover some of the points I raised, particularly with regard to the application of an aptitude test. I should like to know whether it is the intention of the Department of Labour to correspond with the various provincial ministers of education to ascertain if some standard aptitude test could be applied? As someone once said, to work is to be happy, and we have taken on the responsibility, under this bill, of equipping our young people with the means of finding work so that they can form a productive and useful part of our society.


Mr. C. O. Cooper (Roseiown-Biggar):: should like to say a few words, Mr. Speaker, on this bill dealing with vocational training for

agriculture. We have coming in the province of Saskatchewan a great change-over from dry land farming to irrigation. My first experience with irrigation was in taking trips, as we did in training and in teaching our farmers in central Saskatchewan or by making tours into southern Alberta. These trips relating to irrigation in Canada were to the Cardson-Magrath-Lethbridge area of sunny Alberta, the location of the first irrigation company in Canada established by the early Mormon settlement. I have made nine trips into this area in order to educate our people in central Saskatchewan in connection with what is to become a reality when the south Saskatchewan river dam is completed.
We found that through lack of vocational training and the lack of knowledge the changeover from dry land farming to irrigation is a great transformation and one needing a great deal of training. In the study we found that it took three generations to make irrigation a success in that area and the people still have their troubles through lack of knowledge and proper management. We found that through lack of proper management some of their problems have been caused by putting too much water on the land, thus spoiling the land for many years. The land must be seeded back to pasture and grass in order to bring it back into production. Our Alberta friends still have their problems particularly relating to capital work and soil management as well as research problems related to suitable crops and Canadian markets.
To summarize, may I say that my experience as related to irrigation problems not only applies to water on the land but to markets and crops and the problems encountered there. In conclusion may I say this. We must have proper research and we must point out most emphatically the need for intensive research and training.
In central Saskatchewan we are about to make that big change-over from dry land farming to irrigation. We can go back to the hungry thirties when our country was blowing away because of lack of knowledge in our farming operations and also, of course, through nature, with the drought and the high winds.
I should like to refer now to the beautiful country at Conquest in the centre of the constituency of Rosetown-Biggar. Conquest is on a level plain right on the open prairie, with not a tree in sight. During the hungry thirties that country was blowing away until we were down where we could see the plough creases in the soil. One man one night thought of a scheme of planting hedges. He planted a hedge around his section and at every 100 acres he planted another hedge 90205-6-43
Vocational Training
north and south. It was not long before the people saw the benefit. Today the beautiful country around Conquest can boast of 1,000 miles of hedges. Through a vocational training plan like this one, this work could have been done years ago.
A great tree planting program is going on all through my area at the present time. It not only beautifies the country but it also holds the snow in winter and troubles on the roads are reduced. It holds the snow on the land for much needed moisture in the summer and protects the land against blowing. I am just bringing this matter to your attention, Mr. Speaker, in order to point out that if we had had these programs in effect years ago the people of central Saskatchewan would have been saved a great deal of trouble.
As I say, we are changing over now from dry land farming to irrigation. We are going to benefit much from the experience gained by our Alberta friends. However, there is still a great field to be opened up in training the people for this great change-over which will be coming in a few years when the South Saskatchewan river dam is completed. There is the matter of the handling of water and what we shall be obliged to learn through experience. With this training, the change-over will come about much faster.
We have markets to figure out when we change over from wheat to the cattle industry. In time there may be such things as sugar beets and canning crops to which we shall be obliged to change over from wheat farming. This is going to take a great deal of training. I just wanted to say a few words on this bill and to indicate that it will benefit the farmers of central Saskatchewan in the training that it will make available for this great change-over which I am sure is going to come within the next 15 years or 20 years.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this government has realized that the need for all types of vocational training schools is at hand. The time is opportune for a school of vocational training as related to irrigation in the Rosetown-Biggar constituency.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order. I must advise the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: In closing the debate on the second reading of this bill, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of observations I wish to make on the statements that have been made by those participating in this debate. In listening to the speeches made it seemed to me that they could be divided into three categories.

Vocational Training
The first category was the one that I think merits commendation. They were observations of the constructive type in respect of this bill, and some suggestions were also made in those speeches. Then there were a couple of contributions that bordered on the nonsensical. To them I will not make any reference at this time. Then there were a couple that were almost in the realm of the fantastic and later on I should like to deal with some of the aspects of the contributions of that type.
However, to all hon. members of this house I wish to state this in response to the questions posed in respect of the categories that will be included in the training under this bill. I wish to state that this bill includes all training of all sorts and types below the university level. As to all training in that respect by the provincial governments this bill gives to the federal government authority for its full participation.
The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) asked about vocational guidance. I wish to say to him that vocational guidance has always been included as an integral part of the training program and it will be included as part of the costs shareable under the agreements with the provinces.
I want to point out that this bill provides for a program of education that could be categorized as a co-operative program with the provinces. It is designed for the immediate present. That is why we have the construction of these schools terminating on March 31, 1963 for participation to the extent of 75 per cent by the federal government in the expenditures made by the provinces. It is also designed for the future.
I feel that now is the time for us to start building for the future education of the people of this country in the training of Canadians to fit themselves into the labour force and gainful employment. This bill is designed for now and for the future. There should be a continuity in respect of this type of training at all times.
The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) as usual gave a constructive contribution to this very important subject. He did say that of course this is not the complete solution of unemployment. It is not the complete solution. This is one of the measures to deal with this problem that is facing us today and will be facing us in the future.
I want to point out that of course education comes within the jurisdiction of the provinces and the federal government can only extend it in centres, with the co-operation of the provinces, in order to tackle this problem in a more effective way. This is what this bill provides in the provinces. However, only time will tell whether this program has

been successful, and the success of the program rests upon the co-operation of the provinces with the federal government.
I now wish to deal with the contribution made by the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl). I did mention that in my eight years in this House of Commons I have never heard such a speech. I am sorry the hon. member is not here. He called this bill a fantastic piece of legislation; he said it was a colossal failure; in other words, the bill was just simply no good. He also said that 15 per cent of our unemployed were unskilled. Actually what I did say, Mr. Speaker, was that the rate of unemployment amongst unskilled workers was almost 15 per cent, which is entirely different to what the hon. member said. Then he said that 15 per cent of the unemployed at the moment amounts to about 600,000. By rapid calculation, when you multiply that it comes to about 3,400,000, and that is practically half our labour force. So here was some fantastic phraseology by the hon. member for Cartier. He gave me the impression that his contribution was due to his complete ignorance of the operation of technical and vocational training in the past, present, or as proposed in this bill.
I want to deal with some of the matters covered by this bill. Training is provided free at vocational schools. The training of unemployed persons, of disabled persons and training in the primary industries-and that includes the agricultural industry-is provided free, without cost to the trainees, in all provinces. Living allowances are also provided to enable trainees to attend these centres. Transportation is also provided to the training centres, and home again. All these things are provided in this program.
The hon. member for Cartier read from the report of the vocational training branch, and I might say he made no attempt to read it correctly. He mentioned a few groups for whom training was provided and completely ignored the larger groups that were reported. He made the statement that only 8,000 persons received vocational training in trades. I submit that this displays a complete lack of contact with reality. If the hon. member for Cartier was at all conscious of what is going on in his own province he would know that vocational training is provided to over 100,000 people per year and the volume of training is proportional in other parts of Canada.
In the report of the labour department which the hon. member read I am sure he could plainly see that the report only sets out the enrolments in specialized programs that were given assistance. The total enrolment in technical and vocational training day and evening classes, as reported by the dominion bureau of statistics, numbered some

338,000 in 1938 and 1939. Also, according to the dominion bureau of statistics estimates, there has been a 16 per cent increase since that time.
I think the hon. member failed to understand that the proposed contributions to capital expenditures are not limited by a quota allotment, as all previous capital assistance in this field has been. The only limit is the amount voted by parliament. I submit that this is completely new.
The hon. member also suggested that if the government would subsidize trade schools and provide assistance to students it would be a step in the right direction. That is exactly what the bill does, only it goes much further; it provides for a contribution of 50 per cent of the cost of provincial trade schools. And it does not stop there. It also provides for a 50 per cent contribution of the operating costs of technical and vocational institutes and institutes of technology where our technicians are trained. It also provides for sharing equally with the provinces in financial assistance to students attending these institutes of technology.
In fact, this bill provides a 50 per cent contribution of the provincial training costs of all persons who have left a regular school system either before or after completing their education, and 75 per cent of the cost of training unemployed persons.
I am very pleased that the hon. members who have spoken on this bill have recognized the importance of another new feature of this legislation which will contribute 50 per cent of the cost of the professional training of technical and vocational teachers, as well as financial assistance which may be provided to them while in training.
The hon. member for Cartier said that another advisory council was being established. I say that is completely erroneous. This bill provides for an enlarged representation on the vocational training advisory council, and that is all. He also ridiculed the fact that this council met only twice a year. He failed to recognize that this is only an advisory council of this program and it is not an administrative council. It is free to call meetings whenever it wishes, at the call of its chairman. If meetings are held only twice a year, then that is certainly a decision of the council. If it feels more meetings are necessary in order to review the situation, it is free to meet more often.
Mr. Speaker, I think this is a good bill. It is designed to provide, on the long term basis, facilities and the necessary training for these people, with the co-operation of the provinces-which in the first instance must take 90205-6-43J
Vocational Training
the initiative-to help Canadians establish themselves economically in our labour force here in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
Mr. Caron:: Even though we accept the principle of this bill we have to admit it is not exactly what we were expecting from the government in the way of helping those who are immediately confronted with unemployment. It has been said during the debate that Premier Lesage has admitted that the provinces have the responsibility in the field of unemployment. It is also a fact that when the minister was sitting on this side of the house he always claimed that unemployment was a matter for the federal authorities to deal with. He may have changed his mind since then, although I cannot understand how he and his colleagues could change their opinions in such a short space of time.
I remember that last year I admitted that unemployment was twofold in its nature. There is the unemployment which is caused by automation, presenting a problem for long range settlement, and there is the unemployment caused by economic changes taking place in this country. This latter kind of unemployment should be dealt with right away, because people are suffering at the present time. We know this bill will help those who are unemployed because of automation, and that it will help them to acquire the skills to take on new responsibilities in, say, three years time. But there is nothing here which deals with the immediate problem.
Much of the success of this measure is bound to depend on the success of our cooperation with the provinces. But has the government reached an understanding with the provinces? Nothing was said about this at the resolution stage, and nothing was said about it by the minister when he closed the debate on second reading a while ago. There is no doubt that in this legislation the federal government is placing a load on the shoulders of the provinces. It is ready to pay 50 per cent of the training, 25 per cent of the capital expenses incurred in organizing the schools, and so on. But I wonder if the provinces are ready to accept that load of 50 per cent on one hand and 25 per cent on the other. This question has not been discussed at all during this debate.


Michael Starr: I am sure the hon. member does not mean what he says when he tells us that the federal government is prepared to pay only 25 per cent of the cost of the

Vocational Training
capital construction of buildings. I said that the federal government would pay 50 per cent but that if any project involving capital construction and equipment is undertaken before March 31, 1963, then the federal government would contribute an additional 25 per cent, which means that the federal government would contribute 75 per cent of the provincial contribution and leave the provincial government with 25 per cent to pay.


Alexis Pierre Caron: The way I read it, it is 25 per cent of the capital expenditure incurred by the province after the 31st day of March, 1963.


Michael Starr: An additional 25 per cent.


Alexis Pierre Caron: It just says 25 per cent. I interpret the bill the way I see it.


An hon. Member:: Read it.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Even if it is an additional 25 per cent, there still remains a considerable expense to be carried by the province. Are the provinces ready to accept that expenditure of 75 per cent or 50 per cent, or even 25 per cent? Do they accept responsibility for this long range type of unemployment caused by automation? We have not heard on this point from any speaker on the government side. I really believe that the technical training systems we have in the province will not suffice to provide this additional training of the numbers who are in need of it. It is likely that the provinces will have to build new schools, or rent premises if there are any to be found. First of all, they will have to train the teachers, because I do not believe we have the necessary trained personnel at the moment to educate an additional several thousand people in each province. So this scheme is not complete, and in my opinion the hon. member for Essex East was right when he said the cost of this program should be carried 100 per cent by the federal government.
I do not dare present an amendment, because I know it would be declared irregular since it would add an additional expense to the treasury. Only a minister can do that. However, I hope and expect that the minister will look at this whole question from the standpoint I have indicated. Only a very small part of our unemployment today has been caused by automation. The rest of those who are unemployed in Canada are unemployed because the economic changes in the country are such that we cannot get rid of our surplus of goods. That is why factories have had to close or curtail their production; they have too much stock on hand.
This is not the responsibility of the provinces. At the present time, the main burden

with respect to unemployment is being carried by the municipalities. When I was in my office this morning someone showed me how the city of Hull had to pay $60 to one man in order that he might pay a month's rent, together with a few dollars to help him buy food for the family. There is certainly something in this situation which is not proper. We need something which is clearer and which would help the people of Canada at this time when they are actually in need, and they are not getting it from this bill. We admit that in three years, or five years, or six years, this measure will be of great help to this country, but it does not help people in the situation which confronts them at the present time and no bill has yet been presented which will provide anything to help the unemployed at this moment.
I hope, nevertheless, that this measure will pass, because we need it for a long range settlement. I hope the Minister of Labour will see that the government does bring in legislation much more applicable to the present situation faced by the unemployed all over this country. They need something immediately and I do not think that up to now the government has done anything in this domain.
I notice that the advisory council has been enlarged, and I do not know why this is needed. It was not explained by the minister. The minister announced that the hon. member for Cartier had discussed the matter but he never told the house why it was decided to enlarge the council. Will that help to solve the problem which faces us? I do not know. These are things which the minister can explain so that the committee may know exactly what this bill means. We know what it will accomplish in four, five or six years but not what it will accomplish at the present time. The government should devote its attention to introducing measures that will alleviate present suffering.


Michael Starr: In answer to the hon. member's question, the reason why it is increased by two additional members is to give additional representation to the provinces over and above what they already had in a certain specified area.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I was not able to be here on Wednesday when the main debate on second reading took place and it may be that one or two of the questions I should now like to put to the minister have been answered. I have not even had time to go through Hansard carefully. I hope the minister will accept my apology in advance if I am guilty of repetition.

There are a number of questions that have occurred to me about the departure that is now being taken in this bill. I thought perhaps I should put all my questions on clause 1 and if some of them relate to other clauses and might be more properly answered when we are dealing with those clauses the minister will be free to act accordingly.
The first question has to do primarily with the provision of additional facilities. As the minister knows, over a long period of time going back to 1910 the federal government has made contributions to some degree to the provision of facilities for vocational and technical education. There is nothing new about the principle and I am sure the minister never suggested there was but I have heard it suggested-and I do not profess to have any knowledge on this point-that in some of the provinces and specifically in Ontario there have been vocational training facilities provided in the high school system which facilities are not now in fact being used to capacity. I am sure some survey of this was made before the legislation was produced and I would like the minister to tell us just what the capacity is in each province, how many people could be trained in the existing institutions that have already been provided and in each province, as well, what the department's estimate is of the deficiency. I ask that because I assume the department has made some kind of estimate of how many places for additional pupils are really required in order to do the much larger job which I completely agree with the minister needs to be done.
I would even go so far as to say-and if the minister wants to make any political capital out of this he may-that it is perhaps unfortunate it was not started three years ago or even four years ago or even five years ago, but it was not; I mean, this expansion was not. It is true that over the years we have been making a very considerable contribution to these facilities but the tempo of that contribution was and still is entirely dependent on the provincial and local authorities.
I am not criticizing the government for that. I am not one of those who would advocate that the federal government should, of its own initiative, establish these institutions. I do not think it should. I believe that is a proper provincial function and that the way in which it was done by the previous government and which this government is proposing to continue on a somewhat larger scale is the right way to provide the facilities. However, what I think we ought to know before we actually accept the clauses of the bill is just how many cases there are in each
Vocational Training
province, how many pupils can be accommodated in the various categories of technical and vocational institutes now existing in each province, how many of these are being used at the present time, whether there are any that are not being used and if so in what regions they are, and also what the best estimate is-and I know, of course, it is only an estimate or perhaps an intelligent guess- of the additional places that it is thought will be required in each province to do the job adequately that now needs to be done.
The other thing I should like the minister to tell us is this. I recall that last session the federal government offered to contribute to the cost of training persons who are now unemployed. Would the minister tell us what advantage has thus far been taken of that offer and how many unemployed persons in each province are now receiving training under this joint federal-provincial arrangement.
It is my opinion and one I expressed at the last session which I understand has already been expressed in this debate by my colleagues in the Liberal party but which I want to reiterate myself that no part of the onus for the training of persons who are unemployed should be thrown upon the provincial or local authorities. I think we should regard this as a national problem in precisely the same way as we regarded the training and education of the veterans at the end of the war as a national problem. I am not saying that about young people who go into vocational schools and I hope the minister will not misunderstand me. I believe that is a proper function of the provinces. But in the case of persons who have been in the labour force but are now unemployed and who would benefit from training it seems to me there are several reasons why this should be done directly out of the federal treasury and not by the provinces. I should like briefly to place those reasons on the record.
The first is that we know now that every one of the schemes to alleviate unemployment presently in operation in fact gives the least help to the areas where there is the greatest concentration of unemployment and the most help to those areas where there is the least because the local authorities in those areas are best able to pay for the amelioration of the comparatively mild unemployment they have and as between the provinces, of course, the inequalities are very glaring as all the surveys we have had in every aspect of this field have shown. Therefore by saying that the federal government will pay only a part of the cost of the retraining of unemployed persons is to throw

Vocational Training
a highly unequal burden on different local authorities and different provinces.
There is another reason. There is no doubt that in some provinces the effect oi giving technical training to unemployed persons will be to lose that trained person to the province, that when the person becomes trained he will in many cases be more apt to get a job in some province other than the one in which he received the training. We want to maintain that mobility of labour in Canada and indeed in all conscience I think in these times we want to increase it but it is very hard, you know, to persuade the legislators of a province-say the province of Saskatchewan, for example-that they should contribute more money to train people so they will be enabled to come down and work in Ontario. It is quite understandable that they should feel that way. That, of course, was the great justification that Mr. St. Laurent gave for the university grants when they were established by the St. Laurent government but in this case the situation is even more compelling, it seems to me, because this is a problem that is national in character and now national in scope.
While undoubtedly the contribution the federal government is now prepared to make in this field is better than no contribution at all, it seems to me there is still a shirking of responsibility in this field and that the government should go the whole way and inaugurate a scheme similar to that which was followed in the case of the veterans after the war.
There is one special point about which I should like to ask the minister whether he has any information. He may not have but if he has I think it would be interesting to the committee to know whether there are any statistics available as to the number of persons who have over the past year or two received technical and vocational training and as to the increased employability and, indeed, the results in terms of increased employment for these persons because presumably a good deal of attention is being paid to that particular question.


Michael Starr: Would you repeat that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The point is that there have been very considerable numbers of people in Canada, not necessarily all of them unemployed because some of them may have never entered the labour force, who have in the last year or two received vocational and technical training. Presumably the department would have at least some kind of indication of how readily employable these people have been when they completed their training and what their employment record was compared,

for example, with that of young people entering the labour force without training in the last couple of years. I should like any information of that kind. Another thing I should like the minister to tell us-


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I want to answer all the questions of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate but I am having some difficulty in noting his whole array of questions at one time. Would the hon. member allow me to deal with a few at a time or does he wish me to deal with the whole mass at one time?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am only too happy to do whatever the minister would prefer. If the minister would prefer me to stop now I am quite willing to stop and let him start.


Michael Starr: Just mark where you left off so you will not forget. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate asked about the present situation in vocational training schools in this country. I might say that I have had conferences, particularly with the province of Ontario, to see whether more of this training could be undertaken. Their problem has been that all of their facilities have been filled to capacity. We have surveyed the other provinces of Canada and we find their facilities are all filled to capacity and there is a waiting list. Almost as soon as the doors of new accommodation are opened it is immediately filled. Consequently we feel with respect to this matter and as a result of our survey that there has to be at least a 50 per cent increase in capacity throughout the country so far as this type of school is concerned.


Mr. Bourgel:: Are you speaking about Ontario only?


Michael Starr: I am speaking about all of Canada. I simply mentioned Ontario in my opening remarks. With respect to the training of unemployed workers, the federal government has offered to pay 75 per cent of the total provincial cost in this regard and our survey shows that these programs are just getting under way now in the provinces and all the provinces report a 100 per cent increase over what they have been doing at any previous time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister appreciates that 100 per cent of zero is still zero.


Michael Starr: Of course, I should like to see the provinces undertake a 1,000 per cent increase.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Even 1,000 per cent of zero is still zero.


Michael Starr: It was not zero to start with, of course. Last year the provinces undertook the training of about 4,600.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is 4,600 all across Canada.


Michael Starr: That is right. With respect to co-operation between the provinces in this field I can cite a very good example. The pipe-line contractors, anticipating a great deal of work in the construction of pipe fines in the western provinces and particularly in Alberta in the coming year, indicated to us that there was a lack of specialized welders for this type of work. We immediately said that we wanted to see Canadians employed as pipe-line welders. Consequently we brought together the four western provinces to co-operate in the setting up of one training centre, and it was agreed that the training centre should be established in Alberta. As a matter of fact, the pipe-line contractors are supplying all of the equipment free of charge in order to provide training to Canadians as a result of which they can find jobs on these projects. Here you see an area where, through co-operation by the provinces, the pipe-line contractors and the federal government, which pays 75 per cent of the cost of the training, the desired result is being achieved. Twenty five per cent of the cost of this project is being shared by the four provinces.
The hon. member referred to the advisory council and suggested that the federal government should pay 100 per cent of the cost of training unemployed workers. The hon. member is entitled to make this suggestion but let me point out that for years and years there have always been people who needed to be trained and the federal government has always paid 50 per cent of the cost. We are trying to provide an incentive based on the recommendations of the advisory council which has recommended a number of times that the federal government raise its contribution from 50 to 75 per cent. That is exactly what we are doing. I would point out that all the provincial governments are represented on the advisory council and that this is the request of the provinces. We are meeting that request in order to help the situation and to provide an incentive.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister made a very interesting speech in which he very carefully refrained from answering all of my questions except one.


Michael Starr: Which one was that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister answered only one of my questions, the one with respect to whether there were any vacancies in the vocational schools, and he said there were not. I was informed that there were but I do not think my information was reliable. I asked the minister how many places
Vocational Training
there were in all the vocational schools and technical institutions in Canada at the present time. On any given day how many people can be trained right across Canada in each province? The minister says that we ought to increase the capacity by 50 per cent. When we are setting out to increase the capacity by 50 per cent surely we ought to be told what the capacity now is. That is one question.


Michael Starr: I am told that is difficult to ascertain. I might say that in my closing remarks on second reading I referred to "1938-39" and it should have been "1958-59". I can only say that in 1958-59 there were some 336,000 trained in the technical and vocational schools. That is only the bureau of statistics' estimate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What does that mean? Is it 336,000 pupils on any given day or is that the number trained over the whole year?


Michael Starr: Over the whole year. That is the D.B.S. estimate of the people trained under all the programs and the D.B.S. estimate projects that there will be approximately a 16 per cent increase in the coming year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to clear up this point because, of course, some of these training programs may last for six weeks, some may last for three months and some may last for six months. Therefore a global figure of that sort is not very significant. What I am really trying to find out is how many individuals can be engaged in training with the present facilities on any one day? It is hard for me to believe that the government, which has reached the conclusion that the capacity should be increased 50 per cent, does not know what the capacity is right now.


Michael Starr: In this respect I am advised that all we can do is to take the word of the provinces. They are the ones who advise us in respect of these matters and it is the provinces who say that they feel that a 50 per cent increase in present capacity is necessary over the coming years.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the minister really telling us that his department does not know what the present capacity is in this country? When all is said and done-


Michael Starr: I do not want any misunderstanding; that is exactly what I told you..


John Whitney Pickersgill: I must say it is a most extraordinary attitude for a government to take. Here we are being asked to spend a lot more of the taxpayer's money to increase these facilities and the minister now tells us that he does not know what the present

Vocational Training
facilities are. All he can do is to take the word of the provinces. I asked him what word he has got from the provinces. Surely, when they ask to have these facilities increased they would tell the minister how many pupils they can take in the technical high school in Ottawa, how many pupils they can take in the other schools across Ontario. It is just impossible for me to believe-perhaps it is true but it is hard to believe-that the government, without any hard information at all-


Michael Starr: Surely the hon. member can take the word of the provinces under whose jurisdiction education comes. If the provinces feel that-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thought I had the floor.


Michael Starr: I do not want this fantasy to be continued.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister is very fond of getting up in the middle of other people's sentences. I certainly would not, for one minute, take the word of any provincial government-


Michael Starr: You would not take the word of any provincial government?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the minister would allow me to complete my sentence. I listened to the minister and tried to understand what he had to say. I did not try to deform the things he said, and I suggest a little reciprocity in this matter would be a good thing. I say I would not, as a minister of the crown, come into this parliament and ask that public money be spent out of the treasury of Canada merely because a provincial government said they would like more of something, unless they told me precisely what they had already so that when I asked the representatives of the people who are the trustees of the people for their money, for more money, I could tell them what existed already and not merely say, we have to take the word of the provinces.
Of course, if the minister of education for Ontario wrote and said the capacity of the Ottawa technical school is so much, and the capacity of this one is so much, I would believe him. But if he merely wrote and said, we would like more technical schools and did not tell us anything about what he had already, then I say that does not seem to be the kind of information with which a committee of this sort should be satisfied. That is my point, and that is why I think we really ought to know in precise, concrete terms what facilities there are in each part of Canada in this field at the present time. I have not any doubt that more are needed, but if I were going to try to make a case for

additional expenditures for these additional schools I would certainly start making my case by telling parliament what we have now. That is what I have been asking the minister to do. If he says he does not know, well, he does not know and that is all.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, the jurisdiction for education lies with the provinces. The federal government does not direct the amount of education that is to be undertaken in this country, based on whatever figures the hon. member says the requirement should be. First of all, the federal government is in this position. We feel our surveys reveal there are people who are unemployed who are not trained to fill the vacancies that exist. In an effort to rectify the situation we say to the provinces, we will pay more for the construction of more schools to train people with these skills because accommodation is one of the problems. We say we will pay more so you will undertake to build these schools, and we will pay more toward the training of these people. I think no more is needed as an incentive to the provinces to go ahead and bring about some results.
If the hon. member Bonavista-Twillingate feels he does not know what will be needed in future years, if he feels he cannot make up his mind to vote for a bill of this kind, then I will give him an opportunity of expressing his opinion as to whether or not this is a good program and whether it puts the whole theory on a good foundation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is all very well to talk about theory, but I am one of those old-fashioned people who has a great belief in facts. It seems to me that when you start spending other people's money on things you should know what you are spending it on and you should have the facts at your fingertips before you ask the house to vote that money. I must say I am shocked to discover-I am not asking the minister to tell the provinces what they should do-


Michael Starr: Yes, you are.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister can put his
own interpretation on my words if he likes, but I have not at any time said that. I said we are entitled to know what they already have, and we ought to be told what they already have. Why that simple question cannot be answered in a simple way, rather than by this constant effort to represent it as something other than what it is, I cannot understand. Evidently the government has not this information, and has not taken the trouble to get it.


Michael Starr: It is not necessary.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I come back to that question-


Michael Starr: What would you do with it it you had it? Would you vote for the bill then?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister might, perhaps, stop asking these rather childish questions. When all is said and done, I sat over where the minister is sitting not so many years ago and he sat over here. In those days it was suggested by the minister and his colleagues that we had a very arrogant government which would not give information to parliament to which the members of parliament were entitled. I cannot at any time remember any occasion in that period when factual information was requested by any member in any part of the opposition when that factual information was not provided. Repeatedly the present government, when we ask for factual information, gives us lectures about, well, what difference would that make; what right have you to ask this; would you take the word of the provinces? We are not even told what is the word of the provinces. I say that this is no way to treat parliament. This is information that is absolutely pertinent to this legislation. It is information that we ought to have before we are asked to vote millions of dollars of public money. It is information that is necessary if we are to make an intelligent judgment on the matter that is before us.
Having said that, I come back to the other point on which I did not ask a question but on which I expressed a view and about which the minister dissented. I expressed the view that the proper course to take in the present circumstances, and this is the position of the Liberal opposition, is that with the level of unemployment and the seriousness of the problem of the unskilled unemployed which the minister himself emphasized in introducing the legislation, we have a situation in which a government that is taking this problem seriously, and tackling it seriously, would assume the total cost, not of providing the institutions but the total cost of the actual training in these institutions of those persons who are unemployed and who it is believed could profit from the training.
The minister says the advisory council did not ask for that, but they asked for 75 per cent. Surely, that is not very relevant. If the provinces will undertake to train everybody who asks for training and are content with 75 per cent, the minister may be making a good bargain. I am sure this will not happen. I am sure it will happen less in those parts of the country where unemployment is heaviest and where the training is most needed. All the experience we have had from the past go to show that. It is certainly a 90205-6-44
Vocational Training
great deal better than to pay only 50 per cent but it will not prove to be an adequate way of dealing with this particular problem.


Edwin William Brunsden: How much did you pay?


John Whitney Pickersgill: We did not have any great number of unemployed persons.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman asked a question. I am going to deal with that question, Mr. Chairman. We have had a great deal of talk about various ways-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. member would make his own speech. We have had a great many phony statistics about how many unemployed there were four years ago, five years ago or six years ago.


Mr. Monteilh (Perth):: What do you mean by "phony"?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am going to tell the hon. gentleman what I mean if he will just bear with me for a moment, and it affects his department.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I will bear with the hon. member.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There are two absolutely excellent measures of the real level and the real burden of unemployment in this country. The first of them is the level of the unemployment insurance fund.


Mr. Montgomery:: Oh, no, it is not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course it is.


Gage Workman Montgomery: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I say that I cannot accept the hon. member's word on that matter unless he will go on and explain the statement.


Maurice Bourget: There is no point of order there.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. May I just read the explanatory note appearing in the bill. It is as follows:
The purpose of this act is to provide financial assistance for the development and operation of technical and vocational training facilities and programs throughout Canada.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has the floor.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for
Victoria-Carleton, in one of his more refreshing interventions in the debate, said that he could not accept a statement that I had not even completed making. I suggest that it might have been better to wait until I had completed what I had to say before he decided whether or not it was acceptable. However, I know that the hon. gentleman,

Vocational Training
when he is moved to speak, speaks first and thinks afterward. I really should not like to deprive him of his fun.


Gage Workman Montgomery: I rise on a point of order. When I am quoted, I wish the hon. member would quote me in full.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In this particular case, Mr. Chairman, I am afraid-and I apologize to the hon. gentleman-that would be impossible because I did not hear him in full.
However, if I may go back to the point which I was making and which is relevant to the point you raised, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say this. The reason we are being asked in 1960 to pass this bill, as the minister told us at the resolution stage, is that there is today a high number of unskilled people unemployed or seeking employment, some of whom have never been employed and who the minister feels would be more employable if they had training. I hope the minister does not feel that I am misrepresenting his position in this matter in any particular. It has been suggested by the hon. member who interrupted me-


Edwin William Brunsden: I did not interrupt the hon. member. He was seated.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I beg the hon. member's pardon. I did not mean that remark in any offensive sense. The hon. gentleman raised a question that this is something that we did not do four or five years ago. I said that the situation calling for this kind of action did not exist four or five years ago. It did not exist four or five years ago and I say the best evidence that it did not exist then is the level of the unemployment insurance fund.


Mr. Charlton:: How about the level of payments?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman will find that if the unemployment insurance fund goes down a bit in the wintertime but is completely replenished again during the course of the next summer it is fairly clear evidence that, although there may have been a certain amount of seasonal unemployment, there has been no large scale year-round unemployment. Otherwise the funds would not go on increasing. We know that until three years ago this fund had in it over $900 million.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I must remind the hon. member that we are not discussing the unemployment insurance fund.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I recognize that fact, Mr. Chairman, and I am not attempting to do so. I am merely saying that the state of the unemployment insurance fund is a strong and compelling argument for doing now something such as is recommended here in the way of the training of unskilled unemployed

persons. That matter was not in any comparable respect a problem four years ago. That is the point I am making and this was merely an argument to support that position. An equally compelling argument is the amount of money that is being paid out from year to year in unemployment assistance, figures which have been asked for recently. However, I do not intend to continue speaking on that point.
What I want to emphasize is that whether the advisory committee asked for this or not or whether this is what they asked for or not, the government has an inescapable responsibility, it seems to me, if it is going to do this job, to take measures that are adequate to meet the problem. While we admit that this is a considerable step forward, we still do not think it is adequate to meet the problem of the training of unemployed persons who would be more employable if they had more skill.


Mr. Palleii:: I rise on a point of order. I did not rise at the time the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was speaking. However, he made reference to his recollection with regard to the government of which he was a member never refusing answers to questions. Just in order to assist his memory, perhaps he might read the pipe line debate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There were never any questions asked.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I recognize the hon. member for Timmins.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Opposition members were busy raising points of order.


John Cameron Pallett: Just read the debate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I took part in it.


Murdo William Martin: I do not intend to speak at any length on clause 1 but there is one point on which I should like the minister to give some information if he can do so. I feel sure that before the government decided to take action in this matter and to bring this bill before the House of Commons considerable work and study must have been done in order to ascertain just what the situation was throughout the country. Has the minister any information as to just what the needs are in various parts of this country? In other words, is this technical training needed much more in the maritimes than it is needed in central Canada or is it needed more in the west? Has any study or survey been made or is there any information that the minister has available as to just where this need is greatest throughout this country at the present time?


Michael Starr: The provinces have given us their estimates of the amounts needed by them for their requirements up until March 31, 1967. Newfoundland has submitted an expenditure in this field of $4,300,000; Prince Edward Island, $200,000; Nova Scotia, $4,500,000; New Brunswick, $5 million; Quebec, $30 million; Ontario, $15 million; Manitoba, $6 million; Saskatchewan, $3 million; Alberta, $15 million; and British Columbia, $7 million.


Murdo William Martin: Again, Mr. Chairman, I am not sure that the minister has supplied the information that I want. That was what was mentioned, I believe, by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo when he spoke on this bill the other day and it was mentioned again by myself when I spoke this morning. That weakness is that this bill appears to be based not on the need as it may be anywhere throughout the country but rather on the ability of the provinces to pay.


Michael Starr: Oh, no; I beg leave to interrupt the hon. member in order to correct him. This bill is based on the need. This is what the provinces have told us they will need in amounts of money expenditure for this type of training up until March 31, 1967.


Murdo William Martin: I do not know whether I am not getting through to the minister or whether the minister is not getting through to me.


Edwin William Brunsden: You are not getting through.


Murdo William Martin: Again, has the
minister any information that will show that these apparent estimates supplied to his department by the provinces meet the unemployment needs in those provinces? Has there been any check against the financial estimates supplied by the provinces as to the state of unemployment in those provinces?


Michael Starr: That aspect is also included. We have gone over it with the provinces, taking into consideration the people who are unemployed, who have to be trained, and all the others, including the young people who have dropped out. These are their requirements; it is what they say they need to take care of the situation.


Murdo William Martin: I am afraid it still does not give us a picture-


Michael Starr: You do not want to see the picture, that is the trouble.


Murdo William Martin: -of the specific needs of the provinces or the ability of the provinces to raise their necessary share of the money to meet the problem. I think that is one of the basic weaknesses of this legislation. I think the whole thing is geared, not 90205-6-444
Vocational Training
to meet the problem as it arises in the provinces but rather to have the federal government match whatever the provinces can raise through whatever facilities they have at their disposal.


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Chairman, I have only a few questions to ask the minister. They are uncomplicated and simple to answer. What method will be adopted to select those who will attend these courses of training? Second, will any assistance be provided to those attending these classes for whom unemployment insurance benefits have expired? Third, will Indians on reserves be able to participate in vocational training under this scheme? These are very important questions, Mr. Chairman, to which I would like answers, because these are questions in the minds of a great many people.
I know some people whose unemployment insurance benefits have expired, and I wondered whether they would be able to attend these classes without any sustenance being provided for themselves or their families. Surely the government must have made some provision under this scheme to provide for these people who are practically destitute. I would like to hear what the minister has to say.


Michael Starr: The answer to the first question is that the selection is carried out only by the provinces; they make the selection. The answer to the second question is, yes; and the answer to the third question is, yes.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Mr. Chairman, the minister gave the figures for the provinces a few moments ago. I do not remember what the figure was for Newfoundand; it was $4 million something. Does that include capital expenditure, operation and-


Michael Starr: Just capital expenditure.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I have just one further question, Mr. Chairman. Are there any institutions in Canada which could be described as technical institutions but which receive no subsidy from the government or from the municipality in which they are situated, and if there are, would these institutions come under this bill?


Michael Starr: Only publicly owned and operated institutions are assisted under this plan; not privately owned institutions.


Herman Maxwell Batten: There are no privately owned institutions?


Michael Starr: If they are privately owned and privately operated they get no assistance under this bill.

Vocational Training


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I have a more or less general question to ask the minister. It arises out of a morbid sense of curiosity.
Would the minister say who would be consulted, other than the cabinet and departmental officials in drafting this resolution? Were the ideas of groups of people obtained, or specialists in certain fields, representatives of provinces, and so on?


Michael Starr: The branch of our department that has jurisdiction in this field is continually in contact with the provinces and keeps up with the necessities of the provinces in this field. Consequently it is able to compile data. Also, the advisory council, which has provincial representation, imparts to us a great deal of information, so that the branch that has this particular jurisdiction is continually up to date. It is from this branch that we gather the information and the requirements that are necessary. Consequently you see the result of all this in this bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, there is a specific question I would like to put to the minister. Could the minister say whether the 75 per cent that is to be provided by way of assistance to institutions started before the date given in the bill will be available to projects that have already begun, or will it only be available to those projects that have not yet been started? There must be a number of institutions in various parts of Canada -I know of one or two myself-that have been commenced in the last few months. I am sure the people who are concerned with them would like to know whether the 75 per cent assistance or only the 50 per cent would apply in those cases.


Michael Starr: As soon as this bill comes into effect all projects in process, even though they were started earlier, or are started after that date, will come under that clause up to March 31, 1963.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is one other question that I think the minister will appreciate. Will that apply to the whole cost of the project from the time it started, or will it only apply from the date the bill comes into operation?


Michael Starr: Just expenditures made during that time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is precisely what I am asking the minister. Perhaps I did not phrase my question very well. Suppose the project began on September 1 and $100,000 has already been spent of a $5 million project, or will have been spent by the time this bill becomes law. Will the federal contribution include a share of the $100,000 that has already been spent or will it only include what is spent beyond that date? This

is a practical question that is going to arise in a great many cases and I think the committee should be told what the situation will be.


Michael Starr: This is nothing retroactive.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister mind- not for me; I know what "nothing retroactive" means-being a little more precise and making a definite statement.


Michael Starr: It means that when the bill comes into force that clause applies to money from that day on that is spent on any of these schools, and the government will contribute the additional 25 per cent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I presume a survey would be made in each case to determine how much had already been spent? I can see there are some technical problems. I am not trying to ask the minister any trick questions; I am merely trying to find out, because I know many people will be interested in the answer to this question, precisely what the situation will be.


Michael Starr: It is the provincial expenditure in respect of these projects to which we contribute 75 per cent. Of course, the provinces can show us by the cheques they issue for their part of the expenditure what their expenditure has been. We will contribute our share of 75 per cent of that amount.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, could the minister tell me if this program of training the unemployed will be imposed upon the unemployed receiving unemployment insurance, or is it going to be voluntary?


Michael Starr: The training of unemployed people is voluntary. All our education in this country is voluntary.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No it is not. You try to keep your children away from school.


Michael Starr: I meant over 16 years of age.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Can the minister give the committee any idea how many people are ready to accept this training? Has that inquiry been made by the department?


Michael Starr: No.


Alexis Pierre Caron: So the department does not know how many people will be ready to accept training.


Michael Starr: It depends on the people themselves. I want to qualify a statement I made just now, because the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate said, quite properly, that it is compulsory for some people. Of course, I said what I did on the basis that we all accept that it is compulsory in most provinces for children to attend school until they are

16, with one exception. This scheme is not compulsory, and we have no idea just how many people will take advantage of it. We do know that there are people who need training if they are to fill certain vacancies. These schools should be set up by the provinces in localities where they would be most worth while; where there is unemployment and where work is available.


Alexis Pierre Caron: A while ago the minister told the hon. member for Timmins the amounts which will be needed by the provinces in respect of such things. On what basis can he possibly say there will be $5 million or $6 million or $30 million required if he does not know how many men will accept this training?


Michael Starr: Every provincial department has made continued studies of this question over a number of years, and all these things are based on their experience in the past and on what they expect in the future.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Have those studies in the provinces been transmitted to the federal Department of Labour?


Michael Starr: The results of those studies were transmitted.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Can the minister give us the results of those studies?


Michael Starr: I will repeat what I said before. Newfoundland, $4,300,000-


Alexis Pierre Caron: Those are the amounts the provinces need.


Michael Starr: They are the results-


Alexis Pierre Caron: Based on what?


Michael Starr: On the studies.


Alexis Pierre Caron: What studies have they made on that account?


An hon. Member:: Get on with it.


Alexis Pierre Caron: It is easy to say "get on with it" but we are talking about millions of dollars to be spent, yet nobody knows how many men will be ready to accept this training. Now the government wants to spend this money without knowing whether it will all be used.


Michael Starr: The federal government is not going to spend any money unnecessarily if it is not needed. We are giving 75 per cent to the provinces only after the provinces have spent a certain amount of money. There is no risk in this whatever.


Mr. Howard:: I think there is a group of people in Canada which has more or less been denied an education, certainly, an adequate education of the type contemplated in this
Vocational Training
bill, that is in the technical and vocational field. I wonder if the minister could indicate the point of view of this government as to whether any plans are afoot to apply a similar arrangement to the many hundreds of native Indian people in this country who have needed such a scheme for many years. This would not be a cost sharing scheme; it would lie in the field of direct participation by the federal government. Contrary to what the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate indicated a while ago, this group does find itself at an extreme disadvantage in attempting to participate in what is called a wage economy.


Michael Starr: Is the hon. member talking about courses additional to those which are provided in this bill? I ask this because the Indian population is just as eligible to participate as are any other persons in Canada.


Frank Howard: Only if they are trained in a school which comes under provincial jurisdiction. The education of Indians comes under federal jurisdiction. We have a number of schools which are run directly by the federal government. What program exists as far as they are concerned?


Michael Starr: I am informed that has nothing to do with this bill at all.


Frank Howard: I can quite appreciate that it has nothing to do with this bill. I asked the minister if while we were on the subject he would indicate what is the attitude of the government in this regard. I thought that perhaps something might be done for them, just as last session the Indian bands were made eligible for the first time to participate in the winter works program.


Michael Starr: I see, now, what the hon. member has in mind. No. I am not in a position to give an answer today as to what the plans are with respect to Indian bands.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Interpretation.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Would the word "commerce" here include the teaching of commercial subjects in day schools?


Michael Starr: Yes, I am told that provided 50 per cent of the students' time is spent in that course in the school, the answer is yes.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I wonder if I might get that clear. I suppose the regular high schools which we have in ordinary towns and cities have a regular commercial class where all the time of a student is spent in that class studying commercial subjects for grade XI or grade XII commercial diplomas.


Michael Starr: The answer is, yes.

Vocational Training


Mr.   Carier@: Subclause (d) lists seven occupations or industries, but the words preceding this list state that the definition is not limited specifically to these seven. I have been wondering if the phrase "in any service occupation" in line 15 would be broad enough to include nurses aides, because they are, I think, in the same position in relation to the nursing profession as, for example, a technician is to a dentist.


Michael Starr: The answer is, yes.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 3-Agreements authorized.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Subclause (l)(b) of clause 3 reads:
(b) for the training of persons in technical and vocational courses given in regular secondary schools in the province where such training is given as a part of the regular secondary school program;
My question is: are there to be, as it were, two sections of this technical assistance and vocational training; that is, does this bill provide for the continuance of the training in secondary or high schools and then separate institutions and schools for the technical training and trade training of unskilled people who have left high schools?


Michael Starr: Yes, that is right.


Mr.   Morion@: I should like to ask the minister one question in respect to the federal contribution. As I understand it, this is to be a percentage of the cost to the provincial governments. Is the minister referring to the cost which the province itself, as a provincial government, contributes to the municipality concerned or would that cost include the cost of the municipality in educating people under this training program? In other words if it costs $700 or $800 to educate each student in one of our larger centres, is the contribution 75 per cent of that cost or 75 per cent of the contribution of the province to the city?


Michael Starr: It is 75 per cent of the provincial contribution.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to raise some questions about paragraph (b) of subclause 1. Does that contemplate a payment of the share of the costs of training school children or does the word "persons" merely mean persons who are in the employment field?


Michael Starr: High school students registered in vocational courses.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Without regard to whether or not they are old enough to be employed?


Michael Starr: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I had not appreciated that before, I must say. Does that contemplate

removing part of the burden of the ordinary costs of education? The minister has not answered that question.


Michael Starr: Perhaps the hon. member would be good enough to repeat it. I want to make sure I understand what I am answering.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There are a great many technical schools that have been operating for years which pupils can attend instead of going to the ordinary academic high schools. These have been operating at the expense of the local authorities and the provinces. Do I understand that the federal government is now taking over a share of the cost of the people in those courses?


Michael Starr: That is right.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, this is a new departure.


Michael Starr: No, it is just an extension.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have two questions, Mr. Chairman. Paragraph (h) refers to disabled persons. In our province the workmen's compensation board is responsible under law for providing training for persons who are disabled owing to accident or occupational disease. How will this legislation fit into those arrangements? Will there be arrangements with the provinces to continue their responsibility under their workmen's compensation acts?
My second question relates to paragraph (i) which refers to the training of persons in the type of program described in clause 8. Clause 8 provides that the minister may undertake programs to provide technical and vocational training for any person serving in the armed forces or who formerly served therein. Does this mean the federal government will be transferring to the provinces part of the responsibility and costs for the education of persons who have been certified as entitled by the Minister of Veterans Affairs instead of continuing to accept its full responsibility for the education of veterans?


Michael Starr: In answer to the second question, the answer is no. We will be paying 100 per cent of the cost in this field. With reference to the disabled persons, those covered by a workmen's compensation board will not be included. This applies to disabled persons who receive no compensation or remuneration from such a board.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, may I direct the minister's attention to paragraph (c) of subclause 2. That is the part that has to do with the distribution of costs in the case of what I would call ordinary pupils attending these technical schools. If I understood him correctly the minister said in answer to

my earlier question this was not a new departure, that the federal government was already contributing to the cost of this category of persons. Could the minister say what the basis of the contribution is now and what change is contemplated?


Michael Starr: Previously the federal contribution was on a quota basis. Now the quota basis will apply only to vocational and technical training which is part of the school system, that is to say incorporated in a regular high school.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What I am interested in is what we are doing now, not what we are going to do under the bill. I want an explanation about what happens at the present time.


Michael Starr: Previously and at present the technical and vocational training program has been on a quota basis.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What does the minister mean by "quota basis"? I do not understand.


Michael Starr: That is a pretty complicated question and it will take a little time to get the answer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I believe it is an important question. The minister and I seem to be in the same position in this respect although possibly this is something that was done by the previous government.


Michael Starr: Yes, and it is so complicated that we now have to divorce it so there will be a larger share contribution on the part of the federal government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the minister saying that for the last three years he has taken the responsibility for something that is too complicated for him to understand?


Michael Starr: For the last three and a half years I have been taking responsibility for this and other complications introduced by the former government and am having trouble attempting to rectify these unnecessary complications. This is just one such attempt.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the minister
would tell us what he is trying to rectify.


Michael Starr: It is so complicated that it is difficult to explain. It is an annual allotment which is distributed on the basis of the number of persons in the 15-19 age group in each province.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the minister mean that the federal government pays a proportion of the costs of training so many pupils in each province? Surely it must be capable of being expressed in simple language.
Penitentiary Act


Michael Starr: No, I doubt it, but I will try.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And the minister has been certifying this for payment.


Michael Starr: That is right.
Mr. Pallet!: We may certify the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate for other things,


Michael Starr: This is about as lucid an explanation as the departmental head who is in charge of this can give me. It relates to 50 per cent of their expenditures and it is limited to the top of their allotment, a portion of their 50 per cent allotment. That illustrates how complicated it is.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Charles Edward Rea: Order. It being 5 o'clock we will now proceed to the consideration of private and public bills, the former having precedence, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of public and private bills, the former having precedence, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.



PENITENTIARY ACT


Frank Howard: the second reading of Bill No. C-2, to amend the Penitentiary Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be few and brief because the bill is a short one but I am sure that the Department of Justice will see the justice of the amendment contained therein. Perhaps I might explain that under the Penitentiary Act at the moment it is mandatory that an inmate -the word used is "convict" which I think is perhaps a wrong term-shall, except in the case of sickness, be kept in a cell by himself at night. That is section 66, subsection 4, of the present act. There is nothing in the act to permit the waiving of that provision and to allow for other arrangements than keeping the inmate in a cell by himself at night except in the case of sickness.
The purpose of my amendment is perhaps twofold. First, it is to prevent the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) and every other official in the penitentiaries branch from continuing to break the law because they have been doing so for quite a number of years. I think they did so initially under force of circumstances as the result of overcrowding in various penitentiaries and latterly because modern penological attitudes

Penitentiary Act
are that it is not necessary to coniine people alone in cells at night and during the day. There is a more relaxed point oi view with regard to this matter. In any event, there is no doubt that the Minister of Justice and his predecessor were violating the Penitentiary Act for quite some time. I do not think there is anything too wrong about this situation but we certainly should not bring the law into disrespect by winking at it and thinking that it is not there.
The other purpose of the bill is to allow for flexibility on the part of penitentiary officials in determining whether it is necessary to keep an inmate in his cell or whether it would be more advantageous, more humanitarian and would tend more toward rehabilitation of the individual to permit him to sleep in what is commonly called a dormitory rather than behind bars in a cell with a lock on it.
I asked some questions about this matter in 1959 and perhaps I might put some of the information on the record to indicate the extent to which dormitories are used in penitentiaries under federal jurisdiction. The information was given on June 19, 1959, and is found at page 4984 of Hansard. In answer to one of my questions the reply was as follows:
Permanent dormitories have been constructed at the following institutions-Joyceville, 48 beds; federal training centre, 400 beds (6 beds per room); Collin's Bay, 2 dormitories (50 beds each); Kingston, 1 dormitory (42 beds); St. Vincent de Paul, 1 dormitory (120 beds); British Columbia, 2 dormitories (58 beds each). Total: 826.
In addition, it is pointed out that temporary dormitories were established either in shop space or corridors in several prisons, which provided a total of 481 beds. The situation as of December 31, 1958 was that there were 1,171 inmates sleeping in dormitories contrary to what the act provides, namely that each man shall be confined by himself in a cell at night.
I think the practice of allowing this flexibility on the part of wardens and other penitentiary officials in selecting individual inmates or groups of inmates, depending upon circumstances, to be placed in dormitories rather than to be confined in cells is a good one and that the law is wrong and should be changed if we want to keep up with the practice both from the humanitarian point of view and from the point of view of having regard to the strict meaning of the law.
This matter was raised during another session and I notice there is an indication in the speech from the throne that we can expect amendments to the Penitentiary Act sponsored by the government at this session. Knowing something about the attitude of the 
present Minister of Justice so far as penology is concerned, I would rather expect that he would have taken steps to deal with this point, whether or not in these words does not matter, in the bill that he will be presenting later this session. This is only guesswork on my part but I certainly hope that it does so.
If the provision in my bill is in essence contained in any way in the bill forecast in the speech from the throne it may be that my bill comes in conflict with the rule about anticipation and if that is the case I am quite prepared to withdraw this proposal and not have it stand on the order paper because I would not want the minister to run afoul of the rules when his bill is introduced. However, we can cross that bridge when we come to it. At the moment I simply say that from a humanitarian and penological point of view I believe the wardens and prison officials should be given this statutory authority.
To some degree it has something to do in my view with the great need to rehabilitate the inmates of our prisons and ensure that they do not become recidivists once they are released. The approach of allowing inmates to sleep in dormitories rather than being confined in cells behind bars all night and half the day is much preferable and I hope that this amendment will be given the endorsation of the house either now or at a later stage.


Mr. B. G. Allmark (Kingston):: Mr. Speaker, any subject dealing with the purpose or operation of correctional institutions is, of course, of considerable interest to me since I represent the riding which is the home of four of Canada's ten major correctional institutions. Three of these institutions house male inmates and the fourth, of course, is the women's penitentiary which is at present being increased in size, thus providing winter employment in my riding. I take the train very frequently from the Kingston station and I see many people, generally young, who, having violated our laws, are arriving at these institutions to commence serving the sentences imposed on them by the courts. This is not a very pleasant sight, and one cannot witness these unfortunate people without considering the importance of our correctional procedure.
I understand there are some, and this has always surprised me, who are opposed to having a penal institution in their community. Almost all of my life I have lived within a few blocks of one of Canada's largest institutions. May I say that the residential section which surrounds this institution is as good as can be found anywhere. In fact, Mr. DECEMBER 9, 1960
Speaker, the old home of Sir John A. Macdonald is just a short distance away from Kingston penitentiary. There are some people, and this always amazes me too, who believe that there is only one way to treat an inmate of an institution and that is to impress upon him the fact that he is in prison; to impress upon him the fact that he is being caged as a dangerous animal might be caged for the protection of society.
We have about 6,000 inmates in federal institutions in Canada, and our chief objective must be to provide these men and these women with an improved mental attitude toward society; to provide them with further training so that they can find employment when they are released. Inhuman treatment of the inmate can only result in returning to society a man or a woman more embittered than when he or she entered the institution. Inhuman treatment can only result in a much larger number of these men and women returning to the institutions. Our aim should be to successfully return an inmate to society, for the benefit of the individual, for the benefit of the Canadian taxpayer and also for the contribution that the individual can make to our Canadian society.
We in Canada have been greatly in need of a change in our penal system. I do believe the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) is to be commended for taking the first steps in this direction of the training which is so essential to fit these people for today's labour market. Most industries today demand that their employees have a high level of education.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; I know the hon. member is deeply interested in the whole problem of penitentiaries, but I think I should call to his attention the fact that the bill before us is one which makes a specific amendment to the Penitentiaries Act having to do with the custody of inmates at night, that is, whether they shall be kept in individual cells or dormitories. This is all that is involved in the bill, and the fact it amends the Penitentiaries Act does not open the whole question of penitentiaries for discussion. I have listened for seven minutes to give the hon. member an opportunity to come to the bill but I think that, in view of my duty to other members who may want to speak on the principle of this bill, I must remind the hon. member that this is all that is before the house in the debate on second reading.


Benjamin Graydon Allmark: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker; I must admit that, living in a community where we have a number of penitentiaries as we do in Kingston, and where we are so closely associated with those who are
Penitentiary Act
connected with this work, the whole problem has become one of intense interest to me. I would Welcome an opportunity, of course, of speaking on the whole problem of correction and treatment.
In so far as this bill is concerned, I am interested in Bill No. C-2 which is now before us because it deals with the matter of cell accommodation. This matter has been of particular interest to me because of my various trips through these institutions. I feel very strongly, Mr. Speaker, that every inmate should be provided with a private cell for himself or herself at night. I have been in institutions where, because of the necessity of the time-Joyceville was one which the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) mentioned-the inmates' beds and possessions were together in common quarters. This arrangement gave the men no opportunity for any privacy if they wished to read letters from their own families, to write to their own families or to do quiet reading or studying. In some of the older institutions it is the practice for people to pick up their meals and carry them into the cell. However, there should be some place where the man or woman can, if he or she chooses, have that degree of privacy which I think is necessary. Surely, one of our aims is to preserve the dignity of the human being and this cannot be done unless there is some opportunity for them to be alone.
I recall, Mr. Speaker, on one occasion visiting a penitentiary where the inmates, with the material they had available, had arranged their quarters so that they looked as little as possible like institutional cells. It was extremely interesting to see the effect they had created. On another occasion, I had the privilege of visiting one man's cell in Kingston penitentiary and viewing the paintings which he had done. These had been artistically arranged around the very small walls of the cells. It has always seemed to me that the cell is the one area in an institution where an inmate can temporarily shut himself away from the institutional life, and I do think he benefits from this opportunity.
I believe that our Department of Justice suffers greatly from a lack of the necessary facilities for properly segregating those who are taken into institutions. I feel that to change the law which now demands a private cell for each inmate is a mistake. I realize that there are times when it is necessary for the warden who is in charge of the institution to use whatever accommodation he has. I feel that one important factor in treating a prisoner in one of these prisons is that he be allowed his own private cell at night, and I would be opposed to any amendment to the present act.

Penitentiary Act


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: have been interested in this question of penology, Mr. Speaker, for a great many years. I must say that my experience in visiting penal institutions is certainly different from that which has just been described by the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Allmark). I try to visit the penal institution in British Columbia not less than twice a year.
I was most interested some two or three years ago when the warden took me around, showed me the dormitory set-up which had been established and explained how it operated. I spent a number of hours in talking to the men who occupied those dormitories at night. They were not only exceedingly happy about the new arrangement but they felt that they were being honoured in that they had been selected and had been given the responsibility and the opportunity of being together on a social basis instead of being locked up in a cell for many hours every night of their term. May I just add also that this matter of a single cell can have extremely serious harmful effects and repercussions on many individuals, especially if they have any tendency whatsoever to claustrophobia.
I think we must admit that the inauguration of this new policy of dormitories in the penal institutions came about because of necessity in that there was not available the required cell accommodation as laid down in the Penitentiary Act. Hence the actual wording of the law had to be broken and it was broken by the wardens of penitentiaries with the permission, of course, of the commissioner and the minister.
I want to say that all those who were permitted this, shall we say, togetherness on a social basis in the dormitory system are always those who are the best behaved in the penitentiary and are nearly always those who are going to be discharged from the institution in a short period of time. They are carefully selected and are carefully watched. Not only are they under the close supervision of the officers of the institution, but they themselves exercise a great deal of self-discipline.
In the dormitories that I have visited they have their own committee to see that all regulations are complied with because they do not want to lose the right to stay in a dormitory. If any rule is broken the men themselves are the first to have a real heart to heart talk with the offender. As a result of what I have been told by those with whom I have spoken, if there is one thing a man does not want to lose, it is his right to be in a dormitory; and if there is one thing he does not want, it is to be sent back to the solitary confinement of a cell.

In the institutions which I have visited and which have the dormitory system I have heard of only two occasions when any individual ever abused the privilege. One was handled speedily by the men and by the authorities and the offender was sent back to a solitary cell. The other was an interesting incident. By some cute method a still was established in a kitchen, material was introduced into the dormitory and for a week the guards could not find where it was. Speedy action was taken there also.
Those are the only occasions over the years on which I have ever heard of anything happening because the men were given this privilege. I think it is a most needful step forward and a most progressive move. It is appreciated by the men concerned. They apply to go to the dormitory. They are not constrained. They may stay in a private cell if they wish to do so. However, most of them do not wish to do so. It is therefore only natural and reasonable that at this time we should consider the advisability and, I would almost say, the inevitability of correcting the statute so that the procedure which is now being followed is in accordance with the actual wording of the Penitentiary Act.


Robert Carman Coates: Like the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), Mr. Speaker, I have visited both maximum and minimum security penitentiaries. Like him, I have found that the dormitory system of handling inmates has a great many advantages over the cell block type of accommodation that is found in the maximum security institutions.
In my constituency the Department of Justice recently established a minimum security institution. I may say to the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Allmark) that I agree with him wholeheartedly in my feeling that the people in my area are happy to have the present institution located there and would be most happy to see it extended and enlarged.
I have visited the maximum security institution at Dorchester and, as the hon. member for Kingston pointed out, I have also noted that many prisoners take a great deal of pride in their individual cells-I refer to those who have an individual cell-they do carry out many innovations that would indicate they are the only places they can call home. They put up curtains and do other small things that would indicate their interest in these cells.
In my opinion, the cell block situation is necessary in some instances. However, in many instances it is a burden on the inmate and holds back his possible return to society.

For one thing, the cell block type of institution forces the warden and his officials to go through a number of procedures that are extremely time consuming. This requirement means that there is little opportunity for the inmate to do as much gainful work as might otherwise be the case. It also means that the inmate spends a great many hours of the day in the cell. This could lead to a good deal of meditation and probably brooding, the feeling that society in general is against him and that he has not been given the chance to which he feels he is entitled.
In visiting the minimum security institution at Springhill and in talking with the inmates I found an altogether different attitude among those inmates. There was an enlightened attitude on their part, that society did not altogether detest them for what they had done. They did not altogether feel that their mistakes could not be rectified. Their attitude is that they are being given a chance to live, sleep and eat together and a chance to get back into society at an earlier date than otherwise would be possible.
Also when I visited these dormitories I found the beds were of a very good quality, with foam-rubber mattresses and foam-rubber pillows. Each bed in the dormitory that I visited was very clean and very well kept. Indeed, there was the indication that there was a great deal of pride on the part of the inmates of this dormitory.
I agree with what the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) has said about the individual inmate's attitude towards being allowed to stay in dormitories, sleep there and associate with his fellow inmates. I think it is true that if one inmate were to do something against the regulations the others there would very quickly see to it that this breaking of the regulations was corrected immediately.
I also think we must point out that the matter of space, the fact that a man is not looking at three walls and bars, is a tremendous asset to him later when he must return to society. In each of these dormitories there is not only the bed, but there is a desk. There is also a small cloakroom, or cabinet, in which he can put his belongings. Each cabinet has a lock on it and for all intents and purposes his personal belongings are located there.
The dormitory is not only his sleeping quarters; it is a place in which after a day's work the inmates can get together and discuss their mutual difficulties and the matters they have in common in a free and easy atmosphere. There is nothing more forbidding, to my way of thinking, than to go into a maximum security institution and see an individual caged like an animal in a two by
Penitentiary Act
four where he cannot help but feel that no one cares about him. As far as I am concerned, there is a great deal of merit in the type of amendment proposed in Bill No. C-2.
Naturally, all inmates would not be interested in this type of quarters. Some, for one reason or other, do not feel they can trust themselves in a minimum security institution, especially living in a dormitory where there are no bars and no real outward appearances of guards and all the other things that are associated with maximum security institutions. I feel those people must of necessity remain in cells because they cannot place upon themselves the responsibility that would be their's if they entered the minimum security type of institution.
However, for those who have indicated they are willing to accept the responsibility that goes with the minimum security type of institution, who long for association with others, who have indicated they are almost ready to again enter society, this type of dormitory living is an absolute necessity today.
We have learned that it is cheaper from the taxpayers' point of view to provide the minimum security type of institution and to parole inmates as quickly as they indicate it is possible. We have also learned that this type of dormitory institution prepares those who for one reason or another have found it necessary to break the laws of our country, have been caught and must pay the penalty, and who have realized the folly of their ways-those who have indicated that they are now willing to return to society as soon as we are willing to allow them to do so. This dormitory type of association is, in my opinion, the best means of achieving this.
I feel that this government more than any other has indicated the enlightened approach to penology that I feel Canadians generally have indicated they are willing to accept. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) has undertaken at a very rapid pace the construction of minimum security institutions throughout this country.
I feel that the dormitory system, or the minimum security system of handling inmates, is one that will benefit not only the taxpayer but society generally and that we will as a result of our actions in this regard have better citizens and a better Canada.


Mr. M. J. A. Lambert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, unlike many members of this house, particularly the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), who I heard speaking a few moments ago, I have never had the opportunity nor-and I must confess that it may be a deficiency on my part-have I ever expressed a desire to visit a penitentiary

Penitentiary Act
or provincial jail. Perhaps-in fact, almost certainly-I alone of all the members of this house have had the experience of being incarcerated, although not in a prison. Having been subject to confinement for almost three years during the second world war as a prisoner of war, I think I can understand some of the feelings of a man who is held against his will in confinement, under regimentation, controlled by armed guards and, on occasions, being fired at by guards. I know something of the inner desire of a human being for alternatives when he is living under those conditions.
There we did not live in isolation. On the contrary, we were herded, 20 to 28 of us, into small rooms and after a time one felt that the greatest boon which could be given would be to have a cell or a single room of one's own in which to sleep at night so as to get away from the press of one's fellow-men. I do not know whether I can succeed in describing the effect of spending 24 hours a day in the constant company of one's fellows. It is not possible to get away from them, whether one is sleeping, eating, or out for a walk within the limiting confines of a prison camp. To be alone by oneself even to think was something almost unimaginable and, in the end, when release came, one had almost lost any capacity for independent action. We did not know what to do with ourselves.
Nevertheless, I agree in principle with the aims and motives of this bill-that in selective cases men might be given the privilege of sleeping in a dormitory room. I understand the argument that this might be better for the men themselves, as well as for the purposes of administration, and I fully appreciate what the hon. member for Vancouver East said about the esteem in which this privilege was held. However, I would not wish to see men compulsorily kept in a dormitory for a lengthy period.
Some people object to the idea that a man should be isolated at night during the whole period of a lengthy sentence, and I would think that within the regulations it might be possible for these men to be treated in the way suggested. I do not believe that in a minimum security prison everybody should be put in a dormitory, because I can tell hon. members from my own experience that there is nothing so oppressive as constant contact, 24 hours a day, seven days a week and 12 months of the year with one's fellow men. There is nothing so soul-destroying. You get to know the idiosyncrasies of everyone: you can almost tell from what corner of the room snores will come during the night; who is grinding his teeth, who will have to go out to relieve himself. Worse, there is the

bitter snapping, the quarrels. On the other hand, such conditions may help some persons to become more tolerant of the idiosyncrasies of others.
While I approve the principle of this bill I may mention that it would have the effect of amending a section of the act which I read, almost with nostalgia since it is written in the same style, with the same brevity and, I would say, callousness as the orders which governed confinement that I experienced. It may be possible, within the regulations, for the minister, the commissioner or a warden in the administration of his prison or penitentiary to make a change in the nature of the confinement of an individual. I would hope that such consideration could be given to this proposal in the light of the administrative requirements of our penitentiary system along with many other types of change, and I am only speaking theoretically about other types of change; perhaps this can be done within the administrative requirements of our present system.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple bill and we have had a very good discussion. I think the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) deserves a great deal of credit for bringing this question forward. Briefly, the measure would have the effect of making it non-mandatory for those in authority to segregate inmates at night, that is, confine them in solitary, as it were, although I do not mean in the sense of punishment. With the intention of the bill expressed simply in that way, I think most hon. members would agree. The actual explanation accompanying the bill should probably be placed on the record:
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to give the minister and the commissioner power to relax the law in proper cases and thus authorize the warden to keep selected groups of convicts together in dormitories at night.
The speech from the throne of November 17 contains this sentence:
You will also be asked to revise the Penitentiaries Act to bring it into accord with my minister's policies of correctional reform.
I think it would be reasonable to suppose that the principle which this bill embodies will certainly be contained in this amendment when it comes forward. The question of correctional planning and prison reform does deserve some consideration. The hon. member for Skeena suggested that the law was being broken but I believe that if an examination were made of the Penitentiary Act it would reveal other sections of that legislation which gives the authority to those with responsibility to permit some dormitory activity in the case of overcrowding.

I agree with the thoughts expressed by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) who has long been interested in penology and was keenly interested in the comments made by the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Allmark) who has close contact with our largest penitentiary, although that hon. gentleman did place some reservations on his words. If I may attempt to sum up what was said by all who participated in the debate I would say that some were more extreme in expressing their views about the desirability of togetherness and others expressed reservations about getting away from the practice of confinement of a solitary nature such as in cells. I feel it would be undesirable to go to either extreme and therefore merely making action non-mandatory would probably have the desired effect.
I have not been too interested in the subject of prison reform and related problems but recently it was my privilege to visit two or three of our larger penitentiaries. I am aware that this is an extremely pertinent subject nowadays and as a result of my visits I have become highly conscious of the plight of the prisoners. I am, of course, thinking seriously of their problems and of the new correctional planning the government proposes to undertake in this regard under the leadership of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton). I think it is important for hon. members to visit penitentiaries and acquaint themselves with the subject of prison reform and the problems in connection therewith because hon. members have a responsibility for our inmates. I was interested in learning that in 1873 some of the rules and regulations of penitentiary conduct were, and I quote briefly:
Convicts are to labour diligently and preserve unbroken silence. They must not exchange a word with one another under any pretence whatever.
They must not exchange looks, wink, laugh, nod or gesticulate to each other.
They must approach their keepers in the most respectful manner and be brief in their communication. They are not to speak to or address their keepers on any subject such as relates to their work, duty or wants.
They are not on any occasion nor under any pretence to speak to any person who does not belong to the prison.
They are not to stop work nor suffer their attention to be drawn from it. They are not to gaze at visitors when passing through the prison nor sing, dance, whistle, run, jump nor do anything which may have the slightest tendency to disturb the harmony or to contravene the rules and regulations of the prison.
For the wilful violation of any of these duties corporal punishment will be instantly inflicted.
We have come a long way from the regulations of 1873 and as this bill proposes I think it is desirable to ensure that prison rules and regulations are in keeping with contemporary standards of human decency.
Business of the House
In my visits there was a great deal more cleanliness apparent in the dormitories although I reserve my full approval of dormitories to minimum security type inmates or at least those who are due to be released. I feel they should be taken from lone cells and placed in dormitories for a period in order to straighten out their thinking, work out their associations and reactions and make it easier for them to adjust to society.
It was interesting to note some of the benefits which I felt were apparent as a result of this dormitory activity. In one large penitentiary we noticed a great deal of interest in sports and other parts of their program. When we approached the grievance committees many prisoners wanted to know if it would be possible to get Rocket Richard and Jean Belliveau to visit them. This was a dormitory activity they were thinking about and planning. I think the dormitory suggestion has great merit in this regard.
Another interesting observation I made in one dormitory-style minimum security prison related to the selection of television programs and channels available on the television set provided for their use. In a manner such as we would all likely adopt the group decided to pick out the programs that were most popular to watch for the evening. I found it interesting to learn that the most popular program, the favourite of all concerned, was the one about the R.C.M.P. Incidents of this nature help us to appreciate the human relations aspect of prison life.
I have nothing further to say at this time and had only two purposes in rising. I believe this debate has served a useful purpose in interesting hon. members in this new thinking with respect to prison reform. Those who have spoken did so on the basis of knowledge, interest and perhaps on the basis of personal visits. This is something we might consider undertaking through the Department of Justice and the visit of members of parliament to large prison institutions. This would be planned and I suppose they would know we were coming and we could talk to the grievance committees and find out what the inmates had on their minds.
I am sure this is a good measure and that something along the lines of the principle involved here will be forthcoming at the appropriate time. May I call it six o'clock?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the house leader what the plans are for next week?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, Mr. Speaker, I must say I greatly appreciate the assistance of the hon. member for Halifax.

Business of the House


Jay Waldo Monteith: Your parliamentary secretary.


Mr. Churchill:: I was recently looking back at an earlier year, Mr. Speaker, when it was not the practice for hon. members on the other side of the house to ask what the business was. The house leader simply used to get up and announce it.
On Monday we will be in the committee stage on the bill relating to technical and vocational training and I hope perhaps we will finish it. That will be followed by the resolution concerning the productivity council. The third item as I mentioned yesterday would be the resolution on veterans pensions. That business will hold for Monday and Tuesday, I expect.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the minister have any additional suggestions in case that should not take the whole of Monday and Tuesday?


Gordon Minto Churchill: At any time the house sees fit to do it we have several committees to be set up; procedure, Indian affairs and research in that order. I did suggest yesterday that on Wednesday we might reach supplementary estimates but I also said that would depend on the progress made by the house on the other pieces of legislation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the minister hope to get the supplementary estimates through before the Christmas recess?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Exactly, and I had hoped to get the committee stage of the bill on technical and vocational training through today which would have enabled us for certain to proceed with the supplementary estimates next week.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.