1966-05-19

Mr. Speaker:: Following yesterday's disturbing occurrence many hon. members have raised with me the question of security in the parliament buildings. I believe that generally speaking the security precautions enforced in this building over the years have been entirely adequate.
As hon. members know, it is not easy to reconcile the enforcement of strict security regulations with the degree of freedom of access to the building and the galleries that the Canadian people have come to expect when visiting parliament. We must strive to achieve a reasonable balance between these two requirements of security on the one hand and public interest in the affairs of parliament on the other hand.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
I will not suggest that the arrangements currently in force are perfect. It is quite possible that improvements could be achieved in some way without undue inconvenience to the visiting public. With this in mind the whole subject of security will be reviewed forthwith, and suggestions proferred by hon. members or by anyone interested in the matter will receive every possible consideration.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

May I also pay a tribute to the sergeant-at-arms and the members of the security staff of the house. Too often we take for granted the devotion to duty of those employees. Yesterday, under extremely distressing and difficult circumstances, those employees proved their good judgment, their self-control and efficiency to an extent which honours them and justifies the confidence we place in them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[English1



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which affects me and undoubtedly affects others as well. My question of privilege relates to an article in the Ottawa Journal of yesterday, May 18, written by Peter Jackson. The lead sentence may receive some modicum of support, because it starts by saying "Shame on you, Frank Howard!"
I might say that my question of privilege does not have to do with that first sentence. It has to do with the tenor of the article which quotes part of an editorial in the Omineca Herald, which is a weekly newspaper in my home town and constituency of Terrace and Skeena. The article relates to the Ottawa city streets, curbs, gutters and so on, and draws a comparison between the condition of the streets in my home town of Terrace as enumerated in this editorial, and the condition of the streets here in Ottawa. It says in effect, shame on me and undoubtedly on others who have similar conditions in their home towns and who have raised the matter of the deplorable condition of Ottawa streets.
I should like to say to the writer of the article, and any others, that they have grossly misunderstood and misinterpreted the whole concept of what we are trying to get at. I can assure hon. members that if they desire to move the capital of Canada to the community of Terrace, we will be overjoyed and you will have the most delightful street system in Canada there.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no prima facie case of privilege. The one thing the hon. member might have complained of-the words "Shame on you, Frank Howard"-was not complained of by the hon. member, so I rule there is no question of privilege.



JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on justice and legal affairs-Mr. Cameron (High Park).
May 19. 1966
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry AIR CANADA

Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minisier of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling copies in English and French of the report of the commission of inquiry as to the future of the Air Canada overhaul base at Winnipeg international airport and related matters.



AGRICULTURE. FORESTRY AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT CONCURRENCE IN FIRST REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. E. F. Whelan (Essex South) moved: that the first report of the standing committee on agriculture, forestry and rural development, presented to the house on Tuesday, May 17, be concurred in.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: For the
same reasons previously mentioned, we still object to reduction of any quorum and ask that the motion be agreed to on division.

Motion agreed to on division.



CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Eugene Whelan: that the second report of the standing committee on agriculture, forestry and rural development, presented to the house on Tuesday, May 17, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, asking him whether he is aware of the recent statement of Premier Lesage that construction of the Churchill Falls, Labrador, power complex will be undertaken shortly by Brinco and that the resulting power will be taken by Hydro Quebec. Can he also inform the house whether resolution No. 49, now standing on the order paper in his name, which provides for a 95 per cent income tax rebate, is being introduced in relation to this power complex?
[Mr. Speaker.)


Hon. Miichell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the policy which this legislation will implement had been decided upon long before there was any discussion about Brinco and the Churchill Falls project.


Michael Starr: I have a supplementary question. Will the provisions of the bill, and the power embodied therein, be applicable to this type of power complex that is being undertaken?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that it is in order for me to answer a question of this kind. In any event, this legislation would apply to all provinces on the same basis, and if it applies to Brinco and the project referred to it will apply because of the fact that it is located in Newfoundland, and for no other reason.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, but in his absence perhaps I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the fact that the British Columbia maritime employers association has applied to the courts to compel members of the longshoremen's union to work on May 23, which is Victoria day, at rates of pay which the employees claim are incompatible with the Canada Labour Code? Can the minister say whether he will order an inquiry into this matter under section 35 part V of the Canada Labour Code, with a view to ensuring full compliance with that code?


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, if this matter has not already been drawn to the minister's attention I will be happy to see that it is in the near future.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question. Is the parliamentary secretary aware that the longshoremen's union requested such an inquiry on September 1 last?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of a lot that goes on in the Department of Labour, but I am sorry to say that I do not know of this particular case.
May 19, 1966	COMMONS



MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouetle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys?
As a result of communications and representations to provincial mining authorities, does he have a statement to make in the house in connection with gold mines of northwestern Quebec?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: No, Mr. Speaker.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I put a
supplementary question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, which I had no time to do because you recognized the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson).
Are negotiations still underway with the provincial authorities of Quebec with regard to gold mines in the area of Val d'Or-Malarctic and Rouyn-Noranda?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I have drawn the attention of the provincial authorities to this problem and it is not for me to take decisions on behalf of the Quebec provincial authorities.


David Réal Caouette: No, but you can nevertheless prod them a little.



NATIONAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice, and while our thoughts are directed to security, might I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether any decision has been arrived at as to when the commission on national security will be set up, which the Prime Minister has mentioned a number of times as being imminent?


Hon. Paul Martin (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, last week, I think it was, the Prime Minister was asked this question and said he would be making a reply some time later. I am not aware exactly when he proposes to reply, but I will call this question to his attention.
DEBATES	5289
Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE



INQUIRY AS TO PUBLICATION OF TAXATION COMMISSION REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. As it is reported in the press that the report of the Carter commission on taxation will be in the hands of the minister within a month, could the minister advise the house when he expects to make the report public?


Mitchell William Sharp: I would expect to table it as soon as I receive it. I can see no reason now why it should not be made public at that time.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. There is a report that the Canadian government has been in negotiation or discussion with the French government with regard to the acquisition of a version of the Mystere aircraft. Can the minister advise the house whether, in the light of continuing requirements for a major aircraft, this is so?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: There have been discussions, Mr. Speaker.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of National Defence. At what stage are discussions with the French government, and with regard to what version of the aircraft were those discussions held?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The discussions are now being carried on by my colleague the Minister of Defence Production. I cannot give my hon. friend the exact stage, Mr. Speaker, and unfortunately my colleague is not here at the moment.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, but in his
May 19. 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry absence possibly the parliamentary secretary could give us the information. Can the house be advised when the amendments to the Crop Insurance Act, which were promised in the Speech from the Throne, will be brought forward for consideration?


Mr. Bruce S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to thank the hon. member for Middlesex West for bringing this important matter to the attention of the house. It provides an opportunity to say that the Minister of Agriculture and the government are giving very thoughtful consideration to all the needs of the provinces in the preparation of a bill which we hope will be presented to parliament in the very near future.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg Souih Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport in connection with the Thompson report which he has just tabled. Will the minister advise the house whether that report recommends the retention in Winnipeg of the overhaul and maintenance base of Air Canada?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I have asked the officials in my office to send the hon. gentleman a copy of the report, which is a document of 175 pages without appendices, and I think it would be terribly presumptuous on my part to attempt to summarize it.


Michael Starr: Particularly if you haven't read it.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, may I remind the minister that there are 14 members from Manitoba.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have also asked for a copy to be sent to the hon. gentleman.


Mr. R. K. Andras (Port Arthur):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Transport. In view of some reports reaching me as to mounting speculation on this matter, could the Minister of Transport confirm that Air Canada will be establishing an air cargo terminal at the Winnipeg international airport?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The answer to that question, sir, is yes. It was announced yesterday by Air Canada and the premier of Manitoba that, entirely at the expense of Air Canada, a great new air cargo terminal is to be established in Winnipeg to come into operation next year, serving all the air lines that wish to avail themselves of it.


Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Provencher):: May I
ask a supplementary question. Can the minister tell the house how many employees there will be in this air cargo terminal as compared to the number of people currently employed?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is argumentative.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Now that the minister has tabled the Thompson report, would he tell the house when the decision on the future of the Winnipeg overhaul base can be expected?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think it would profit all of us if we read the Thompson report first.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to direct a question to the minister who will be acting for the Secretary of State today. In view of the fact that Mr. Tom Conochie, producer of the very interesting Columbia river television film for the C.B.C., has been informed that he will no longer be producer of this film, and in view of the fact that residents of British Columbia consider this a magnificent film and some say that Mr. Tom Conochie can show the Ottawa bunch a thing or two about how to film a river story-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. member kindly pose his question?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: My question, Mr. Speaker, is would the minister investigate the circumstances surrounding this further unfortunate incident in the life of producers employed by the C.B.C.?


Mr. Speaker:: This question should be
placed on the order paper.
May 19, 1966	COMMONS



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. In view of the fact that Newfoundland and Labrador are this year having a come home year, when many thousands of Newfoundlanders and their descendants will be visiting our province, will the Postmaster General consider the preparation of a stamp commemorating this important event?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The urgency of the matter is not readily apparent. Perhaps the hon. member might like to put the question on the order paper.


James Roy Tucker: I think the Postmaster General is prepared to answer the question. We have only a few months left.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: have a question for the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. I should like to preface my question by noting that the minister is scheduled to make a major address at the meeting of the Conservation Council of Ontario in Toronto next week. May I ask the minister if he intends to make any statement in the house concerning water resources and pollution prior to that time?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am delighted to bring to the attention of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka the fact that my estimates have been referred to a committee of the house. If he cares to look at the report of that committee he will find at least five or seven pages on that subject.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Have any protests been made by the usual anti-nuclear groups since the recent detonation of an atomic bomb by communist China?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have had no such representations as yet.
DEBATES	5291
Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question
is either for the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce I shall address it to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can he tell us if the trade agreement with the Soviet union, which was ratified on May 12, 1965 and is now, I believe, being renegotiated, is being renegotiated on the same most favoured nation basis as the previous trade agreement? Does the existing agreement remain in force even though it has expired?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, until the agreement has been negotiated I do not think it would be correct for me to disclose the progress of the negotiations. They are under way.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Could the minister tell us whether the trade agreement which has been in effect will remain in effect until the new agreement is signed?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister of northern affairs. Considering the urgent warnings in this morning's Globe and Mail, is the northern affairs department contemplating steps to prevent extinction by unrestricted hunting of Arctic wildlife, particularly polar bears?


Mr. Speaker:: The question should be
placed on the order paper.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of
May 19, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry Finance. Could the minister advise the house what progress he is making in the preparation of legislation to bring all the stock exchanges in Canada under one set of rules designed to provide the maximum protection to the Canadian investor?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, plans are now being formulated for a meeting to discuss the security regulations or similar regulations of this kind in order to try to achieve greater uniformity among the provinces. The federal government has expressed its willingness to take the initiative here, and to take whatever action it feels would be necessary in the federal field.


Michael Starr: A supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. I should like to ask the minister whether the government is considering putting into legislative form any of the proposals which are made in the book of which the author is the hon. member for Davenport?


Mitchell William Sharp: Well, Mr. Speaker, a great many of the matters mentioned in the book written by the hon. member for Davenport are now matters of law which have been introduced by this government. The hon. member has also put in his book a number of matters which are part of government policy. Undoubtedly they will be implemented.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and ask whether he is in a position to give the house a progress or any other kind of report about the meetings which are currently taking place in Seattle, Washington, between Canada and the United States over certain salmon fishery problems on the west coast.


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, the meeting in Seattle is continuing today. We have been in daily touch with the Canadian representatives at the conference. I understand that Canada has proposed certain changes in the existing surf lines and that counter proposals have also been made by the U.S.A. representative, proposals which were not acceptable to the Canadian delegates. As I say, the meeting is

under way, so I would prefer to wait for the return to Ottawa of the Canadian representatives before giving a final report to the house.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question. Could the minister tell the house whether any of the proposals or counter proposals have have been made public?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
SUGGESTED VISIT BY KING OF SAUDI ARABIA On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the events which have taken place in the Middle East in the last few weeks, and in view of the pending visit of King Faisal of Saudi Arabia to Washington, has the government asked or is it intending to ask King Faisal to visit Canada at the same time?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There have been no arrangements made for such a visit, Mr. Speaker.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I ask the minister whether his attention has been drawn to charges which are made in this morning's Globe and Mail that university trained professional men and women from Europe are working in Canada as dishwashers, labourers and technicians because professional associations will not accept their credentials?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That question is not urgent and should be placed on the order paper.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Pefers (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Acting Secretary of State this question. Have the Toronto police and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police completed their investigation into allegations
May 19, 1966	COMMONS
that drugs or pornographic films were involved in the C.B.C. documentary on youth; and is the Secretary of State in a position to clear the reputation of the producer of the film, Douglas Leiterman, and the director, Miss Beryl Fox, in that regard?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: I will take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I should like to ask the minister whether the government has under consideration the proposal made by the United Nations Association in the United States that the United Nations take over ownership of the high seas and outer space, and use these resources as a source of independent-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the hon. member will agree that this question might very well await a reply on the order paper.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I should like to give notice for ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister of northern affairs having to do with committee organization. In view of the pending reorganization of certain government departments, would the minister indicate whether eventually the committee structure of the house will correspond with his newly reorganized department, particularly with regard to the subject of Indian affairs?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that this is a matter of rather general import, and I suggest to the hon. member that the question cannot be asked at this time.



NEWFOUNDLAND


John Whitney Pickersgill: the second reading of Bill No. C-185, to give effect to term 29 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada.
DEBATES	5293
Newfoundland Terms of Union [DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, we cannot simply accept term 29 just like that.
Yesterday, my colleague for the riding of Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) clearly and rightly established that agreeing to grant the province of Newfoundland $8 million a year would not disturb us too much if the federal government or parliament were to recognize, first of all, that part of the province of Quebec was ceded to the province of Newfoundland by a decision of the Privy Council in 1927.
At that time, in 1927, outright discrimination was practised and here, Mr. Speaker, I ask for the attention of the members from Newfoundland. We, from the province of Quebec, must remain absolutely opposed to the annual $8 million grant to the province of Newfoundland as long as Labrador, which, geographically speaking, belongs to the province of Quebec, is not returned to that province as an integral part of its territory. Mr. Speaker, we cannot tolerate such discrimination, and when we request a vote for a period-


Mr. O'Keefe:: On a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Joseph Phillip O'Keefe: Yes. I am suggesting that the hon. member for Villeneuve is alleging there has been discrimination by the highest court in the British empire, the Privy Council. I am also raising a question of privilege because yesterday afternoon the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) on three different occasions accused the province of Newfoundland of stealing Labrador. Surely that should not be allowed in the House of Commons,


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the question of privilege and point of order raised by the minister who represents a Newfoundland riding, the province of Newfoundland was not alone in stealing Labrador because the Privy Council stole it at the same time from the province of Quebec.
That is why there is still discussion and disagreement not only in the province of Quebec but in others about Labrador because, normally and geographically speaking, that
5294	COMMONS
Newfoundland Terms of Union part of the country belongs to the province of Quebec and is part of it; the hon. member is perfectly aware of that.
Besides, such was the case before the province of Newfoundland was founded, when Labrador was part of the province of Quebec.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the hon. gentleman is still speaking on the point of order, or whether he is ignoring it and carrying on with his speech. I say this because I should like to speak on the point of order.


David Réal Caouette: Go on.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would point out that this bill is exclusively concerned with one thing, namely the completion of the terms of union of 1948 which were adopted by the parliament of Canada in 1949. The subject the hon. gentleman is now seeking to debate is totally and completely irrelevant to the bill and has no connection with the bill or its subject matter.
I might also point out that whatever the hon. gentleman may think of the judgment of the Privy Council in 1927, both houses of the parliament of Canada adopted the measure embodying the terms of union and approved an address asking the parliament at Westminster to approve it. And in that address the province of Newfoundland was defined as it is now according to the laws of Canada.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member is seeking to introduce into this debate something which is out of order because it is totally irrelevant to the subject before the house.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I think that the remarks made by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) are fully in order since he was beginning to discuss the matter of Labrador, while at the same time explaining the reasons why he is against the bill.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that each time members of the house are asked to vote, they are by this very fact allowed beforehand to explain why they will vote in such and such a way. That is precisely what the hon. member for Villeneuve is doing and that is why I submit that he is complying with the rules.
Second, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) has just explained that by accepting the decision of the Privy Council and approving the entry of Newfoundland into

DEBATES	May 19. 1966
confederation in 1949, the House of Commons became the accomplice not only of the Privy Council but of those who stole Labrador from the province of Quebec.
[English1


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened to the arguments submitted on this point of order. They are very interesting. I am in full agreement with the argument advanced by the Minister of Transport. If there is to be order in this house there has to be relevance of debate. This is a prime rule of procedure in the House of Commons; there has to be strict relevance to the matter at hand. I know this rule has not always been observed to the extent it should be, but in this particular instance there is no question in my mind but that the matter of the Labrador boundaries is not pertinent to the subject matter of this bill.

I took the remarks of the hon. member for Villeneuve as leading up to the speech he was going to make. That is why I let him proceed. I think he will admit readily that he must keep to the provisions of Bill C-185 now that he has reached the main part of his speech.


David Réal Caouette: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I will abide by your ruling. I was discussing clause 2 of Bill C-185, and trying, as you say, to explain my opposition to the renewal of term 29 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada. I understand why the Minister of Transport is objecting to my statements or remarks, but I remind him that in 1927, when a judgment was rendered by the Privy Council in London about Labrador, we had then a Liberal government in Ottawa and in Quebec. Well, not only the Privy Council and Newfoundland, but also the Canadian Liberal party contributed to deprive the province of Quebec of Labrador.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. Like the Speaker of the house, I must remind the member for Villeneuve that he is now referring to a problem existing between the province of Quebec and Newfoundland, while the subject matter before the house concerns term 29 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada adopted in 1949.
I would ask the member for Villeneuve to confine his remarks to the legislation before the house.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I thank you once again for calling me to order.
May 19, 1966	COMMONS
When the agreement was signed in 1949, I was a member of the house. When Newfoundland joined the other Canadian provinces, I was here and the Prime Minister of Canada was the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent; it was not unanimously, but by a majority vote that Newfoundland was accepted within confederation.
Term 29 stipulated that Canada agreed to pay the sum of $8 million each year as from 1949. Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to call your attention to a very definite point relating to clause 2 of Bill C-185.
The province of Quebec contributes its share of the $8 million paid each year to Newfoundland. I think the Minister of Transport will admit the cogency of my assertion to the effect that we contribute our share, we, in the province of Quebec, of the $8 million paid each year to the province of Newfoundland.
We, in the province of Quebec, contribute our share of the $8 million paid each year to the province of Newfoundland. Well, we are against paying anything as long as our property, Labrador, is not duly restored to the province of Quebec.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member for Villeneuve, but it seems that he is bent on speaking about the delimitation between the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland, which is not the subject of the bill before us. The bill simply concerns ratification and confirmation of the agreement reached between the federal government and the province of Newfoundland. The hon. member for Villeneuve should confine his remarks to that subject matter.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be enlightened on one point. May I give the reasons why I am opposed to paying the $8 million we are now being asked to pass, or to continuing to pay Newfoundland? Do I have the right and privilege, as a member of the House of Commons, to give the reasons why I object to Bill C-185, and more specifically to term 29 of the bill?
Mr. Speaker, could you enlighten me on that point. Do I have the right to say why I am opposed to that bill?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for Villeneuve for wanting to put questions to the Chair. We must deal merely with the question before the house. Reference must not be made to the present problem between Quebec and Newfoundland which
DEBATES	5295
Newfoundland Terms of Union was settled by a ruling of the Privy Council. The member for Villeneuve may make remarks about the amount of money the federal government is paying Newfoundland this year. That is the only question before the house at the present time.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on the question raised by Your Honour, I should like to point out with all due respect to the Chair that it behoves any member to put forward the reasons why he supports or objects to a bill.
I share this opinion. However, while indicating the reasons for which the member is opposed to such a bill, he must not go into every detail of a dispute. He may set forth his reasons and discuss them sensibly, but in my opinion the member would be well advised to restrain himself and not to state the whole issue.
At present, a member cannot be restricted too much, otherwise the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) would be totally silenced and that would be a disaster for him, but perhaps a relief for the house.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Edmonton West for his interjection. I do not claim to be in a position, at the present time, to discuss the Labrador issue, but I use that argument to air my view on the continued payment of $8 million to Newfoundland in order to enable this province to remain part of Canada.
I understand the objection of the Minister of Transport. He comes from Newfoundland and when he defends that province, it is evident that it is only for a political purpose, to try to exert some influence in his province. I understand that. But we, from the province of Quebec, have more important reasons.
Allow me to point out, Mr. Speaker, that we are not in favour of the withdrawal of Newfoundland from confederation. No, we want Newfoundland to continue to exist within confederation. But one of the reasons for Newfoundland's persistence within confederation is precisely that term 29 of Bill No. C-185 under which Canada pays $8 million per annum to that province.
Did Quebec get $8 million per annum when Labrador was stolen, Mr. Speaker? And we are going to keep on paying $8 million to those who dispossessed us of Labrador which was our property?


Mr. Laflamme:: Would the hon. member permit a question?
May 19, 1966

Newfoundland Terms of Union


David Réal Caouette: Certainly.


Ovide Laflamme: In view of the fact that the hon. member said a while ago that he was in the house in 1949 when the act providing for the union of Newfoundland to Canada was passed, can he tell us whether he made those points and whether he voted for or against this act?


David Réal Caouette: At that time, Mr. Speaker, we voted against the annual gift of $8 million.


Ovide Laflamme: Against the act?


David Réal Caouette: Everyone was satisfied with the Terms of the Union of Newfoundland with Canada. But we did discuss the act and even tried to amend some of its provisions when it was before the house. At that time, the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Laflamme) was not here, but I was. So if the hon. member will be kind enough to look over Hansard for 1949, he will understand the discussion that took place on the annexation of Newfoundland to Canada. There were even some members who opposed the annexation of that province because they considered that Newfoundland would cost Canada too much for what we would get in return.
Today, Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that Newfoundland is costing more to Canada or brings in to Canada more that it is costing but I do say this: Newfoundland demands that we pay her $8 million a year. No other province asks that. But to be a part of Canada and to benefit from important services of ministers such as those of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), Newfoundland cannot foot the bill for its own administration without assistance from the other provinces.
That is not the point, Mr. Speaker. We are discussing term 29 of Bill C-185. We have no objection, as I said a moment ago, to Newfoundland being part of Canada, but as far as the representation from Quebec is concerned, and I appeal to the member for Quebec-Montmorency, as long as Newfoundland-
1English]


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Would he say whether he took part in any of the votes in this house in 1949 when Newfoundland became a part of Canada?


David Réal Caouette: No. There was an election prior to Newfoundland becoming part of

Canada and I was defeated in my own constituency.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman is wrong again. Newfoundland was united with Canada on April 1, 1949. The debates took place well before that. The hon. gentleman was a member of the house. I have been scrutinizing the division lists but so far as I can see he was not present to vote on one side or the other.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what I was saying earlier. When the discussion took place at the time and when the union was effected, I was not here, but members of our party were, and the annexation was passed on division and not unanimously. The minister knows this. Let him find out, and let us keep from any inaccurate statement or information without knowing what is involved.
At that time, the minister was not in the house; he was a government official. They were the ones who organized the annexation and the government was using every means to induce Newfoundland to join Canada.
This brings me to say that we object to voting $8 million to Newfoundland and we shall object until the territory belonging by rights to the province of Quebec, namely Labrador, is given back to our province.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Mr. C. R. Granger (Grand Falls-While Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in respect of what was said a few moments ago and also in respect of some of the remarks made yesterday. I should like to refer particularly to the very helpful speeches made by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming) and the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) in which they both showed a very keen appreciation of the problems faced by Newfoundland and the Atlantic provinces generally. Their approach was both intelligent and sympathetic.
I should like to say that we in the provinces sometimes feel, with disappointment but not bitterness that the rest of Canada does not always recognize to what extent the Atlantic provinces contribute to the economy of Canada. In the Atlantic provinces we export nearly everything we produce. The produce of the sea, the land, the forests, and the mines is nearly all exported to foreign
May 19, 1966

markets. Tremendous quantities of goods are exported from the four Atlantic provinces and these goods are changed into the money of other countries which finds its way into the general economy of Canada since in the Atlantic provinces we buy nearly everything we use from the rest of Canada.
The tremendous amount of money which is funnelled into the Canadian economy through the Atlantic provinces makes a very great contribution indeed to the balanced economy of Canada. I think members from all over Canada, from the west, from central Canada, from the farm producing areas or the industrial areas, should realize that the Atlantic region, which at one time was the principal part of Canada but was surpassed over the years by other areas, nevertheless makes a real contribution to the economy of the country. The Atlantic provinces are on their way back; they are not worn-out provinces by any means. These provinces are now going through a renaissance, and any money spent by the Canadian government in developing the Atlantic provinces is an investment from which you will receive very real returns.
In respect of the statements made by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) and the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) I submit, in a spirit of helpfulness, that what they really are discussing is redistribution. What they want to do is to make further changes in the boundaries of my district. I should like to place on the record this statement. They are not going to do it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this matter having been the subject of debate today, may I say just a very few words. I should like to affirm the position I took when we were dealing with this legislation at the resolution stage. We support this measure. We think it is little enough that Newfoundland is asking, but we also feel that the good name of Canada is at stake. From reading the provisions of term 29 and from such studies as I have given to this matter it does seem to me that Canada would not be doing the right thing if it did not continue this provision for a statutory grant on a permanent basis. I hope, therefore, that the House of Commons will approve this measure.
I also wish to say that I think the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), unwittingly or otherwise misled some of us by something he said at the resolution stage. I have read again what he said and I realize it is capable of having two meanings. Apparently I took

Newfoundland Terms of Union the one which he did not intend to give, but it was there in the words he used. The meaning I took from what the hon. minister said, as recorded at page 4912 of Hansard for May 9 and developed a bit later, was that this measure once passed by parliament could not be amended except by the consent of the government of Canada and the government of Newfoundland. For that reason I asked to see the bill before it received second reading.
When I read the bill today I saw that the Minister of Transport had misled me, and perhaps some others, because what the bill provides is that the payments shall continue in effect from now on unless otherwise provided by any agreement in that behalf hereafter entered into between the government of Canada and the government of Newfoundland. I take it that any agreement the government of Canada and the government of Newfoundland might make hereafter would have to come before parliament. In other words, what I believe the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) and I were asking for at the resolution stage, namely, that parliament's control over parliamentary legislation be maintained, is protected by the terms of this bill. Therefore the query which I raised at the resolution stage has been satisfied. As I already have said, the measure is one that this parliament should pass and we support the bill.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, just a few words to mention also that I am against the motion for second reading of this bill, not because I object in any way to helping poor provinces, but rather because I am convinced that the vast majority of the citizens of Quebec also object to their taxes being partly paid to Newfoundland, as long as Labrador is not recognized as being part of the province of Quebec, as it should be. That is the reason why I am against the motion for second reading of this bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, if I might say a word-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: May I
remind hon. members that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say one word in reply to my hon. friends from Villeneuve and Lapointe. I should like to remind them that
May 19. 1966

Newfoundland Terms of Union there would not be any Quebec had it not been for the Newfoundland soldiers who came there and raised the siege of Quebec, thus saving Quebec to become a part of Canada.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, in this connection, I would say that Canada would have fallen into the hands of the United States, had it not been for French Canadians who, in 1812, under the orders of Commander De Salaberry, turned back the American army; in fact Canada itself would not exist, but would simply be another American state.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think we all agree that Canada would not exist if we were not all here and the country was not all here, and I hope it is going to remain that way.
I must say that I find it hard to take very seriously the arguments of the hon. member for Villeneuve because he was here as a member of parliament in 1949 when Newfoundland became a part of Canada. There were three recorded votes that I have looked at in the Journals of the House of Commons for that period and I find that the hon. gentleman was not present to vote on any one of those three occasions.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I would not have accused you on such flimsy grounds.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: I seem to be misleading the house now in my references to north and south. I certainly had no intention of misleading the house. I do not think this bill offends in any way the doctrine of parliament sovereignty. It is my view, and I believe it will be the view of the people of Newfoundland, that if this house decides by an overwhelming voice that this is a good bill this will be all the safeguard they will need from their fellow Canadians.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Speaker, since I am apparently prevented from making the speech I intended to make because the minister spoke without any warning, I should like now to speak on a point of order and direct a question to the minister. I am sure his answer will satisfy my question. Is it the government's intention to undertake a periodic review of the amount of money set out in the legislation, perhaps every second year, because of inflationary and other factors, rather than having the amount continue on an indefinite basis?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I could answer that question when we are considering the bill in committee.


Gilles Grégoire: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) knows the rules well enough to understand that he cannot make comments about a vote. That is what he is now doing, although he has been a member of this house for a long time. He should know the rules.
[English1


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman is mistaken. One cannot comment on a vote taken at this session, but this was in the parliament of 1949. I am not commenting on it; I am merely recording the fact, and I do not intend to say anything further in respect of it. I would not have raised the matter at all had it not been for the fact that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) suggested I may have misled the house. I wish to apologize if I-


Stanley Howard Knowles: You had better apologize to the member for Winnipeg South Centre. It was the member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Gilles Grégoire: Could you call for the yeas and nays, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel):: All those in favour of the said motion please say yea. And all those opposed please say nay. In my opinion the yeas have it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Maurice Rinfret: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
On clause 2-Annual payment to Newfoundland by way of additional financial assistance.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Chairman, I believe the minister was going to answer a question that was asked by the hon. member for Halifax and I have a similar question with regard to the effect of clause 2. What effect does clause 2 have over and above any powers that were contained in clause 3 of the other act which is being repealed? I would specifically ask what significance, if any, has the inclusion of the words "on behalf of the government of Canada"? I noticed that this expression did not appear in the corresponding paragraph.
Second, I suppose the purpose of passing this bill is to include these words:
-until otherwise provided by any agreement in that behalf hereafter entered into between the government of Canada and the government of Newfoundland-
That is the only addition I see; otherwise the bill is redundant, at least in my judgment.
I also want the assurance of the minister that the existence of this bill with its provision of the amount of $8 million will not in any way prejudice the position of Newfoundland with regard to negotiations or federal-provincial conferences dealing with grants of a general nature, such as equalization grants to equalize the level of services in the various provinces of Canada, and that it will never be said on behalf of the government of Canada that in the case of Newfoundland equalization is already provided in this legislation.
May 19, 1966

Newfoundland Terms of Union
Regardless of whether or not under this bill negotiations may be entered into, any negotiations with the province of Newfoundland in connection with the equalization of grants must not be prejudiced by this legislation when the amount specified has depreciated in value so that it does not meet the purpose contemplated in term 29.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman has put several questions. The hon. member for Halifax also put a question which is closely related, I think, to some of the matters raised by the hon. member for Queens.
The position taken by the federal government and the position, if I understand it correctly, of the government of Newfoundland is that the McNair award under term 29 should be assimilated to the constitutional subsidies provided to other provinces in the original act of confederation, as amended from time to time, and to the subsidies provided in the terms of union with the other provinces which subsequently came into confederation. The award should not be confused with tax-sharing or equalization.
It is true that the monetary award of $8 million was incorporated as part of the taxsharing legislation of the previous government, and from the monetary standpoint this bill will make no difference. What it does is to make provision of this kind permanent unless at some time the parliament of Canada decides to repeal this act. In other words, it puts the matter in a different position.
It is true, as the hon. member for Carleton suggested, that we might have proposed an address to the British parliament and asked them to incorporate this provision in the British North America Act. If the government of Newfoundland had felt very strongly about it, then perhaps that would have been a course which might have commended itself to the whole of parliament. That was done, of course, with the original terms of union and it was done with the terms of union of most of the other provinces.
However, the government of Newfoundland indicated that they would accept the good faith of the parliament of Canada. They agreed that, if it was done in this way, no parliament would ever change it unless there was agreement between the then government of Newfoundland and the government of Canada that it should be changed. I think it is fair to say that they have taken the view which the present federal government takes

and which the leader of the government took when he was on the other side of the house and has taken consistently, namely, that this should be done as part of the terms of union and done on the same kind of basis as the other parts of the terms of union, as completion of the constitutional subsidy of Newfoundland.
In many ways, Mr. Chairman, this course is very comparable to something with which the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton is very familiar, namely, the awards of the White commission which were made in the thirties and which were not incorporated as an amendment to the British North America Act but were made a statute of this parliament. Those sums have been paid to the three maritime provinces annually ever since.
I am sure that any proposition that these subsidies be taken away unilaterally by this parliament would be defeated by this parliament. I am sure the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton would agree with that view. Therefore it is felt by us, and after the vote we have just had I am more reassured, that this act will adequately complete confederation.
If the McNair commission had seen fit to recommend that this amount be revised from time to time according to some formula to take account of changing factors, then, since most Newfoundlanders would feel that it would probably be revised upwards or not at all, they would have been very happy. There was not too much satisfaction expressed in Newfoundland when the award was first made. But the McNair commission did not recommend that course; they recommended a fixed sum.
I think it is fair to say that the present course will be regarded in Newfoundland as just and, beyond that, that the people of Newfoundland and the government of Newfoundland will be prepared to accept the same principles as apply to other provinces in the fields of equalization and tax-sharing. No doubt they will fight this as hard as the governments of the other provinces fought, and no one knows better than the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton how hard they can fight. They expect to get treated just as well as any other Canadian with regard to taxsharing and equalization. But they do not want the two matters confused. This amount they regard as their constitutional right.
Tax-sharing is part of the arrangement which ever since 1947 we have habitually revised every five years and with regard to
May 19, 1966	COMMONS
which the Minister ol Finance and the provincial governments are even now in the process of negotiating revision. I do not think there is any danger, once the bill has passed and become part of the law of Canada, of the two matters being confused at all.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, May 18, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Marchand-Mr. Rinfret in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting allowances to persons being trained under technical and vocational training programs, and to authorize the entering into agreements with the provinces in connection therewith; and to provide further for certain changes incidental thereto in connection with the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Mr. Regimbal:: Mr. Chairman, we were very interested by the explanatory remarks of the future minister of manpower (Mr. Marchand) on the resolution regarding vocational technical training and compensation for persons who will take those improvement courses. We are pleased to offer our full cooperation for the realization or achievement of the objective sought. Of course, we can make more accurate comments and more cogent criticisms when we see the detailed text of the bill.
Besides, the future minister knows that the technical and vocational training program now applying to persons affected by unemployment, as well as the technical school construction assistance program, were initiated under our party's administration. The fact that it is proposed today to review the scope and application of this program proves definitely the merits of our initiative.
It seems logical to us that these programs should be adjusted to the needs of the times, as it would seem logical also to adjust the income of old people and pensioners to present standards of living.
DEBATES	5301
Vocational and Technical Training
We hope that this new program will direct people toward new trades adjusted to the needs of new industries, rather than toward the usual trades or jobs, as was too often the case in recent years, such as body workers, cooks, barbers and so on. We think also that special attention should be given to the development of industrial structures, to supervisory and even administration duties. Special assistance in this regard would be most appreciated by small and medium-sized enterprises which, as the future minister knows from experience, still remain the backbone of our semi-urban and semi-rural economy.
But we rejoice especially over the fact that an opportunity will be given us, at last, to consider, after five months of session, one of the first pieces of legislation that may have positive results on our national economy. The program indicated in the Speech from the Throne included 23 or 24 points.
[English1
Actually, Mr. Chairman, what has this house done until now? Practically nothing, and certainly through no fault of the opposition. We are still waiting for the introduction of promised legislation concerning university grants and scholarships, a health resources fund, medicare, banking, a national dairy commission, feed grain marketing, the Railway Act, the Canada Development Corporation, securities, the Bankruptcy Act, and insurance for full time farm workers. We hope the introduction of this bill may be the start of something good.
Mind you, we find it strange that the suggested compensation should be fixed at $1 an hour, or $35 for a week of 35 hours, when at this very moment the government is seeking to enact Bill No. C-2 establishing a minimum of $1.25 an hour for a 40-hour week. Perhaps the Minister of Labour will wish to say a word on this point. We are also anxious to know what size of family will qualify for the maximum $90 a week allowance.
These are points on which we shall be commenting at greater length when the details of the bill are before us. In conclusion may I repeat that we welcome this initiative and hope that our past experience will be of assistance in guiding this measure to successful final enactment for the betterment of our human resources.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Chairman, as we take part in this debate it is important, to recognize the significance of what the minister is
May 19, 1966

Vocational and Technical Training
proposing. It was a significance which goes beyond the bare announcement made by the hon. gentleman. We are encouraged to believe there is a new understanding of manpower, as evidenced by the reconstruction of the department and the appointment of the present minister. It is most heartening to read a statement by the hon. gentleman recently expressing his belief that this problem cannot be solved unless the community as a whole takes a new attitude toward the importance of training and comes to regard training as a normal and productive part of people's lives, as something that should be equated with work rather than with unemployment and welfare.
This represents a great departure from the practice in the past and I am sure there is not a member in the house who will not applaud this new approach. I should like to join with the hon. member who has just resumed his seat in the suggestion that we adhere to this principle and see that the equating of work with training is carried to its logical conclusion by making $1.25 the minimum basis of payment. If we are to honour the minister's statement with the full force of the law I think we should seriously consider making the initial payment greater than $35.00 so that it will be more in line with the labour code now on the statute books. The minister might wish to make some adjustments with regard to the other levels. But he has postulated an important principle and perhaps he needs to take action to ensure that this principle is fully understood and that we have a total commitment to it.
I should like to quote now from a publication entitled "Technical and Vocational Education in Canada". The following is an extract from the speech by Mr. W. R. Cranston, chairman of the Ontario Economic Council, illustrating what I call the new attitude toward manpower:
The days of the big "gold rushes" in terms of available and exploitable human and material resources in this country may well be coming to an end. We must now, to hold our place in this world, examine our manpower and natural assets in much greater detail and provide an economic and educational climate in which their contribution to our national and international growth can and will be more readily maximized.
While I am on this subject I should like to compliment the Department of Citizenship and Immigration together with the director and editor of this magazine. I think this is a most worthy effort and it contains excellent information on the whole subject of manpower.


It is fairly obvious that the provisions contemplated in this resolution are overdue. From personal experience, as well as from the experience of others who are familiar with this subject, I believe that the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act should not be used as a means of paying those who are engaged in training.
First of all, as I think the minister pointed out, the man who took a course of training for a considerable period of time was often placed at a serious disadvantage. If he became unemployed at what I might perhaps call the wrong time of the year, his right to insurance payments was forfeited and as a result he was penalized because of his effort to train. The recognition that unemployment insurance should not be related to training is laudable. The one has nothing to do with the other. A man's insurance rights should remain open to him in case he has need to call on them. But for the efforts of some very dedicated people who were working on program five I think the program would have been even more disastrous than events have proved.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I point out these things to indicate the great need that has existed for the kind of measures the minister has introduced. In my riding we went into program five at a very early date. One of the aldermen on council, Mrs. Donaldson, took a keen interest and she was ably assisted by Mr. Rice who headed up the program and had an excellent staff. They are really dedicated people. They have to be. They are not only trying to make program five work but they have to be social workers as well because part of the payment is made under the Unemployment Insurance Act and part is made by the province.
Sometimes one cheque or the other would not come through. Frequently there was no relationship between the two, and the amounts were small enough without people being deprived of the payments at the time they needed them. There were other problems besides money in trying to keep people at school, but money was an important problem. Living on a day to day basis without funds to fall back on meant that the only way they could stay in school was to receive their payments at the proper time.
Whenever there was a technical hitch, a departmental error or conflict between the two agencies, this made the whole problem more difficult. In fact, some of the teachers
May 19, 1966	COMMONS
had to dig into their own pockets and advance loans to pupils in order to keep them at school. Should we expect our teachers to be performing this function? Obviously the government now feels that this is not the function of the teachers.
We have a program which is quite good but it is important to recognize that we have dedicated people in the teaching profession who have kept an inadequate program going for a long time and deserve our commendation.
I would also like to point out the difficulty with regard to the excellent program in the city of Kitchener at Waterloo Collegiate. The program is headed by Mr. Charles Rushton and I am pleased to see that the government has recognized the abilities of this man by promoting him to a higher position. An article in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record of last February deals with a $100 gift by the local I.O.D.E. chapter to program five but to Mr. Rushton in particular so that he would have some kind of kitty to help people in training stay at school. Among the problems he had to cope with were a deserted mother who needed funds to buy baby food, streetcar tickets for 20 people for ten days, aiding three women from northern Ontario to get suitable accommodation, aiding a Cape Croker Indian boy who needed clothing and accommodation, and issuing cafeteria tickets to numerous people ensuring them of at least one hot meal a day.
The record indicates that less than half of the people who enter program five complete the course. It is difficult to know just how many of them drop out because of lack of funds but there is every indication that a fair number of them are in that position.
I submit that no country needs education, and inducements toward that end, more than Canada. We are a small country with a limited population but we have a huge area of land. We cannot do some of the things that other nations with massive populations can accomplish. The implication of all this is that if we are to have any future at all it is as a nation of quality, and to achieve quality we have to place great emphasis on training, retraining and the education of our people.
We need a highly trained and skilled work force. It has often been said that this country was founded by a group of French and English people who were proud husbanders and tillers of the soil. That was true at a time when 70 to 80 per cent of the population was
DEBATES	5303
Vocational and Technical Training engaged in agriculture of a self-employment nature. People in agriculture, whether rich or not, at least have pride. In fact they have great pride, and proud husbandry is not a bad description to give that type of work.
But with the increase in factories and industrialization which has taken place, many people have had to leave the farms and come into cities. Frequently they have been poorly equipped for the new challenges facing them. For many it meant a loss of respect and a sense of dignity, the kind of dignity that comes from knowing one's occupation is important and that one can rely on one's hands to perform the tasks set for them. A lot of this has been lost as a result of the shift from a rural to an urban population, and there is a great need for education if for no other reason than to restore a sense of pride in our work force. When a work force is trained and has skills it also has a sense of pride. This is important to the nation and I hope the improvements to this program will help in that respect.
I would ask the minister to give serious consideration to the way that the money is allocated to the various provinces. Admittedly the federal grants of 90 per cent and 75 per cent on capital construction are fairly substantial. They are fine for those provinces that retain the work forces they train, but it is not a good proposition for many provinces that are merely training their people for migration to other provinces. This is a problem which the minister should consider to see if he can devise a formula based on immigration or emigration province-wise. He should recognize the national implications and see to it that those provinces which are training their workers, only to see them move to other parts of Canada, are provided with some compensation.
It is frequently the poorer provinces which find themselves in this position. It is unfair to say to a province that here is a training program which is going to increase the abilities of its people when frequently it also means it increases the mobility of its trained people so that they can move to greener pastures. It is unfair to ask the poorer provinces to carry this burden. This is a national problem. Because the provinces which benefit are already the richest I think some compensation should be paid to those provinces which suffer an exodus of people who have received skilled training.
May 19, 1966

Vocational and Technical Training
I should like to quote from the third annual report of the Manitoba Economic Consultative Board:
One must ask whether a province or a region which is a chronic exporter of human resources can support the appropriate investment in human capital if significant amounts of this capital are transferred to other regions.
Then it puts forward this argument:
...greater federal financing of these manpower development programs particularly in the field of education so that the cost of the investment may be borne by the larger economy which receives the benefit-
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I am not certain whether I can go into some aspects of manpower policy which are not related specifically to the measures that the minister has introduced. Because the minister has introduced two measures which I think are very good and very worth while, I should like to refer to other things going on in his department which have far less to commend them. I speak particularly of the mobility program. I am watching the Chair very carefully but I think I have sufficient time left to deal with this point. I think the minister should consider very seriously the present mobility program because I do not believe it makes any sense. It defies any kind of rationalization. I can see the basis. It is a question of whether or not you have been unemployed for a long time or, as the minister enlarged on it the other day, whether you are in a declining area, in which case the provisions are applied to that area. Generally speaking, however, from a manpower point of view why should we have to wait until unemployment becomes chronic before we move people out of that area? If a manpower policy is to be effective, I think that in some cases we should anticipate the unemployment and if, after we assess the situation, it looks as though the possibilities are dim in that area we might as well get started then and forget this business of designating grants or loans.
As an indication of how unsuccessful this program has been, one has only to look at the figures in respect of those who have taken advantage of the loan program to see how badly it has actually operated A mobility program should be based entirely on grants rather than loans. If the minister is concerned that there are people who will take advantage of the situation, such as people who might move for frivolous reasons and perhaps should not be helped, I would agree that the government should not help people who move simply

because they feel they would like to go somewhere else. Perhaps we are not prepared to accept such actions in view of the many other large priorities we now have. However, surely those who administer the program are or should be in a position to know whether the request is frivolous or based on real need.
Many people have to move because there are no job opportunities or job opportunities are inadequate or the wage scale is less than desirable. I do not believe it is right to ask these people to make repayments from their first pay when they have all the costs of relocation and the adjustments they have to make in respect of a new environment and the problem of finding accommodation. One almost has to be a charity case before the government is prepared to do anything.
In view of the minister's enlightened speech in respect of retraining grants he should again examine the mobility program closely. The minister has not said very much about publicity and the extent to which he is going to publicize the new grant system. I think it is incumbent upon him to make sure-


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Richard):: Does I regret that it is my duty to advise the hon. member that the time allotted to him now has expired.


Max Saltsman: May I have the indulgence of the house for a moment?


@Acting Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Does the house give unanimous consent to the hon. member to proceed with his remarks?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I certainly have no objection if it is only for a moment. This debate, however, is limited and there are only four hours and some minutes left. If the hon. member wishes to carry on for a moment I would like to see him carry on, but I hope he will bear in mind that other members who have asked for additional time have in some instances carried on for an unreasonable period.


Jean-Thomas Richard: I understand it is agreed that the hon. member shall have leave to speak for a few more minutes.


Max Saltsman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As an indication of my gratitude to hon. members who have permitted me to continue, I promise I will be no longer than two minutes. In concluding my remarks on manpower I should like to say that I think the minister should take upon himself the
May 19, 1966	COMMONS
responsibility of ensuring that those factors which are necessary to guarantee an effective manpower policy in this country are considered within the cabinet, and he should speak very strongly there in this regard. This matter has been brought to his attention before. It is not going to do much good to have a mobility program or any other kind of program if we do not know the kind of country we want to have. If we are going to become a second-rate country of assemblers, what is the use of training our people, because we would only be training them for export.
The minister should bear in mind that one of the reasons it is possible for us today to have this kind of dialogue and concern about manpower in Canada is the high level of employment. He should see that his voice is heard in respect of a full employment policy as the only way of making sure that a manpower policy is implemented. I could say very much more but we will have opportunities on other occasions. Again I thank hon. members for their indulgence.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Mr. Dionne:: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to add a few words to the remarks of the previous speakers concerning this significant resolution submitted to the consideration of the house.
I take it that this resolution concerns mainly allowances to persons who have accepted to follow training courses, and also changes concerning the terms of administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act pertaining especially to rates of allowances.
This is an important aspect of the resolution as it may be a factor determining the decision, in the mind of persons who would often be prepared but are unable, because of a lack of money, to follow a training course, according to their aspirations.
I sincerely hope that this legislation will be clearly drafted, so that the terms for application of the rules derived therefrom will be easily understood by all concerned. There is a great deal of legislation-in fact I think there is too much-most of which is drafted in vague terms, with references to a series of paragraphs, and this often creates confusion. It is too often taken for granted that the average citizen cannot be ignorant of the law. Even those with legal training and politicians who make the law must often consult the legislation and the revised statutes, which are not complete anyway, since numerous acts are amended each year.
DEBATES	5305
Vocational and Technical Training
I believe it is in order to insist on this special aspect of the resolution, since certain changes incidental to this program must also be provided in connection with the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Nobody will be surprised if I add that the Unemployment Insurance Act, passed more than 20 years ago, is still not perfectly understood by all contributors, employers, employees and a large percentage of officials. The reason is that the drafting of many clauses is so complicated that it allows various interpretations in the minds of certain officials who are not sufficiently aware of working conditions, and who may influence the worker accepting a job or leaving his place of employment.
The official concerned often makes prejudicial decisions because he is usually inclined to accept the employer's account of the facts instead of trying to clarify the situation by taking also into account the employee's explanations.
True social legislation bearing the name of unemployment insurance must protect the unemployed at least as much as the fund. Unfortunately, the opposite is often true and the fund is better protected than the unemployed.
I wished to point out that fact since the resolution deals with allowances which, in some cases, will adjust benefits paid to the unemployed who are ready to take courses.
Many were having difficulties last winter with regard to this, for example because of delay in checking the files, which determines eligibility for allowances, or in the payment of adjustment allowances; as a result, some of the unemployed had to borrow money to continue their courses and others received a ridiculous allowance adjustment.
I have a cheque here for 40 cents, which is not even enough to buy a light meal. Others, living near the school, received a regular weekly allowance of $10 to $12, as compared to those living some miles away and even in neighbouring parishes who received the same or a smaller amount, while a great many received nothing at all. An unemployed married man with dependant children cannot pay his transportation to school with his benefits; he must use the latter to provide for his family, which is normal. Several had to abandon their studies for lack of money. That is why we are happy to see that the resolution means to deal with this situation.
Automation has clearly forced the young and the not so young, who would once have
May 19. 1966

Vocational and Technical Training made up the bulk of apprentices in trades needing manual dexterity, to abandon some trades in order to learn other skills.
Today, the employers are more and more anxious to hire workers having diversified knowledge and which are able to apply their knowledge to the large fields of production, marketing, financial administration, personnel organization, etc.
The proposed resolution seems to take into account a great many factors which must be taken into account, among others, those I have listed earlier, and I expect to have the opportunity to deal again with them when the bill is introduced.
But I must congratulate the government and the minister for their approach in presenting this resolution.
I know several associations-I am a member of a few of them-like the association of woodworkers, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, which have labour agreements with thousands of woodworkers in Canada, especially in Ontario and Quebec, as well as other associations in the province, like the U.C.C., which demand forestry school. The problem has become urgent following the mechanization of production in forestry.
It is unavoidable that workers who are unfamiliar with the handling of all that modern equipment must take a course to enable them to become more easily adjusted and draw the salary paid to a man qualified to handle or to operate, if your prefer, the machinery which is now contributing to increase forest operations. In short, production must be increased in that field.
Once again, I wish to thank the minister for having given special attention to the problems and training of labour in the development of these courses. I especially hope, as 1 said in the beginning, that the legislation will be drafted so that the administrators will not have to deal with the schedules of allowances and that when complaints are lodged, we shall not be told that under established schedules, such and such a payment cannot be made.
I would greatly appreciate it if the new legislation were clearly and explicitly defined, so that everyone would easily understand the terms of its application.
1English]


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I think we should all generally hail this measure as a step in the right direction, particularly that


part relating to amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. There are many people who are not covered by unemployment insurance. I think particularly of farm labourers and hospital employees who could easily be covered and should be entitled to coverage.
Let me remind the minister that this measure will do nothing for the permanent poor, the functionally illiterate, the number of whom is far too large in the Canadian population in this century. These people need a basic education before they can become eligible for technical and vocational training and they are certainly not in a position to be retrained for employment. There is a great deal to be done in this regard in order to make the measure before us completely successful and worth while.
I am a bit concerned about the educational aspects and the rather narrow interpretation of the vocational concept which I suspect will be embodied in the bill following this resolution, because for some people the only road to success is one which begins with the regular school system. Quite a number of unemployed Canadians would like to proceed with formal education, which in a sense is vocational because it leads to those occupations they wish to pursue. I hope the minister will give some consideration in this regard for the benefit of those individuals who would want to obtain their retraining in this way.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I believe that the minister and the government should pay very careful attention to the brief on adult education presented to them a while ago. I believe that much of what will happen through the bill to come before us will ultimately be seen as a very short-term approach and that a great deal of thought needs to go into the various excursions of the federal government into the field of education. We seem to be able to sell the people of this country on the idea of federal participation in technical and vocational training if we keep it absolutely and purely vocational. Yet if we read the opinions of people who are talking about the long-term needs of education in a developed country, I think we should be aware that much more than a short-term technical and vocational training program will be necessary for many of our people.
I suggest that many of the people who take retraining courses will still find themselves trapped within occupations that themselves are going to disappear very shortly or are not those they would really like to have, but
May 19, 1966

because funds are available the temptation will be to accept what may well be less than their potential would require.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would urge very strongly that once the sum of money to be paid to people who take retraining programs is set it should not be played around with. I am concerned about the suggestion in the minister's reference yesterday that if a person lived at home he might not be paid as much as someone who lived away from home. A previous speaker referred to the high rate of attrition in any sort of retraining program. People drop out because they have too many problems in association with the retraining. I do not think the department always understands the tremendous handicap that any adult who has not been in school or a retraining institution of any kind faces when he goes back to school for the first time after many years. There are tremendous frustrations within the process of retraining itself. If at the same time he has to worry about problems at home, it becomes too much altogether and he gives up after a while.
I imagine that many wives have found they have had to go to work during periods when the husband has been unemployed. If the husband then enters upon a retraining program, certainly no working wife can afford to quit her job which represents the only security they have at the moment until the husband has not only finished his course but has found a gainful occupation. If we force the husband to be retrained away from home because it may be more valuable financially to him, if we set up this kind of problem and give him this additional worry, I think we will have done the entire concept of a retraining program a great disservice.
I submit that the minister will find that if he includes clauses like this in the structure of grants for the program he will have raised far more problems than he will have solved, and what seems a rather niggling approach to save a very small amount of money will seriously jeopardize the results he would like to obtain from a most worth-while program.


Mr. Otto:: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to heap praises on the minister, although I should. But from the reception this resolution has received in the house I think he should know it is still not too late to be a reform Liberal and that it is quite popular to be a reform Liberal. This, indeed, is a reform measure.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: You mean a socialist in a hurry.
Vocational and Technical Training


Steven Otto: It is a reform measure in that the minister recognizes that the present vocational training program is not working but the need for training is there. I think he has carefully analysed the reason it is not working and has had the audacity and nerve to take one of the ills involving the amount of money received and rectify it. It would have been very easy, of course, to have raised the amount from $35 to $45 but this would not have been the answer. To raise the potential amount to $95 is daring; it represents reform, and I think it is going to be workable.
The second annual review of the Economic Council of Canada points out at page 182 some of the reasons why the vocational training program is not working. I do not think the whole report is infallible. I believe there are many things in it that are wrong, but in this connection I think it is quite right. In the report it is stated that 'there is a lack of adequate knowledge among the general public in regard to the general courses available, and so on. I do not think this is entirely correct. I think there is a fairly adequate general knowledge but the program was not advertised and publicized enough. The report also states that workers were not informed or counselled adequately. But, most important, it states that "inadequate training allowances appear to be acting as a brake on the programs", which is correct.
The report also mentions this factor:
Because many authorities are involved, the responsibility for the initiation of programs is often not clear. Consequently, programs that are needed do not get implemented.
By and large what the report says is that the vocational training program is not working. There is a presumption by all the people who write such reports with regard to how a person gets to know about vocational training and how he undertakes it. But in my practice, and I have come across many such cases, the normal way is that a person finds himself unemployed; his job has disappeared or he just cannot make enough money at the job and so he is out of work. When this happens he does not immediately try to find out what vocational training is available, although he has an idea and he might investigate it. But as soon as he goes to the vocational training school and sees the blackboards, the teachers .and all the formal parts of education he becomes rather apprehensive. So he tries to get along for a while by taking lesser paying jobs but still maintaining the standard of living he has enjoyed previously. By this time
5308	COMMONS
Vocational and Technical Training he has used up his savings and decides he is going to take a course. He might decide that since he has a grade 11 or grade 12 education he will study to be a mechanical draftsman or a technical draftsman, for whom there is a great demand.
He informs his family and his kids immediately go all over the neighbourhood and tell the other kids, "My dad is going to be an architect" or "My dad is going to be an engineer." Sy this time the man is worried about the whole business, because he might not pass the course and he might not make it. If you add on top of all this apprehension the monetary consideration of how he is going to stay alive and feed his family until the course is finished and he gets a job, the problem becomes, as the previous speaker said, almost insurmountable and therefore the course is not for him. Ordinarily this is what really happens. The legislation to follow this resolution will remove that apprehension. I do not believe the minister thinks it is going to make the whole vocational training program 100 per cent effective, but it will certainly improve the whole atmosphere of vocational retraining.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
With regard to unemployment insurance benefits being used up, I do not believe this is a large consideration. Unemployment insurance benefits are not that much and they really have no meaning. I should like to see the minister face that problem next and raise unemployment insurance benefits to realistic figures. I believe he has that in mind. The report to which I have referred, the second annual review of the Economic Council of Canada, recommends at page 171, that there should be closer co-operation between business, labour and the educational system, along with improved counselling of students regarding future manpower needs and the most effective ways of meeting those needs. You will notice mention is made of government, labour and management.
I put it to the minister that in this instance we do involve the federal government, the provincial governments and the individual, but we fail to involve the most important group and that is management. The ordinary working man or tradesman, after 10 or 12 years in a shop, becomes involved with the people who are there as supervisors, the union labour group. It would be much better if some provision could be made by which he could take retraining while he is still involved with this group instead of being cut

DEBATES	May 19. 1966
off separately as an individual who has to try to make it on his own with all these apprehensions and all these fears.
I recommend to the minister that he consider whether a payment of up to $80 or $90 could be made directly to the employer who in turn could add to that. After all, the employer is going to get the benefit of the man's retraining. If this were done, the workmen's pay would not be so drastically reduced. In addition management, labour and government would be involved in one project concerning one person's future.
There are difficulties with this scheme, of course. However, we must remember that automation is one of the greatest worries of labour, management and government today. This may be one method by which a start could be made toward the solution of the problems facing us as a result of automation. Provision could be made under which the employer, if he so desired, might continue to keep the workman on his payroll and at the same time get the benefit of the money the government would pay. I presume the employer would still have to contribute money of his own but I do not believe he would mind doing that. He would have the benefit of that person's training within his own organization in the future.
Labour unions could also be involved in this scheme with the result that-and this is most important-the workman would still be within the organization to which he has contributed for 10 or 15 years and which he recognizes as his group. He would derive a lot more encouragement to continue his retraining and thus achieve one of the purposes of this resolution.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, may I make it clear at the outset that I welcome the resolution presented to us by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I commend him for introducing such a worth-while piece of legislation as that which will follow the resolution. In a moment I should like to enter a couple of caveats with regard to the program upon which he has embarked, but perhaps I might be permitted to do from the opposition benches what his own colleagues on the government side did not do and say a few words about the appointment of the minister. I think there may be many people disillusioned with the members of this parliament. However, I believe we have a large number of good members and there is a lot of talent among the new members. I say to the
May 19, 1966	COMMONS
minister in this house, as I have told him privately outside, that he has made a splendid contribution in the cabinet and in the house. He is to be congratulated for his refreshing point of view and his candour. One hopes that he will spread it to his colleagues and will not suffer from a malaise emanating from them. The minister has broken away from the gate and is one of the leaders of the new talent in this chamber.
One of the attractive aspects of the resolution is the provision for the training of those who were self-employed but who were having difficulty in such primary industries as farming, fishing or logging. I can look about my own constituency of Halifax, and other areas of the maritimes for that matter, and see that this is a real step toward breaking the bonds of rural poverty. People have been caught in these primary industries without being able to make a go of it on their own and yet they really are fastened to their fishing communities or their small farms because there is no alternative. As I say, this measure should remove the bondage that is associated with rural poverty and I commend the minister for that aspect of it.
I should like to make two points, sir, with regard to what I call safeguards because, after all, we are dealing with public money. While we have no idea yet what amounts of money are likely to be involved, nonetheless it is incumbent upon us to see that the program is properly set up and properly administered if it is to have the support of the people of Canada. Therefore I suggest these points to the minister.
The minister has referred to training for the unemployed. I believe that any program drawn up should take into account the background of these loggers, fishermen or farmers in order to ascertain whether the training could not be directed along lines which would take advantage of the experience they have had. In this way they would be able to carry on their occupations more adequately. I think this should be the first stage. I realize it is not possible in the case of a fisherman who may be so inadequate in fishing that he has to be retrained as a welder, for example, or a carpenter. However, there should be some recognition by the minister of the past experience of a person who is to be trained under this program.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The other caveat I would utter with regard to the program is the danger that we may 23033-336J
DEBATES	5309
Vocational and Technical Training have some who will want to continue their education for long periods of time simply to derive the income permissible under the proposed legislation. In short, if we are not careful we might cultivate a sort of perpetual freshman continuously unemployed and undergoing training. I realize that probably these points are dealt with or will be dealt with in the legislation to be put before us, but I thought it proper to utter them at this time.


Mr, Faulkner:: Mr. Chairman, one of the difficulties in being so far down the roster of speakers is that most of one's thoughts have already been expressed by other members when one's turn is reached, so I will be brief.
I join with the hon. member for Halifax in his eulogy of the minister. It seems to me an incredible oversight on our part not to have drawn this fact to the attention of the house. Perhaps we felt it so self-evident that it did not need to be drawn to the attention of the house. We are equally proud of his achievements, particularly as a freshman minister, which must be infinitely more difficult than just being a freshman member.
The resolution before us is to my mind one of the more interesting and exciting resolutions we have seen in the house this session. It seems there is almost the possibility that we are moving into a sort of age of enlightenment when it comes to industrial relations. If the initiative is being taken by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, more power to him. Too often in the past human considerations have been missing in a general assessment of the problems in an age of technology and it is imperative that this dimension be introduced into our thinking. I think Mr. Justice Freedman made an important contribution along this line and I hope that both his principles and philosophy are reflected in future government legislation no matter which party happens to be In power, as well as in the attitude of management.
It has been my experience, albeit brief, that the major and paramount preoccupation of industrial workers is concern for job security. At the same time industry is in the grip of technological innovation. If this country and its industry are to compete in world markets, and it is imperative that we do so, then in turn we must watch very closely the level of productivity. We must capitalize on technological developments, and recognize the necessity for constantly automating the processes of production. However, job securitj
5310	COMMONS
Vocational and Technical Training and technological innovation are mutually contradictory. Job security is an almost impossible goal, or would appear to be, in an age of wide ranging change. There is no possibility of changing the need for technological innovation; it is a fact of life, and automation is a by-product of this innovation.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, some way must be found by which we can provide for job security without jeopardizing the need for a high level of productivity and technological innovation. It seems to me that the fundamental link, the key to the reconciliation to this apparent dilemma, lies in training and in retraining. But in my view this in turn will never be accomplished unless the whole status of training, our attitudes here and the attitudes of the public to training are in turn completely changed and upgraded.
Traditionally training has been something which has been done in response to chronic unemployment. When a person becomes unemployed the solution has been to train him. However, training should be far more a part of the continuing process of adaptation which is a necessary part of the technological era in which we live. So training, instead of simply being something we do to assist unemployed workers, must be something we do to prevent unemployment and to enable workers to adapt to the new processes and new skills which they will be required to have.
It is this dimension, Mr. Chairman, of the resolution which to my mind is so important. There often seems to be a sort of reluctance to take preventive steps. Too often we deal with problems after the fact. For example, we deal with unemployment when unemployment arises. We are now dealing with the prospect of unemployment prior to it taking place and we are trying to pre-empt it or to prevent such an occurrence.
I think the hon. member for York East made a point into which I hope the minister will look carefully. He developed it at some length and I wish only to reiterate it. I refer to the need to bring training programs right on to the factory or shopfloor. It seems to me that far too much use is made of the approach whereby a man is taken out of his job location and put into something which passes for a school in order to train him to go back to a machine or to facilities which bear very little relationship to the equipment he learned about at the school itself.
When I was fortunate enough to work in England with a Canadian subsidiary, which is an interesting reversal, the company for

DEBATES	May 19, 1966
which I worked felt it incumbent upon them-they employed 5,000 to 6,000 workers -to provide apprenticeship training programs right in the factory itself even though they recognized from the beginning that they would never use all these people. Nevertheless it was an obligation the company assumed on their part for the good of the country.
I think that a great deal more could be done to provide training programs within factories on the shop floor in co-operation with the management of the particular industry involved. In the same light it is important that the industry involved must be prepared to disclose its long-term plans. Too often now a man is laid off without any forewarning, whereas quite frequently management has known well in advance that it will be automating a certain process and that personnel will be laid off and will therefore need retraining. Industry must be far more forthright than it has been up to now with regard to its long-term plans, and it can certainly do this without jeopardizing its competitive position in the market.
That, Mr. Chairman, is the first dimension under this resolution which I think is important, and I hope that within this dimension of training as a response to a continuing process of adaptation we will in some way discover how to work with the industries in order to get training programs out of the classroom and on to the shop floor.
The other dimension under this resolution which I think is important is the concept that payment for training must relate to payment for work and is not relative to what welfare payments might be or unemployment insurance payments. Training is an alternative to work. It is a preparation for further work, and this concept inherent in the resolution is to my mind one of the most important and enlightened concepts I have encountered in my short term in this house.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
However-and I will close on this note- one of the members opposite suggested that it was the responsibility of the minister to keep the people aware of this program; and I think that there he suggested only a halftruth. It is his responsibility and the responsibility of his department, but far more it is the responsibility of members of parliament. A good member of parliament has close and direct communication with the trade unions in his riding as well as with management
May 19, 19G6	COMMONS
and each of us in this house, it seems to me, has a compelling responsibility to make those people who are involved aware of the resolution which is being presented and the bill to follow and tell them how they can participate. It is too easy to say that it is simply the responsibility of the government to go about the country enlightening people as to what this program contains. It is equally the responsibility of members of parliament to do that job, and this applies not only to the resolution before us now but to a whole series of resolutions. I hope that hon. members who have expressed themselves so clearly in favour of this resolution will, when this measure becomes law, be just as enthusiastic about proselytizing the public and making them aware of its provisions.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Chairman, members of all parties have, as one might expect, greeted this resolution and the speech the minister made when introducing it with almost unanimous accord. As far as they go the proposals are excellent. It has been apparent for a long time from speeches made across the country and briefs presented to government by labour organizations and economists that our manpower training program has serious defects.
The Canadian Labour Congress and its affiliated unions made representations to the government about the fact that allowances paid to workers who were in theory being encouraged to avail themselves of retraining programs simply failed to provide the funds necessary to enable them to live in any kind of decency and to provide for their families. Similarly, the provision that money paid to them during training should be deducted from unemployment insurance benefits led to a situation where many workers either declined to take training programs or else failed to complete their courses. There is no means of knowing how many people failed to complete their training simply because they could not afford to continue their courses but it must have been a large number. However, hon. members can certainly greet the present program with enthusiasm even though some of us may feel it is coming several years too late.
As usual, however, instead of dealing with all the implications of this complex problem we are concerning ourselves with only two of the more important aspects. The Canadian Labour Congress, in its statement of economic policy approved at its convention in April of this year, listed a number of points which
DEBATES	5311
Vocational and Technical Training were considered to be important in regard to the question of manpower. I wish to put them on record, Mr. Chairman, because it will become obvious as I read them that we are dealing in this resolution with only two of a number of problems. Basic programs should, the congress says, include:
1.	A continuing, up-to-date research program to carry out analysis and forecasting of changes in the labour market.
2.	A nation-wide network of adult training centres to retrain men and women for new jobs requiring higher or different skills.
3.	A massive program of technical-vocational training for adolescents and pre-employment youth to prepare them for the kind of labour market they will face on leaving school.
4.	A program of financial and other assistance to workers and their families who wish to move to other parts of the country in the pursuit of employment.
5.	A program of financial assistance to maintain workers during retraining or during a transition period between jobs.
6.	A first-rate placement service.
7.	A program for the recruitment of immigrant workers, related to the Canadian labour market situation, and for their integration into the labour market.
8.	An education program to inform employers, workers and youth of the changes occurring in the labour market and the benefits to be derived from manpower programs.
The hon. member for Peterborough suggested that this last item was a job which members of parliament could do. I disagree with him completely. There are members of parliament who have close connections with trade unions. There are members who have intimate relations with employers in their areas. But there are very few who have close connections with all sections in their constituencies and who have the time or the facilities to do the job of information servicing which requires to be done. It is obvious it is the government which must do this job.
One of the severest criticisms of the national employment service on the part of both employers and employees is that they do not know what services are available from N.E.S. and that that organization in turn does not know either what the employers need or what opportunities are available. I believe that the government must not only set up a manpower program but go out and inform employers and employees alike of what the government manpower service has to offer.
A manpower training program is bound to be a failure if the government does not establish a research organization to keep in close touch with employers and employees
5312	COMMONS
Vocational and Technical Training and study employment trends as they develop. Its staff, including highly skilled sociologists, economists and statisticians, must keep in touch with the Department of Industry as well as with individual industrial organizations so that it is in a position to know what employers are likely to need in the way of manpower in the period of one to five years ahead. Unless this is done the manpower program which the government is announcing through this resolution will be to a large extent wasted.
The program now provides for the payment of up to $90 per week to workers who are being trained.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Under this provision workers can afford to take the training without losing money and without their families being put in a position in which they are not able to meet their basic financial needs. But along with this program of training grants the government must reconsider and change its policy with regard to moving allowances. The program we now have for making loans to workers is simply not good enough.
I trust, as a result of the manpower training program which the government has initiated and the training grants which the minister announced, that a large number of workers will take this opportunity to acquire new and necessary skills. But it will be of little use to an unemployed coal miner on Cape Breton Island if after taking such a course the cost of moving himself, his family and furniture to another job runs to $1,000 or $2,000. A loan of $2,000 repayable in two years at 6 per cent interest is a substantial debt for any worker who has been unemployed.
I suggest that in addition to the government's present proposal it change the system of making loans to workers to a system of making grants so that if there is no work in their own areas they can move to areas where there are jobs. Such a program has been in effect in most of the countries of western and northern Europe for many years. It has been proposed in this country on a number of occasions by labour unions. It has proven itself worth while in countries much smaller than ours, countries in which it is much cheaper to move to a new job than in a country like Canada which stretches for thousands of miles from coast to coast.

DEBATES	May 19, 1966
I suggest that the government give serious consideration to paying the cost of moving workers to new jobs. It should also give serious consideration to emphasizing the necessity for on-the-job training. It should stress to industry and unions the necessity for such training and should participate financially itself.
The largest union in Canada, the United Steelworkers of America, conducted a survey of plants it had organized and with which it had contracts to see what these plants were doing in the way of on-the-job training, and what it found is indeed a sad commentary on what is being done in this country. A report submitted by Mr. Michael Fenwick of the United Steelworkers to a conference sponsored by the Canadian Labour Congress in Ottawa last year, at which the minister also spoke, stated:
Of the 488 plants, mines and mills under union agreement in 113 communities in the five provinces, 450 returned completed survey forms. Only 1,404 of the 97,604 workers in these industries were receiving any training. Four of five plants and mines covered by the survey do not train any apprentices. More than two-thirds do not provide any on-the-job training to prevent workers from becoming obsolete and unemployed.
Farther on he reported:
The survey showed that the basic steel, fabricating, aluminum and mining companies under contract to the union had only 505 apprentices. Another 899 workers were receiving on-the-job training. Metal mining is one industry which is experiencing a shortage of skilled men. Its response to this shortage is to seek experienced mine workmen from Europe and other foreign labour markets rather than train Canadians.
Canadian industry, which is faced with a tremendous shortage of skilled workers and is going through an unprecedented period of prosperity and profits, needs to be convinced that it has a social responsibility to play its part in the training of skilled workers. The government ought to take a lead in convening joint industry and labour conferences across the country at which the necessity for on-the-job training would be emphasized.
I realize there are constitutional difficulties. I realize that education is a provincial responsibility, but I do not believe any provincial government would refuse to co-operate with the federal government and with the department of manpower when it is established in urging upon industry and labour that they should play an aggressive part in helping Canada get the skilled and trained manpower which is required.
May 19, 1966

I want to close by quoting a couple of paragraphs from a report made by Mr. Larry Sefton, director of district No. 6 of the United Steelworkers of America, on May 13, 1965, to a national policy conference. In respect of this particular problem he said:
To wait for customers to come into the government store is a gesture of futile optimism. The government must send its experts into the field. It must pass the laws needed to provide for a periodic inventory of our manpower resources. It must chart a master statisiteal inventory which will provide finger-tip data as a basis for well planned action.
Above all, it must develop a positive philosophy of investment in manpower which will guarantee the full use of the skills and productivity potential of Canadian workers.
Vigorous training and upgrading programs must also be included in any effective handling of manpower policies. And provisions must be made to pay displaced workers a living wage so that they can remain in the consumer market as long as thev are unemployed.
With the exception of what is mentioned in the last sentence, none of the things which Mr. Sefton listed as required is yet being done or has yet been publicly proposed by the government.
I conclude by again commending the minister and the government for the beginning made by introducing this resolution which is the first step toward implementation of the basic requirements of a meaningful manpower policy. Before this session ends I hope the minister will also deal with the problems he has not yet dealt with but which are of as much importance as the two he outlined in his speech the other day. If he does not, then, as so often happens in this country, we will have solved two problems having to do with manpower and created six or eight other problems just as serious as the ones we have solved.


Mr. Lefebvre:: Mr. Chairman, I shall only take a few minutes to congratulate the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) on the action he has taken and which shows his interest for the labour class.
This measure is very important, in my opinion. The people who will benefit from this retraining program will no doubt be better citizens because they will earn higher salaries and enjoy a higher standard of living.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)

Because people have not had the opportunity to have technical training in their
Vocational and Technical Training youth, there is no reason why they should be forced to continue their lives in this fashion. With the great amount of technical development taking place in our country today, including automation, it is essential that those who have the ability to learn be given the opportunity to do so. I feel it is important that not only our youth but also those of an older age who need the training and have the desire should have the opportunity to better themselves.

I think it is also important to point out, Mr. Chairman, that the federal government will reimburse the provinces in a proportion of 90 per cent in addition to the $35 a week allowance up to a total of $90 a week.
[English1
We all know this resolution will not solve all our unemployment problems but there is no doubt it is a major step forward. I do not believe the recipients of the retraining allowances will care very much whether the minister is known as a new-wave Liberal or by any other name. The important thing to them no doubt will be the fact that there will be adequate allowances available for those who qualify.


Mr. Laprise:: Mr. Chairman, I want to seize this opportunity to support the resolution. In my opinion, what the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) proposes today is intended to improve the technical and vocational training program for the unemployed and for persons displaced by technological changes in industry and the services.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that this measure comes after an act passed and applied some years ago. An improvement of the said act was needed and it is timely because it is wanted by all our people.
I am of the opinion that up to now the present act providing for the training of workers, unemployed and persons displaced by the new industrial processes did not yield the expected results.
Industrial development is essential but the only sound economic system is the one which will produce and distribute the maximum amount of goods and services with a minimum amount of work and effort. The objective of any modern democratic government is to bring machinery under control and to free humanity, but at the present time, it is the
5314	COMMONS
Vocational and Technical Training machines which are reducing humanity to slavery because of a fundamentally wrong financial system.
One must not blame industry or private enterprise for wanting to improve their services and to cut down production costs, because all Canadians will benefit from such measures. But since our financial system has not recognized that, the government must face crises and problems of widespread unemployment, poverty and destitution.
The government has just realized that our labour force is ill-prepared to face such a development in our industries and it declares itself ready to cope with the crisis which has been existing for a few years already, by making more attractive the training methods of displaced workers and the unemployed.
However, in spite of all the combined goodwill of governments, employers and trainees,
I doubt that we will achieve full employment because our industries produce at an increasingly rapid pace with a decreasing number of people.
I remember that just a few years ago, an oil refinery survived a strike which lasted quite a long time, without any decrease in its production. That is to say that the industry in question, with only a few directors, was able to maintain its production. There is more to be done than simply train our workers; we must assure them of adequate purchasing power so that they may enjoy a standard of living proportionate to the wealth of our country; as our country develops, our workers must be more secure.
The effect of this resolution will be to allow some workers to acquire a better knowledge of the requirements of modern industry and business.
I hope that the bill which will follow this resolution will contain such provisions so as to allow the people having attended those courses to find a job without prejudice to those already on the spot. To that effect, we will have to create new jobs by transforming our raw materials, here, in Canada, for the benefit of our fellow citizens.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
The minister undoubtedly has details to give to the committee on the number of unemployed and displaced persons who will be eligible under that improved program because I see that up to now it has not been a real success.
He will probably give us also details on the cost of such a program, as as he sees it. It remains to be seen how far the provinces will

DEBATES	May 19, 1966
want to go with regard to that program because it is a joint program and Quebec has already made known, I believe, its desire to avoid such programs.
The minister will want to tell us no doubt how far the negotiations with the province of Quebec have gone because I think that the latter is the one most affected by employment problems for well-known reasons.
What the worker is looking for, Mr. Chairman, is the assurance that the value of his work capital will be recognized and I am pleased to tell the minister that I support this resolution, hoping that it will bring more welfare and dignity to disadvantaged Canadian workers.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. It being six o'clock, the house will now proceed to consideration of private members' business in accordance with standing order 15(3).



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), Grain-Prince Rupert, B.C., increase in elevator capacity; the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier), Canadian National Railways-allegedly unilingual manual for signalling courses; the hon. member for Co-mox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), United Nations-proposed jurisdiction over high seas and outer space.
It being six o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills, notices of motions for papers and public bills.


Mr. Basford:: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is an agreement as to priority of procedure on these bills. My understanding is that item No. 6 on the order paper standing in the name of the hon. member for High Park is to be taken first, to be followed by item No. 13 standing in my name, to be followed by item No. 1.
May 19, 1966


Mr, Howard:: Mr. Speaker, that is my understanding too, and because of the peculiarities of the situation in respect of the first two bills to be called this is an agreeable course of action to follow.


Mr. Speaker:: Do we have unanimous consent for the proposal that we call No. 6, No. 13 and No. 1 as they appear on the order paper, in that order?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. A. J. P. Cameron (High Park) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-20, respecting the trustee board of the Presbyterian Church in Canada.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I think that at this time, especially because this bill is being proceeded with by unanimous consent, the sponsor should give some explanation.


Alan John Patrick Cameron: Mr. Speaker, the trustee board of the Presbyterian Church in Canada was incorporated by chapter 64, Statutes of Canada, 1939, for the purpose of acquiring, taking and holding and dealing with real and personal property of the church.
There has been only one amendment which is found in the Statutes of Canada, 1962-63, chapter 23. It widened the field of investment to include investments in which a Canadian insurance company might invest and granted power to establish plans for gratuities, pensions, superannuation, etc., for ministers or former ministers of the Presbyterian Church in Canada. Section 23 was also added clarifying the refernces in the act to the board of administration or the administrative council.
At the present time the trustee board consists of seven members, being the number established under the act of incorporation. Because of the increasing work of the board it is desired to make provision for enlarging the number of members to a maximum of 15 and, until otherwise determined by the general assembly of the church the board shall consist of nine members.
While not legally obligated to do so, it has been the practice to appoint the chairman of the administrative council and the treasurer of the church to the board. Because of the nature of their offices it is desired to make these appointments mandatory. However, it is possible that the office of the treasurer of the church might at some future time become a 23033-337
Private Bills
permanent paid position or, alternatively, might cease to exist under that name. In either of these two events it is desired to appoint the person holding the position of chairman of the finance committee of the administrative council, by whatever name the position is called, to the board in place of the treasurer. Here again such an appointment would only be effective if that position was not a paid position.
At the present time the board invests separately all trusts and funds under its administration. Because of the substantial increase in income which can be obtained by so doing, it is desired to consolidate those of the church's investments which it is not prohibited from consolidating by the terms of the instruments creating them.
Because of the experience, knowledge and facilities available to them but not readily available to the board, it is also desired to give the board power to employ professional advisers to assist in making these investments. The board would of course at all times retain an overriding control over the activities of such professional advisers.
Because of the amendments proposed with respect to the membership and tenure of office of the board it is desired to substitute a new section for the old section 21 in order to bring the language of that section into line with the amendments. In addition, as the general assembly has recently approved a new code of regulations it is felt that reference to these should be made in the present amendments.
As the general assembly meets once a year only, and as there often arise decisions relating to the trustee board's work requiring implementation between meetings of the general assembly, it is considered essential that the general assembly be authorized to delegate its power of approval to the administrative council or to the executive thereof. The general assembly will have the power to revoke any such delegation at any time. Those are the proposed amendments, Mr. Speaker.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, we agreed to proceed with this bill first because there is some urgency to pass it. I point out, however, that there may be an obstacle in that our rules provide that following second reading of a bill it is automatically referred to one of the committees of the house, in this case I believe, to the miscellaneous private bills committee. We are all

May 19, 1966
Private Bills
aware of the difficulties confronting the functioning of committees at this time because of the lack of rooms, equipment and staff. Even though the house may now give second reading to this bill it will require some time to consider it in committee and return it to the house, where it will again be considered before third reading. These facts should be taken into consideration by the sponsor of the bill.
This bill is similar to another which was dealt with a couple of months ago relating to Evangelistic Tabernacle Incorporated. They are similar because they deal generally with religious bodies, and I must say that I have similar views about them. I simply do not believe that it is correct for parliament to be concerning itself with the internal operations of the Presbyterian Church or, for that matter, any other church in Canada.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
Today we are being asked as a group of politicians to pass judgment upon the worthiness and value of the general assembly of the Presbyterian Church and its considered opinion that there should be a certain number of appointed or elected officers. We are being asked to make a determination whether it is correct for the Presbyterian Church to deal in a certain manner with its moneys. I submit, first, that it should not be the function of politicians to make these decisions and, second, I do not think we are competent to do so in any event.
Some years ago the decision was made that there should be a separation of church and state but in a sense we are now in a very slight way putting church and state back together. I am quite sure that if the Presbyterian Church in Canada met to consider the rules by which Parliament would operate we would become rather incensed about it, even though they might do a much better job than we have. I am sure we would object to an outside body making determinations about who should be our officers or the manner in which we should function. Yet this is what is being asked of us now in so far as the internal functions of the Presbyterian Church of Canada are concerned. I for one do not particularly want to make that decision because I do not think it is any of my business and I do not think it is the business of any other person in parliament or any other part of parliament to make decisions of this nature.
This leads me to another point. I would appreciate it very much, and I am sure others

would, if the Presbyterian Church would find some other way of having its internal affairs dealt with so that they will be masters in their own house and do not have to ask the parliament of Canada to endorse their legitimate requirements for their own housekeeping purposes.
Let us look at the explanatory notes of the bill. One of the principal points contained within the bill is "to enable the general assembly to fix the membership of the trustee board at from seven to 15 members, with the membership fixed at nine until the general assembly otherwise determines." As laudable as that objective might be, as desirable as it might be to have the trustee board increased in number, I submit it does not devolve upon me to make that determination or even to be asked to make it.
But unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this is the way the system works. The act incorporating the Trustee Board of the Presbyterian Church in Canada initially came into being, if I understand correctly, in 1939 by way of a private bill piloted through the parliament of Canada. Because this system was followed at that time the only way in which changes can now be made is by the system and process of private bills.
I wish to take this opportunity to depart a little from the intimate point relating to the bill concerning the Presbyterian Church in Canada to speak in a little broader context. I wish to heavens the government of Canada, which is the body that has control over the order paper and has the authority to deal properly and effectively with the progress of public bills if it wants to do so, would heed the request I am now making not only on my own behalf but on behalf of a great many members of the house. It is that some general law should be passed permitting the incorporation of groups such as this in a more private way than by the parliament of Canada.
In the province of British Columbia, for instance, we have a Societies Act. That act allows organizations and groups to organize themselves in somewhat the same way as a limited liability company. They simply go through the process of filling out an application form and presenting it to the appropriate government body. Upon the application being approved they receive letters of incorporation in respect of the name by which the society or group wishes to be known. I believe this system should exist here. If the government would do that I am sure it would not find any
May 19, 196G

May 19, 1966
Private Bills
to give the stamp of approval to religious bodies who seek to become incorporated or have their internal powers altered from time to time. It will not be necessary for these bodies to go through the process of coming to parliament in order to have that done. I see you rising, Mr. Speaker, which indicates that my time has expired. I thank you for your courtesy in listening. Someone has just asked me to have a quorum called. I do not know whether we should do that, so I leave it in your hands.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of Bill No. S-20. With regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), I would say that perhaps his ideas are good but we cannot blame the Presbyterian Church in Canada for this situation. It is a statutory regulation that a body of the nature of a church-


Frank Howard: Will my friend permit a question?


Robert Norman Thompson: -is required to come to parliament if it is to have national incorporation.


Frank Howard: Will the hon. member for Red Deer permit a question? Am I correct in understanding that the hon. member's interpretation of my remarks was to the effect that they were critical of the Presbyterian Church for this action? If that is the way he interpreted them, he is entirely wrong.


Robert Norman Thompson: If my friend would be patient, he might have an answer to his question. I think we must understand that the church has no other way but to meet the requirements of the statute and seek such legislation. I agree with the hon. member for Skeena that it really is a redundant procedure because the purpose could be accomplished just as well through the office of the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh). National incorporation could be effected through this office for this as well as other similar types of organizations. I say this because I have a particular interest in the matter. While I am not a member of the Presbyterian Church in Canada, the denomination of which I am a member will have to introduce legislation within the next few months to meet the statutory conditions necessary for recognition as a national body. The statutory change referred to is something which must be brought about by the government or brought

about by a change in the regulations of the department directly concerned.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
I believe that this legislation is necessary if the Presbyterian Church is to carry on its normal activities. I suggest, therefore, that it should have our support. I also suggest that by unanimous consent it might be possible to proceed directly to third reading of the bill. The explanations which have been given are obvious and it is not really necessary to refer the bill to the standing committee which deals with this type of legislation.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I hope that this evening we may be able to complete the necessary action by the house on this bill in order that it may meet the need, which we understand is somewhat urgent, of the Presbyterian Church.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to say anything, but I think the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) has raised another problem he should consider. If his church wants to bring forward a bill this year we will have to hold another session in order for it to be introduced because the time for introducing bills this session has expired.
The fact that there are so many representations made by different denominations to this house raises the point whether or not we should look at the matter raised by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) in connection with an alternative way of bringing forward legislation to incorporate bodies on a national basis in some other manner. I do not think anyone here would disagree that a matter of this nature will not be handled in the manner legislation is normally handled. This body is not directly under the control of the parliament of Canada except as to incorporation. The church is obviously incorporated through its national organization.
If hon. members are not willing to consider ways and means for finding a much fairer way to handle these matters, then we will not make much progress by the way we handle them at the moment. The present method has long since outworn its usefulness and some change should be made.
We are not opposed to the bill receiving immediate attention, Mr. Speaker. I am of the opinion that there is no reason for the bill to go to the miscellaneous private bills committee and therefore I, on behalf of my colleagues, would be agreeable to waiving the standing order which makes provision for
May 19, 1966

sending the bill to that committee. I do not think anyone here wishes to ask any questions about the internal organization of the church. We will leave that up to them. What we are concerned about is the church having to come here and be dealt with in this manner. I really see no reason that the bill should go before the committee. If the sponsor of the bill wishes to ask for the waiver of that procedure and the relevant standing order, I will support that request. In return I would ask for the co-operation of the hon. member, who has a number of similar bills coming forward for consideration, and ask him to consider the problem raised by the hon. member for Skeena.
The hon. member for Skeena has made the point on a number of previous occasions that we should eliminate the necessity for these bills going through the present procedure. We should find a better method for the incorporation of religious organizations than that used at the present time.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Alan John Patrick Cameron: Mr. Speaker, I
am very gratified indeed at the remarks made by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) and the hon. member for Timis-kaming (Mr. Peters). If I have the unanimous consent of the house, I should like to move that the house resolve itself into committee of the whole to deal with the bill clause by clause in order to remove it from the order paper. In that connection may I say to the hon. member for Skeena and to the other two who have spoken that I am very much impressed with their arguments. Many years ago I was a member of the miscellaneous private bills committee and I know exactly how I felt about dealing with divorces and so on in which I really had no personal interest. I will take up the suggestion with the house leader and also with the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh), and will add my words and arguments to what has been said.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the house resolve Itself into committee of the whole to deal with the bill clause by clause.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: May I
refer hon. members to standing order 94 (2) which reads:
After the second reading of a bill, and before its consideration by the committee to which it is referred, the applicant shall in every case pay the cost of printing the act in the statutes, and a fee of five hundred dollars.
Private Bills
I understand that by unanimous consent the house will now go into committee of the whole but I assume that this paragraph of the standing order has been taken care of.


Alan John Patrick Cameron: That is the case, Mr. Speaker.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, May 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bas-ford for the second reading of Bill No. S-6, respecting The Pacific Coast Fire Insurance Company.
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I think we are in a rather peculiar procedural position here, which is why I rise before the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basford). The motion for second reading was moved the other day by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) on behalf of the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard but I understand this does not alter the rule that if and when the sponsor of the bill speaks, as I hope he will, he will close the debate. I did not want that event to occur at this moment because of the reason, if for no other, that we would then have about 20 minutes at our disposal and would arrive at the point where we would be considering the next bill on the order paper which relates to the General Mortgage Service Corporation of Canada.
This would mean that the house would have about 15 minutes at the outside for the consideration of that matter, whereupon the bill would drop to the bottom of the order paper which would injure the position of the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Cameron) and that of the parliamentary agent and they would probably not be the best of friends. We do not want that to happen because these matters should be dealt with in a more orderly way than they were last Thursday when an unfortunate event took place which we are now trying to correct. This is why I wished to make the remarks I have. The other reason was so that I might carry on where I left off on Thursday last.

May 19. 1966
Private Bills
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)


Mr. Olson:: Could I ask the hon. member for Skeena a question? Does he agree that we could resolve the problem raised respecting the time limit were we to pass both item 13 and item 1 now?


Frank Howard: There would still be a problem because that would bring up item 2 which concerns Bill No. S-ll. We would be in the same position no matter what we did. I suggest that a better way would be to call it seven o'clock upon the passage of the bill now before us, which would give some extra time for government business. Frankly, I do not think parliament should be spending its time trying to determine whether or not the Pacific Coast Fire Insurance Company should be dealt with as it wishes to be dealt with, whether there should be a change in name and an authorization with regard to the capital structure. Incidentally this is a subject upon which I have some views; this is something which the Minister of Finance would, I believe, be well advised to take into consideration.
With the increase in the number of such companies seeking to alter their capital structure and increasing their insurance business and with more and more of these companies coming under the control of United States parent corporations, it seems evident that an ever-increasing amount of Canadian money is being drawn out of Canada and used by the parent companies, as the cycle continues, to invest in greater ownership of Canadian industry. I have a general objection to this sort of thing as well as a particular objection to the bill before us in that I believe it is injurious to the economic well-being of Canada and to the prospects of economic control over our own affairs. In this regard I believe we would be far better off if the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon) were still minister of finance because we might have seen a stronger determination on the part of the Canadian government to protect Canadians from encroachments upon their pocketbooks by foreign-dominated companies.
I do not know how this matter can best be dealt with. It may be unfair to single out the Pacific Coast Fire Insurance Company and to try to incorporate in the bill before us some of the concepts advanced by the hon. member for Davenport in relation to Canadian ownership and the like. One way of approach would be-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted for his speech has expired.


Frank Howard: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had forgotten the exact length of time I had taken the other day.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, we did not have the benefit of hearing the sponsor of the bill explain its purpose on second reading and for this reason I have some questions to ask with respect to this measure which he could perhaps answer when he closes the debate. I have been looking at the bill and I gather we are dealing with a long-established firm. Reference has been made here to acts of parliament going back to the year 1908. Amending bills were brought in in 1920 and 1926. One of the purposes, I note, is to bring about a change in the name of this company. One is naturally curious to know why an old established firm which has been operating under its present name since 1908 should desire at this point in its history to change its name. I can readily understand the feature of the bill which would give to what is described as a new company a name in the French language. We have seen a rush of bills in this house recently some of which had no other purpose than to provide for the legal use of the name of the companies concerned in the other of the two languages of Canada. Generally speaking, these bills have met with approval in all quarters.
In this case we are dealing with a proposal to change the English name of a well established company and this does raise a question in my mind. I do not know what particular virtue may attach to the name "Century Insurance Company" as opposed to the existing name unless it is to indicate to us and to the customers that this is a very old and long-established concern even though it may not qualify for some time, at least technically, for the designation "Century".
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
I am concerned lest this proposal for a change in name may be the forerunner of a rash of similar applications. I recall we were once asked to approve a change of name proposed by a finance company. The company wished to change its name to "Beneficial Finance Company". I seriously questioned the advisability of permitting such a change because, as I said at the time, I thought the proposed new name was misleading. It did
May 19, 1966

not spell out that the primary purpose of the bill was to be beneficial to the particular finance company rather than, as may have been implied, to the customers. So, as I say, this kind of proposal raises questions in my mind.
I remember suggesting a number of names that might be used by finance companies. I do not recall this with the idea that insurance companies should adopt the same type of names, but I remember suggesting "Salubrious Finance Company", and there are any number of synonyms and related terms to be found within the richness and variety of the English language. I am not suggesting there is necessarily that kind of implication in this change of name by the Pacific Coast Fire Insurance Company, but it is a matter upon which the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, who is sponsoring the bill, might have a word to say before he closes the debate.
I note that there is another proposal which provides for an increase in the capitalization of the company. I would be interested in knowing the reason for this and I hope that the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, in view of what transpired when the bill was originally introduced for second reading, will take time to enlighten hon. members on the points I have raised.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. I would remind hon. members that if the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard speaks now he will close the debate.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, may I first express my real appreciation for the courtesy of hon. members in making the arrangement by unanimous consent at the beginning of private members' hour to allow this bill to come forward in the way it has. I, the parliamentary agent, and the members of the company appreciate very much the courtesy of the house in this regard.
In closing the debate, having been unable to open it, I should like to say a few words about the bill and to answer the questions raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett). As he stated, the purpose of the bill is to change the name of the Pacific Coast Fire Insurance Company to The Century Insurance Company of Canada and, in French, La Compagnie d'Assurance Century du Canada, and to provide for an increase in the capitalization of the company from $1 million to $2 million.
Private Bills
The Pacific Coast Fire Insurance Company was originally incorporated as a provincial company under the laws of B.C. in 1890. In 1908 it applied to parliament and received federal incorporation. Since 1928 it has belonged to what is well known in the industry as The Century Group of insurance companies, which has its head office in England.
The head office of the Pacific Coast Fire Insurance Company is located in Vancouver, B.C., and it presently carries on business in every province of Canada except P.E.I. and writes contracts of insurance in the United Kingdom and the United States.
Dealing with the reason for the change of name, the Pacific Coast Fire Insurance Company, which is part of the Century group, is owned by the Century Insurance Trust Company of England, which again is owned by the Friends Provident and Century Life office. This is the Century group of companies which operates in Vancouver, and the reason for the change of name of the Pacific Coast Fire Insurance Company to the Century Insurance Company of Canada is a matter of internal reorganization by which the company, under the new name, will emphasize the Century Insurance Company name. It will become the central company in the Canadian operations so that it will be the Canadian company, under the name "Century", which will be the principal company in the Century group of companies.
In answer to the question posed by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, the increase in capitalization from $1 million to $2 million is simply for the purpose of providing funds for further expansion within the group, and it is not proposed that any shares authorized by the increase in capitalization will be sold to the public. The change of name and the increase in capitalization really arise from internal reorganization.
In conclusion I would like to say that I agree with the remarks made by hon. members on the other side that it is a waste of parliament's time to have bills such as this, seeking changes in name and capitalization, come before it because members of parliament are far too busy considering other things. I completely endorse the remarks made by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and the hon. member for Timis-kaming (Mr. Peters) that the government and the house leaders of all parties should get
May 19, 1966

Vocational and Technical Training together to discover some easier way to deal with these private bills.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic affairs.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel):: The hour appointed for the consideration of private members business having expired, the house will resume the business interrupted at six o'clock.



VOCATIONAL AND TECHNICAL TRAINING


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Mar-chand-Mr. Rinfret in the chair:
That it is expedient th introduce a measure respecting allowances to persons being trained under technical and vocational training programs, and to authorize the entering into agreements with the provinces in connection therewith; and to provide further for certain changes incidental thereto in connection with the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for the principle, spirit and purpose of this resolution. One of my reasons is that I have always been opposed to the waste of human and natural resources, and this measure will do something to overcome that defect in our society so far as human resources are concerned. I want to congratulate the minister on introducing it. He has a most disarming manner. From reports I get from places he has visited and people he has spoken to I have no hesitation in saying that if there is any one man in the cabinet who will do a great deal to bring about national unity in Canada it is the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
This measure provides for government action, I trust planned action, to meet the growing need for trained people in our rapidly changing society. We are living in a different type of society than we did even ten years ago. This type of program, urging the federal government to take the initiative with respect to certain types of training legislation, has been urged by members of this group and our predecessors for more than 20 years.
I remember C.C.F. private members' resolutions urging the federal government to take action along these lines, not only with respect to university education but vocational training, coming before the house and being supported by members of C.C.F. group.


Michael Starr: Would the hon. member permit a question, because from my reading of the resolution his remarks are leading me astray? I am getting the impression from him that this is a new program which is being introduced. Actually this is a program that has been in existence a long while except that the allowances for the persons being trained are being increased. Does the hon. member realize that?
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I quite realize that. This measure is an improvement on the former measure to make it economically possible for those who wish to take advantage of these programs to do so. When listening to the minister I was very pleased to hear the figures he mentioned. I am very pleased for another reason. I cannot recall the name of the paper, but I recall reading recently a report which mentioned that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is carrying on a program of recruitment of United States labour from the states to the south of British Columbia. The report mentioned some figures. I do not know exactly what is being done, but I thought the figures were quite large; several hundreds of persons were mentioned, as being induced to come to Canada.
I am going to be like Lord Nelson and put the telescope to my blind eye. I say this because of a whispered interjection from the hon. member for Skeena.


Frank Howard: I said there were only 16 members in the house.


Mr. Cowan:: There should be more to hear Bert.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I see members coming in.
I am very pleased to see this program being made effective in practice, especially when I read reports such as this. I am referring again to the projects being undertaken in my own constituency where the chairman of B.C. Hydro promised, when appearing before the external affairs committee, that no United States citizens would be employed on this project until they had been resident in Canada for 60 days. I know that at the present time they are coming in and going to work immediately. I do not blame them. I do not know whether they are coming in as landed immigrants or on what basis. I know the minister has some knowledge of this situation. Soon after this measure is put through the house I trust there will be little
May 19, 1966

need to recruit skilled labour from the United States.
This legislation being something like the ARDA program, is in the nature of an experiment. We know it will have a practical and immediate effect, but it also is one of those measures the effect of which we have to learn, and in respect of that learning we must look for amendments and improvements. I should like to ask the minister two or three questions before I sit down. I should ask him what is being undertaken by his department or his officials in the way of a study of this program, with a view to future amendments or improvements. What is being done to include a study by other groups within the framework of this legislation; that is, what is being done to secure the co-operation of the labour organizations, industry, all the universities, all the farmers organizations, and also the individuals? In my experience I have found that frequently some humble individual has an idea which is well worth paying attention to and giving consideration to.
Also I should like to know what steps are being taken to bring this measure to the attention of those who may be in a position to take advantage of it. I am wondering what sort of publicity there is in this respect, because I think it is very necessary that those who wish this assistance be well informed. I am wondering what type of publicity the minister has in mind. I suggest it should be on as wide as possible a scale and that it be not only through the labour organizations but also through other community organizations which would be interested in co-operating with the minister and his officials in giving this legislation more publicity.
Also I should like to know what co-ordination there will be with other legislation, which has been adopted by the house in recent years, so that this legislation will be part of a national plan to provide and maintain full employment so far as that is possible, and to promote satisfactory production of those things which are required to meet our national needs, foreign markets, and overseas responsibilities.
I do not intend to take any more of the time of the house at this moment, Mr. Chairman, but I should like the minister to answer those questions when he rises to speak, so that we may have some idea of what he has in mind with regard to the promotion of this legislation and so that the people generally can work with him. There
Vocational and Technical Training are many people who are concerned with and interested in these things. I find that a lot of younger people are interested in legislation adopted in this house, regardless of the fact that there are those who go around the country belittling the progress parliament has made this session. During the last week or two I have been very pleased to see that we have gone along at a very satisfactory rate. I trust that the past unpleasant experiences we have had will soon be forgotten; they simply are a result of the weaknesses of human nature, from which we all suffer.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, this is indicative of the stupidity of trying to do two or three things at once. We try to have supper and do business at the same time. There are only 17 members in the house at the moment, counting yourself, Mr. Chairman, and we require 20 for a quorum. I do not see how we can carry on our business in this way.


An hon. Member:: There are more now.


Maurice Rinfret: I thank the hon. member for reminding the Chair and hon. members that there should be 20 members present to make up a quorum. I am not very apt at mathematics, but I do know that sometimes there is subtraction and sometimes multiplication in respect of the number of members; there are fluctuations. I now see a quorum.


Frank Howard: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I am sure you now see a quorum. Some members have come in. I just wished to point this out to you and to the other members. I think it is an asinine way to do business.


Maurice Rinfret: I thank the hon. member for his observations. We will now proceed with the business of the house.


Mr. Winkler:: Mr. Chairman, I have nothing to say about the objection of the hon. member for Skeena, other than that it has been understood that if by chance we happen to be behind the curtain we are considered to be in the house. I consider this to be a serious matter, because I suppose many members may be in the house on that basis. I feel that too often we are ready to downgrade this institution one way or another, whether it is done here by ourselves or by other persons on the outside who interpret what goes on here. I think we should be cognizant of those who are in the confines of this chamber. I do not expect to leave and I will do all in my power to maintain the quorum.
May 19, 1966

Vocational and Technical Training
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I rise to take part in the discussion on the resolution, but would like to preface my remarks by a statement with regard to the comments just made by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce and the hon. member for Skeena. As most of you are aware, I am a non-smoker. I have made the suggestion in the House of Commons before that we should allow smoking, because if we did we would have a larger attendance. I agree with the hon. member for Grey-Bruce that those behind the curtains should be counted as part of the quorum. I am speaking objectively on the matter because it does not interest me whether hon. members are behind the curtains or not; the fact is that I abstain from smoking.
I wish to comment on this resolution now before the committee, and the angle that caught my eye is that part which suggests that it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting allowances to persons being trained under technical and vocational training programs. We should pass this resolution and the bill which will follow, but I think the field being offered assistance for retraining should be widened.
In this regard I should like to draw the minister's attention to the introduction in the province of Ontario of a new type of nursing education now known as the Quo Vadis School of Nursing. This school has recently been developed and operates on a system of training graduate and registered nurses, accepting students between the ages of 30 and 50. Practically all these students are married, and some are widowed. They have reached the stage in life where they have had as many children as they and their husbands intend to raise. By the time these wives or widows have reached age 36 or 37 the children are all in school and they are left alone at home during the day.
It would be impossible to maintain the hospitals in the Dominion of Canada if it were not for the presence of married women who have been willing to return to the nursing profession. I am sure there can be no argument with the flat statement that 60 per cent of the nurses on the floors of Canadian hospitals today are married women.
No one interested in hospital work in the Dominion of Canada does not thank God for the willingness of these trained nurses who return to hospitals, even though they may be married and have children. Most of them have to make arrangements for the care of


their children while they are working, and in fact one hospital in Toronto, which requires a fair sized nursing staff, operates a nursery in the hospital to look after the children of the nurses who work there during the day.
I draw attention to nursing schools deliberately because of the underlying basis upon which some of these schools are operating. The one to which I have referred has the wholehearted support of the Ontario Department of Health because it operates on the basis of training married women from approximately nine o'clock in the morning to 4.30 in the afternoon from Monday to Friday. In view of the fact that many of them have families to look after, these hours are ideal because they can return home in time to prepare the evening meal, and can be at home on Saturdays and Sundays.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I should like to ask the hon. member whether he realizes that the question of training nurses does not come under the provisions of this resolution.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I am asking the minister whether he will make arrangements enabling the training of nurses to become part of this program. I developed this idea in my remarks recorded in Hansard on November 18, 1963 when we were discussing the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act, which was introduced by the previous administration. At that time I said that under the vocational training provisions in the province of Ontario courses for registered nursing assistants were being offered at the Beal Technical School in London, and at the Weston Collegiate and Vocational Institute, which is in the riding of York Humber, under the auspices of the Department of Education of the province of Ontario.
More and more of our registered nurses are being trained under provisions of the Department of Education rather than the Department of Health. I stand here at this time asking the minister whether he will broaden the scope of this assistance provision to include the retraining of housewives. I read with close attention the remarks of the minister yesterday when he introduced this resolution, and I found it interesting, when you consider that I am talking about the retraining of housewives as registered nurses, that his remarks were heavily related to unemployed people who need retraining. I do not think there is any man in the house, or lady for that matter, who is going to suggest that
May 19. 1966	COMMONS
housewives are unemployed. However, if we are willing to spend money to retrain unemployed individuals in order that they can change their occupations or, as the minister said in one of his statements, so they can change their status in the labour market, surely we should be willing to consider assistance to housewives who are willing to pursue a nursing career, even though they may be 36, 37 or even 50 years of age.
At the present time the Quo Vadis School of Nursing limits its enrolment to 40 students a year, I believe. This school has been in existence for two years and has an application list for enrolment in the neighbourhood of 200. To the amazement of this school's administration, these applications come from all parts of Canada. I think I can speak knowingly in this regard when I say that the Ontario Department of Health felt that the applications would be received largely from metropolitan Toronto, in order that the students would be able to return to their homes after the day's class. I should have believed this to be true. But when the Quo Vadis School of Nursing received widespread publicity, applications came in from as far away as Vancouver from girls who were willing to look after their own board and room, because they wanted to change their occupations from stenographers and computer operators, even though they had reached age 35, 36 or over. These girls were willing, as I have said, to look after their own living expenses for a two or three-year period. This course to which I have referred is a two-year course, the third year being a paid internship year. The Quo Vadis School of Nursing is now in its second year of operation and will be graduating its first class of nurses this spring.
I should like to ask the minister whether he will seriously consider enlarging the scope of this training program to take in nursing education so that housewives can train at institutions such as I have mentioned-Beal Technical School, Weston Collegiate and Vocational Institute and Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, where the Department of Education is supporting a three-year graduate nurse course.
The shortage of trained nurses in Canada has been a problem for many years. Many people oppose the suggestion that nurses should be trained under the auspices of the Department of Education because they believe they should be trained under the auspices of the Department of Health. Why is it women are trained for all other fields under
DEBATES	5325
Vocational and Technical Training the Department of Education, except the nursing career which is under the Department of Health. If the departments of education of ten provinces can train doctors, optometrists and physicians of every hue and colour, why can they not train nurses?
If the training of nurses is kept exclusively under the jurisdiction of departments of health this will mean added expenses to medicare and hospital services insurance plans throughout the country. We should transfer to the Department of Education the program under which nurses are trained through grants from the Department of Health, in order to properly relate the cost of educating these people. We should not keep these costs associated with the Department of Health, because the costs of that department are inflated at the present time by these costs.
The remarks of the minister last night were very appropriate and he is to be commended in this regard. However, if you study them you will have to admit that if we are willing to retrain a welder, for example, as a body builder in the automotive industry, we should be willing to train housewives as nurses, those who are anxious to pursue that as a new career.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
We need, and must have, an increased number of nurses in order to staff the ever-increasing number of hospitals required because of the increase in population due to births and immigration, and the medicare plan which will be on a national basis very, very shortly.
When the student loans program was first introduced by the previous minister of finance, I rose at that time and pointed out that the loans would be available to young people going to universities, colleges and schools, and asked the then minister if he would not make these loans available to children who would be going to hospital schools of nursing. Hon. Walter Gordon said that very evening that it would be done, because a girl going to a hospital school of nursing was entitled to as much assistance as a young lady who was going to college to be a teacher, artist or sculptress. I sincerely hope, and really believe, that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration who will soon, we understand, have under his control the portfolio of manpower, will give favourable consideration to this request that we give
5326	COMMONS DEBATES	May 19, 1966
Vocational and Technical Training allowances, through the medium of the provinces, to those housewives who are willing to enrol in such a school as Quo Vadis.
I believe the Quo Vadis school idea will spread right across the nation. We should give these women assistance in retraining in order that we will be able to meet the demand for nurses from the Atlantic to the Pacific.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak for only a few minutes on the proposals that have been advanced in the resolution now before us. I should say at the outset that it would be very easy to embark upon a fairly long discourse about the rapidly changing technological skills that are required in most vocations at the present time, and some of the problems that people encounter when they find their skills have become, as it were, obsolete. However, I am not going to do that because I think the minister and several other speakers have already covered some of this ground adequately.
I was interested in the minister's statement when he introduced this measure, and I am not completely clear as to the distinction between the $35 per week, to which he referred at one point as a basic allowance, and the $55 per week that would be added to, I presume, and be part and parcel of the unemployment insurance benefits. I am not clear whether this is available to those people who are eligible for unemployment insurance benefit and who also participate in this vocational and technical training program. Therefore, whether the minister does it when he closes the debate on this particular stage or when he introduces the bill, I think we need a somewhat expanded explanation of these two areas of payment and under what circumstances they will be available.
I think we have come quite a long way over the past seven or eight years with respect to providing technical and vocational training in Canada. Certainly it is not very long ago that many of the provinces, in co-operation with the federal government program, spent huge amounts of money in building technical and vocational training schools. The next logical step, I think, is embodied in the proposal now before us, and therefore we in this party wish to give support in principle to what is happening.
The last few words in the resolution state that there will be certain changes incidental to this program in connection with the administration of the Unemployment Insurance

Act, and I hope the minister will give us a somewhat more complete explanation of the relationship between unemployment insurance benefits and the allowances to be paid to trainees under this bill. Perhaps he would like to do it when the bill is before us, following passage of this resolution; but whenever he chooses to do it, I think this point needs further explanation.
As I read what the minister said when he introduced the resolution, it seems to me that some extra allowances will be paid; that seems to be clear. I am pleased that there is an incentive approach to this training rather than perhaps what could have been introduced by way of penalties in unemployment insurance benefit for those who did not take advantage of the technical and vocational training facilities that are available. As I said, Mr. Chairman, I wish to be brief. Perhaps the minister intended to cover this area, but I simply want to encourage him to do it either when he closes this debate or introduces the bill.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, just before the minister replies I have a brief inquiry, rather than a statement, to put to him. I pursued this subject two or three weeks ago on the orders of the day, and it seems to me that the resolution brought forward by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration provides the opportunity to inquire directly once again whether the matter I raised at that time is to be dealt with under this proposed amendment.
Members of the committee may recall that I was concerned that teacher training generally be included under the vocational and technical retraining program. Up to the present moment the assistance for teacher trainees has been restricted to those teachers who will be directly involved in instructional work in technical and vocational institutes, on the premise, I presume, that this is an area that can be justified for Ottawa's participation under the constitutional situation with respect to educational responsibility. However, it seems to me that if we are to achieve the very desirable end outlined by the minister in his initial statement on this matter, in a world of work that is changing rapidly due to increased technology, automation and all the other phenomena of our modern industrial civilization, and if we are to adequately provide increased training, the necessity for teachers of all kinds is basic.
May 19, 1966

We know that one of the critical problems in the field of education at the moment is the chronic shortage of qualified teachers. Just last week we had the Canadian Teachers' Federation meeting in the city of Ottawa. I understand that at that meeting the point I am raising at the moment came under discussion. The purpose of the meeting was to deal with the problem of teacher training, standardization and certification. That group felt that because of the increased demands being placed on our limited teacher resources, if they could be brought under this general program it would be a tremendous boost in helping to fill the gap. Now I think it applies more perhaps to women trainees than it does to men. I know, because I have run up against situations in which we have found difficulty in bringing such potential trainees under the act. I refer to married women who have high school training, have been married for a number of years, have become widows left with small children or have been deserted by their husbands.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
This is a social problem with some magnitude in Canada. Some of them are trying to carry on with widows' allowance, or whatever welfare allowances are available under our welfare program. In view of the subsidies paid under the vocational and technical program, they have endeavoured to be admitted to teacher training colleges, but have found under the regulations as they exist at the moment they cannot receive the necessary support.
If they are going directly into teaching and technical schools, they can receive that support. If they are going to engage in teaching activities generally, then they cannot. There is a specific regulation which creates the barrier. At the present time I understand the President of the United States has, as one of his pet objectives before Congress, the establishment of a national teacher corps on the premise, again, that if we are going to gear up our training facilities to the demands of a technological society we have to create very quickly a whole new group of qualified teachers.
Perhaps the minister has already taken care of this deficiency. If he has, I can desist from my comments at this stage. If he has not taken care of this particular oversight, I am sure he will agree that if teacher training under this program is limited to one specific category of teachers for technical schools, it is quite inadequate. Any retraining program
Vocational and Technical Training which is to deal with problems of unemployment or retraining, as is the purpose of the proposed legislation, of course will require people who can provide the basic skills to prepare the retrainees, so that they might go to the specialized training categories of the various vocational and technical programs. Until this matter has been attended to I do not believe we can have a proper program, because it is a part of the program that is urgently required.


Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: There is a matter I should like to raise which is of tremendous importance to a great many women across this country, and to our whole society in general. When we consider that about one third of the working force in Canada are women, and that about one third of the women who are gainfully employed are married women, I think we will have to come to grips with providing facilities to look after the children of these married women who are employed outside the home. In Canada we are a long way behind in the provision of facilities. I do not want to attempt to go into such matters as shortened work days or other matters of that kind.
I should like, under this resolution, to discuss the need for doing something about nursery schools under the subsidized vocational training program. I believe that in Canada we are exceedingly short of nursery schools in practically every place you like to look. I have talked about this matter with a great many people over some period of years now. I know that women with young children who go out to work have to leave the children in very unfit places, or make sketchy arrangements for their care. This is true of both young children of nursery school age and older ones.
I want to talk now about nursery school training for these schools, which we should have. I think there are two groups of people whom we should be training. The first would be the young girls who are leaving high school, perhaps grade 10 even and certainly grade 11. I feel there should be some vocational training course open to them whereby they can take training to become helpers in nursery schools. I should like to have an explanation from the minister as to why it would not be feasible. If we can pay young boys who are training to be plumbers or electricians during their period of apprenticeship, then I do not see why it would not be feasible to have such a course for young girls leaving high school. They could take this
May 19, 1966

Vocational and Technical Training training as nursery school helpers and be available for the nursery schools which we need so badly across this country. There are a number of reasons why this should be done.
For one thing, we have complaints from a great many sources these days that young girls are growing up without any preparation for marriage, running a home or looking after their own families. I cannot think of anything which would be better-


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Cameron, High Park):: Order.


Winona Grace MacInnis: What is the matter with this?


Donald Cameron: The resolution the hon. lady is discussing concerns allowances to persons being trained under the technical and vocational training programs. I think perhaps, with deference, the hon. lady will admit that she is wandering from the subject.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I
am not wandering far from the subject, with all due deference. Over here, we had a member speaking about the need for training married women in nursing courses because we are short of nurses. We are abysmally short of nursery schools, and this matter should have been mentioned years ago under vocational training. I am exactly dead on the subject.
If we are going to have any vocational training in this country we should be training young girls to become helpers in these nursery schools. I am suggesting we try to train them on the same basis, and make available to them the apprenticeship system which we make available to young fellows who embark on careers suitable to them. This is only half of the picture, Mr. Chairman. I believe, with deference, that this other half is equally relevant because you cannot have nursery schools without supervisors for them. As a matter of fact, I think one reason this subject is not considered relevant is the long time that has elapsed since we have had subjects of this kind discussed which are so relevant to the women of this country. We have discussed them at times in the house, but not nearly often enough. When these subjects are mentioned, therefore, one tends to think they are not relevant. However, they are tremendously relevant to vocational training.
There should be vocational training for older women who could act as supervisors for nursery schools, which are long overdue in
[Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway) .1
this country. I know there is some desire to have university courses, which exist now, adapted for the training of supervisors for these nursery schools. This would be ideal. However, I believe that married women whose families have grown up could take training under a subsidized vocational training program to learn to become supervisors in nursery schools. I know there is some nursery school training now for supervisory personnel. Many of the older women do not have these tremendously high academic standards, but their qualities as homemakers and mothers fit them for this work.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
I should definitely like to urge this course at this time, when we are observing rising economic pressures on married women who go out to work. In order to keep homes in this country intact, instead of seeing them disintegrate through crime, delinquency and neglect, during our consideration of a manpower policy and the subsidization of vocational training I should like to see provision made for courses at nursery schools both for supervisory personnel and nursery school helpers.


Mr. Marchand:: Mr. Chairman, I should like first to thank the house for its sympathetic reaction to the introduction of this resolution, and for the kind words some members addressed to me.
Of course, Mr. Chairman, I have no illusions. I am well aware that, at other times, the circumstances will be less favourable. I shall make up a reserve of good will in order to take the subsequent blows more easily.
There is one thing that I should like to explain differently at this time. Mr. Chairman, the special feature of the resolution now before the house and of the bill to follow, is not so much the amount of allowances to be paid to the unemployed or jobless,-even though I am quite satisfied with the suggested increase, but what is important and fundamental-if I went back a few months I would say revolutionary-is this new concept included in the resolution, that vocational training and retraining in Canada be part and parcel of the life of the worker. In other words, the person going back to training for reasons known to everyone, the person returning to school will no longer be considered lowered human being; on the contrary, going back to training will be accepted as normal in the life of a worker and because it is normal, he is provided with a salary enabling him
May 19, 1966

to maintain his standard of living while studying.
In my opinion, this concept puts into concrete form all these great theories and eloquent speeches often made on the evolution of technology, changes and new conditions in industry. These innovations must give rise to new concepts and new measures.
Such are the ones before us. It is not only a matter of money; it is above all and essentially a concept which leads us to accept the fact that fast developments in industry must not be at the expense of the workers and prejudicial to men.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean Marchand: The hon. member for Argen-teuil-Deux-Montagnes mentioned that we should have stipulated $1.25 instead of $1 by way of basic allowance. According to what he said this would have been more in accordance with the minimum wage standards of Canada.
I think that we have to take into account the supplement which in most cases will be paid, and which in some cases would amount to $90 per week, which is much more than $1.25 per hour. So I do not think we are in conflict with the minimum wage provisions laid down by the federal government.
The hon. member for Waterloo South said that we should consider the situation of the poorer provinces which, as a matter of fact, supply the richer provinces with skilled workers, and for which they pay. I think the hon. member will agree that this program which is under study is not so expensive for the provinces because the federal government will pay the first $25 per week and will pay 90 per cent of the additional allowances made to the workers.
This means, Mr. Chairman, that the cost to the provinces will be about 5 per cent; so I do not see, in view of the smallness of the amount, how we could find a formula which would be just for everyone. We have to take into account the number of students who will profit from the program and find a way to reimburse the provinces. I do not think it is worth while developing this point now, but we may be in a position to discuss it in further detail when the bill is before the house.
Some hon. members mentioned we should publicize this program a great deal, and I entirely agree. If we want the program to be efficient, then I think we must give it much

Vocational and Technical Training publicity so that workers and institutions know that the program exists and that profit can be had from it.
The hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke mentioned it was unfortunate that this plan applies only to those covered by the Unemployment Insurance Act. I think he would find a reading of my speech made yesterday worth while. I made it clear in the speech that it is not restricted to those covered by the Unemployment Insurance Act. As a matter of fact, the self-employed in the fisheries industry and the logging industry-


Howard Earl Johnston: That was not at all the
intention of my remarks. I was suggesting that the Unemployment Insurance Act should have wider coverage than it has.


Jean Marchand: Then I must have misunderstood the hon. member.

The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Mc-Cleave) expressed the fear that it would be easy, in view of the substantial allowances, to create permanent students, that is inasmuch as the weekly allowance is quite high, some workers might flit from one course to another and thus remain permanent students at $80 and $90 a week.
I feel that such a danger does not exist. The only people who will be eligible for those allowances are those who will be asked to take courses by the National Employment Service or the new manpower service. Therefore, to be sure, not everyone will be able to contact our service and ask to take a course. Only those who will be out of work or under-employed will be eligible and the slightest abuse will be quickly detected. I do not think that we are faced there with a real danger.
A lot has been said also about training in plants, that is on-the-job training. There is a special program for training in plants; it may not be as generous as the one we are talking about today. The federal government pays up to 50 per cent of the cost; I think it even goes as far as 75 per cent-I will correct the figures if I am wrong-that is to say we reimburse the provinces up to 75 per cent of the training costs.
Is there room for improvement? There is no doubt about it. However, I feel that we cannot, as a first experiment, include in that new program all the others, or the nine or ten existing programs for vocational training and retraining.
May 19. 1986

Vocational and Technical Training
Several members said that we should put the schools of nursing on the same footing. I think that the Quo Vadis school of nursing, which was mentioned is an extremely valuable school, and I think that it can get a grant through the Department of National Health and Welfare, something we cannot do through a system of vocational teaching. I was asked to give that matter some consideration, and I certainly will.
The same thing applies to children's nurseries which constitute a fundamental problem in our modern industrial world. We are all happy to see that women are taking part in the country's prosperity. Two million of them are working. Although we welcome their contribution, we must solve the problem that their employment creates in families, cities and industries. However, we must use a method different from the one we are considering. Nothing would prevent us from using one of the programs already in force. As soon as possible, I should like to have a closer look at it.
I am sure that we cannot extend to students the allowances provided here. They are intended not for students, but for the unemployed or the underemployed. If we offered $90, $80 or even $50 a week to students wanting to go to technical schools, you would see the students drop their studies and go to technical or vocational training schools. That is certainly not the purpose of the act. Perhaps when students are paid a salary-as some of us hope-the fact of granting those amounts will not be an artificial lure. But for the time being, this proposal is restricted to workers who have a family, who are adults and who must keep up a certain standard of living.
Mention has also been made, I believe the member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) brought it up, of the problem with regard to teachers. Indeed, he is right; all these retraining and vocational training programs will lead to a shortage of teachers. There is program 7, but it is rather limited in scope. That is another problem we will have to review in a new perspective.
As I will doubtless have the opportunity, when the bill is introduced in the house of taking up some of the objections raised this afternoon, I should now like to thank the house once more for the kind welcome it gave this worthwhile resolution. I trust the act will not differ from the resolution too much and that, all in all, we will have taken an important step toward what I believe the

hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Her-ridge) called safeguarding our human capital, surely the most important capital in an industrialized society. Even from an economic point of view, that capital is the most valuable; it must be protected, improved constantly, not only so that our people might earn a decent living but also that we might compete against other developed countries on a strictly commercial basis.
I believe the house feels, so far, that we are taking a step forward. It is not the first step; the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) mentioned that he had already gone forward in that direction. That is true. This is merely another step in that direction. And so, we will gradually work our way toward our common goal; a better and more prosperous society.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)

Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Marchand thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-186, respecting allowances to persons being trained under technical and vocational training programs.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

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



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
1. Postal Services including Canada's share of the upkeep of the International Bureaux at Berne and Montevideo, $252,804,000.
Mr. Foy:: I think the Postmaster General is about to get to his feet. We would certainly appreciate a statement from him, and I would defer to him.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General) :: Mr. Chairman, the first time, I asked the house to pass my estimates, only a few weeks ago, I did not have to speak and I thought that this would happen again today; but if the house is earnestly waiting to hear me, I am ready to deliver a speech.
Mr. Chairman, it is customary when opening the debate on the estimates for the current fiscal year, to review the financial position of the department during the previous year.
May 19, 1966

However, I trust hon. members will understand that the last fiscal year having just come to an end, available figures tor a complete year are for the 1964-65 fiscal year.
Before introducing the 1966-67 estimates of the Post Office Department, I should like to spend a few minutes reviewing the 1965-66 activities and stressing the unswerving policy and steadfast aims which are a trade mark of the Post Office Department. Where trends in recent years indicate growing needs for the department in 1966-67, I will quote figures and point out what they may bring about for the future each in its own field.
When my colleague, the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson), was postmaster general, he supported the recommendation of the Glassco Commission for the adoption by my department of a more suitable accounting system to identify all the accounts receivable by the department and all its financial charges, in order to get a clearer picture of the department's financial position.
I repeat, the figures for a full year now available are for the 1964-65 fiscal year. I shall use them to show the situation in the Department, with all amounts and accounts duly apportioned. During the 1964-65 fiscal year, the Post Office Department was provided with services from the other departments totalling $35.8 million. If this sum is added to the other operational expenses, which amounted to $243.8 million, the total expenditures come to $279.6 million. On the other hand, revenue totals $269 million, that is $263.7 million in revenue from all operations and $4.3 million in free services provided to the other departments and parliament.
These figures, Mr. Chairman, show that the Post Office Department, while assuming the cost of the services it receives from the other departments, was able to cover part of it up to $24.3 million and to finish the year with a net total deficit of only $11.5 million. However, if we take into account retroactive salary increases, the 1964-65 deficit would come to $17.7 million as compared to $32.4 million in 1963-64.
This improvement in the general situation of the department is due to a $28.3 million increase in the 1964-65 revenue while expenditures for the same period only increased by $2.3 million. This increase in revenue was caused on the one hand by greater postal traffic and, on the other hand, by a raise in rates.
Supply-Post Office
For instance, in order to establish a more equitable relation between charges and costs in some services, an increase became necessary for householder mail matter rates and for class mail rates as well as for charges on C.O.D. parcels. Those rate changes went in force on April 1, 1964. On July 15, 1964, the air mail rate for the United States was also increased.
Another increase went into force on January 1 of this year, this time in international rates. That will result in an increase in revenue which will be apparent in the 196566 figures but expenditures will also increase since the new rates are precisely aimed at meeting the increased transportation and mail handling costs which are occurring in the international service.
Another rate change occurred this year when a zone system was established for international parcel post. There are now three rates, called zone rates, for countries other than the United States and their possessions, where 230 different rates previously applied. Such a simplified rate structure is a great improvement for the mail room attendants in business concerns in Canada as well as for the postal workers who handle international parcel post.
It is interesting to note here, the strong tendency in Canada to use air mail facilities for correspondence and business dealings with foreign countries. Our figures forecast an increase of nearly 15.2 per cent in all classes of international air mail for 1965, as compared with an increase of approximately 4 per cent in all classes of surface mail. Such a trend doubtless indicates that fast communications have now become a habit. It also indicates that the Post Office Department must constantly improve its methods in order to keep up with technical progress and development.
In January 1965, were started throughout the postal service, cyclical surveys of mail traffic as a first step in the implementation of a new cost ascertainment program.
Next July, we shall have data covering a whole year on this subject. The cost report will show the receipts and expenditures of every class of mail matter and service on an annual basis. A projection of figures already obtained indicates that a 4 per cent increase in mail traffic can be expected for 1965-66. In terms of items handled, this represents an increase of 200 million over 1964-65, for a total of 4.8 billion. Roughly, this represents approximately 240 mail items per year

May 19, 1966
Supply-Post Office
and per person, men, women and children, in Canada.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, the annual increase in the mail volume naturally leads to increased activities in all fields at the Post Office Department. For instance, as at March 31 of this year, the number of daily home deliveries by carrier had reached 3.5 million, apart from service to 16,372 other families, through group mail boxes. The 10,251 jobs of mail carriers at the Post Office Department on March 31, 1966, represented an increase of 753 from the previous fiscal year.
Mr. Chairman, in order to take into account constant evolution, we amended one of the conditions for delivery by carriers, to the effect that any town which offers 2,000 delivery points can now claim home delivery service, while previously it had to have at least 2,500 points to serve. As the needs of each locality are determined and recruitment and training of carriers is done, we carry on with our program providing for the extension of this service.
Since January, 1966, carrier delivery was initiated at St. Bruno and Montmagny, in Quebec; at Strathroy, Bowmanville and Paris, in Ontario; at Cranbrook, in British Columbia. Thus, 14,122 more homes are served by mail carriers. In addition, due to the rapid multiplication of big buildings in the heart of cities, 44,696 other homes enjoyed carrier service. Therefore, 3,564,572 delivery points are now visited daily. In order to give this service, the number of carriers in the employ of the Post Office Department was brought up to 10,340, an increase of 253 jobs to date. And there will be several other extensions of carrier service before the end of the current fiscal year.

Mr. Chairman, 1965-66 was a period of growth and expansion in the Post Office Department. It also was a period fraught with difficulty. All hon. members know last year there was a work stoppage by employees which affected adversely the communications system of our whole country. This action by the employees last summer points up the need for proper collective bargaining procedures. These needed procedures will be provided by this government through legislation. It is only right that procedures be established so that civil servants, like employees in industry, can sit down with their employer to

discuss and bargain on matters pertaining to their terms of employment.
The inquiry into the working conditions in the Post Office Department, which is being conducted by Judge Montpetit, is progressing and a final report is expected for tabling within the next few months. For the benefit of hon. members, I may state that I wish the report had been tabled prior to the introduction of the estimates so that they would have been able to see into the depths of the operation in the Canada Post Office. The report when tabled, I am sure, will do much to clear the channels of communication between the employee branch locals and their national executive, and between the various levels of management.
Better communication will help to dispel the mistrust and the misunderstanding which has manifested itself between the employees and management. Officers of the department and myself have been meeting with the representatives of the associations. Changes are being discussed and are being readied for implementation; they are the result of consultation and agreement. As an example, the examination procedure has been modified and is ready for adoption. The method of measuring the work of letter carriers is advancing. To help with this study, the systems used in the United States, England and Japan have been reviewed. Safety committees, comprised of representatives of the employee associations and management will be established in the larger post offices, and a safety officer will be added to the headquarters establishment. He will be responsible for the preparation, promotion and administration of the safety programs in the department.
Through the co-operation of the Department of National Health and Welfare, preliminary steps have been taken toward the establishment of a civil service health unit in the Montreal Post Office. Expansion of this project will be possible only as trained personnel are available. The work being done now by the department, in consultation with the associations, by the time the report of Judge Montpetit is tabled will eliminate many of the troubled areas, and solutions to remaining problems will be well on their way to being worked out.
Mr. Chairman, 1965-66 was an active year for the Post Office Department and, as I have said previously, this fiscal year shows postal operations and business expanding with the economic and population growth of our country. In the department, programs previously conceived are reaching maturity and new
May 19. 1966

programs and new concepts are being readied for study and implementation.
With these few remarks, I would ask hon. members earnestly to consider the amounts represented by the estimates which we consider necessary to provide our country with continued and effective postal service.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Mr. McCutcheon:: Mr. Chairman, I also should like to compliment the minister and thank him for his very able progress report on the activities of the Post Office Department for last year. The activities in that department act as a pretty fair barometer of the development of the country. Certainly it was evident from his remarks that the costs of services in this country are rising.
The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek wished to take part in this discussion tonight, but unfortunately has been called out of the house. He mentioned to me an item or two about which he is concerned. He is concerned particularly about the curtailment of the service given to the public in rural areas since the minimum wage law became effective last year.
Since the $1.25 minimum hourly wage rate became effective, in many areas, particularly in the country, the post offices have been working on restricted hours, rather than pay the overtime. 1 have discussed this matter as it applies in my own area, but I am bringing it to the attention of the minister now to point out that while it is a bone of contention in my area, it is also out through the western part of the country. It seems to me, if the government is prepared to pay a minimum wage, the general public should not be penalized because the Post Office Department will not grant an increase in salary sufficient to keep the wickets open in the post offices for the required time. There is one other matter in respect of the area I represent which I should like to draw to the attention of the minister. A few new public buildings have been built in our area. A beautiful building with air conditioning was built on a nicely treed lot, but 12 miles up the river we have the new post office building in the town of Dresden in an area where there are no trees close by: It is sitting in the glaring sun. Provision has been made for the installation of an air conditioner, associated with the heating unit, but to date the work has not been completed. I can assure the minister that in this area air conditioning is almost a must, if we are to get efficient work from the staff. I hope he will take this matter under
Supply-Post Office
consideration. I have already discussed this with the Minister of Public Works, who agrees with me that something should be done. In closing I should like again to compliment the minister on the good report he has given us this evening. However, there is one other matter I should like to bring to his attention. This concerns the rural mail routes and is something which only people in the rural areas are aware of. In many instances I feel the department is bound a little too much to the lowest tender concept. In our area I have seen occasions where we have had a little trouble in respect of the lowest tender, because sometimes the tenderer is not in a position to back up his tender with the service he should be providing. I believe this is an area where great care must be taken, but I also feel it is an area which should be examined a little, because service to the public sometimes is more important than acceptance of the lowest tender.


Mr. McIntosh:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. I want to thank the hon. member for bringing my points to the attention of the Postmaster General.


Mr. Mather:: Mr. Chairman, I have two reasons for being especially interested in the subject of our post office and its operations. As a member of the New Democratic Party, I am particularly pleased with the Post Office Department because it represents a good example of public enterprise. In the second place, as a former mail carrier, I have a special feeling for the dedicated staff of the post office at all levels. Their efforts, often unrewarded, render a daily public service to this country.
A colleague of mine intends later to enlarge upon and make reference to the postal employee situation, so I will not touch upon that subject now, except to say that I very much welcomed the statement of the Postmaster General that collective bargaining is being established. This I am sure will help the situation.
I suppose the postal service is the federal activity which affects beneficially the largest number of Canadians. We see by the latest report, which the minister has given us, that something over four billion pieces of mail are processed annually. The minister has indicated that about $269 million is taken in and that about $279 million is spent in the operation of this service. Of course postal operations also include activities in addition to the handling of mail. Postal services include the

May 19, 1966
Supply-Post Office
sale of unemployment insurance stamps, collection of government annuities payments, the distribution of income tax forms and civil service employment forms.
The post office has been given consideration, or subsidy in the form of accommodation-that is buildings-to a rough value of $20 million per year. On the other hand it carries free mail and subsidizes other federal agencies to the extent of about $4 million in the form of free or frank mail.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
As the minister has indicated, these last items are now being brought into a more clear cost accountancy relationship. On that point I thought it was encouraging that this is being done in line with the recommendations of the Auditor General which appear in his most recent report, from which I should like to quote briefly. He said:
In 1964 the department engaged a firm of consultants to examine its cost ascertainment procedures with a view to establishing accurate costs with respect to the various classes of mail. The procedures recommended by the consultants were put into effect only in January 1965 and no figures are available to indicate the loss in handling second class mail for the year 1964-65. The loss in 1963-64 had been estimated at $35 million which included $1.5 million attributable to a special second class rate on newspapers and magazines mailed by the public. This rate was discontinued effective April 1, 1964.
I quoted that statement to indicate that some progress is being made, as the minister suggested, in following up the common sense recommendations of the Glassco commission and the Auditor General.
Having said that, I should like to take this opportunity to say I was very pleased to note that the minister did not say what his predecessor said a year or two ago, that he advocated an increase of 25 per cent in local first class mail delivery rates-from four to five cents. In our view such an increase is unwarranted. I do not know whether it is still under consideration, but I hope it is not. In the event that it is, I should like to put forward some of the arguments which we think are strongly against this increase.
In support of the proposal by the previous minister to increase the local mailing rate to five cents he said that it would bring all our local postage to the five cent rate and would increase revenues and help solve the problem relating to the drawing of boundaries for the distribution of local mail. His contention was, and I think there was some truth behind it, that it is hard for the post office to charge

some people different rates; that is, four or five cents, in the same municipality. However, instead of charging all these local residents four cents, he proposed to charge them all five cents. I think very few Canadians would agree with that proposition.
In the first place, as to revenue, on ordinary first class mail-that is letters mailed in the ordinary way by ordinary Canadians-a profit is obtained. Why increase that part of the service charge? To do that, as I will try to show, means to burden unjustly one set of postal users with the cost of subsidizing another set of users.
As to the boundary drawing problem referred to by the former minister, I think that if the present minister will come with me to my constituency and talk to the people in Surrey, Delta or Langley he will find many of them who will advise him how to settle that problem very quickly. They all want a universal four cent lower mainland British Columbia rate.
I have said that first class letter mail is handled profitably and that second class mail, notably magazines and newspapers, is carried at a loss. This has been the situation for many years, and it has been argued for years that this should not be the case. I think that something like $35 million per year is lost in the carrying of second class mail.
The most recent figures I have indicate that first class mail service showed a profit of 1.827 cents per piece handled. In respect of second class mail there was, on transient class, a loss of almost ten cents per piece, and on publications there was a loss of over four cents. It is true, therefore, that non-business mail-ordinary letters-are subsidizing the losses on business periodical mail.
A former postmaster general had this comment to make on the subject. Unfortunately he made it just before he became postmaster general, rather than after. He said:
We should not load the one class of mail with the costs of another class of mail, but we should rather bring them out into the open and pay from general revenues any special costs in the operation of a department.
He said, as I say now, that if an increase in the rate of first class mail is still being considered it ought not to be. I was encouraged by the statement made a month or two ago by the present minister in this regard. He said as recorded in Hansard for February 17, 1966 at page 1427:
When preferential rates were approved for newspapers over 20 years ago, one of the reasons for
May 19, 1966

it was, I think, that newspapers were perhaps the only public medium of information at that time. That is why a preferential rate was established. But I do not think that reason stands today. However, there may be others.
At any rate, I was encouraged by that statement of the minister.
There is another aspect I should like to refer to. We must face the fact that on second class mail posted in the United States and delivered in Canada we lose as high as $2,800,000 per year, and that on United States second class mail posted in Canada for delivery in Canada we lose in excess of $1 million per year. There is another aspect of this relationship which I should like to touch upon briefly.
It is estimated that Canadian imported printing runs to a value of over $300 million per year, and that 85 per cent originates in the United States. There is no other comparison in the world which could show such a relationship as exists between the United States and Canada in regard to our importation of printed material. There is no other comparison in the world for this relationship between two countries. We in this country absorb 35 times more printed imports per capita than does the United States. To quote the Graphic Arts Industries Bulletin, a Canadian publication:
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Year after year the huge daily flow of printed imports is represented by incoming second and third class mail from the United States, delivered without any remuneration by our Canadian Post Office. All postal revenue on this goes to Washington because the Universal Postal Convention compels us to carry U.S. mail without compensation. And since the flow from Canada to the U.S.A. is not even comparable, our country loses every day.
I think these are some of the points that should be taken into consideration in the operation of the post office. I am encouraged to think that some of them are being taken into consideration, and hope to see some action on them to bring about a healthier position for the postal service. In closing I wish to reiterate that our party is opposed to any increase in the postal rates in respect of the ordinary letter writer sending first class, local mail. We are opposed to these people paying more than they do today, when what they now pay is more than enough to carry their letters. The real hole, in our opinion, through which the flood of deficit comes into the operations of the post office is the arrangement which permits the entry, at our cost, of millions of dollars worth of U.S.
Supply-Post Office
printed products. I am told, for example, that our post office loss on Time and Reader's Digest has in the past been as high as $1,400,000 a year. It might very well be asked, why should Canadians, many of whom never read these publications, be burdened with extra postage to help promote their distribution in Canada? Why should the public sector of the postal business, the ordinary letter writer, pay more and be called on-we hope this will not happen-to pay still more to subsidize that private sector?
We cannot see that this is either fair or wise, and we oppose it. We propose, instead of increasing the charges to the ordinary mail users across Canada, that regulations permitting the duty-free entry of any package not over $1 in value, which stimulates direct mail from the United States, be abolished and we would urge that this country seek earnestly and strenuously an adjustment with the United States to overcome the existing inequities in the postal convention under which our post office and its Canadian customers labour.


Mr. Godin:: Mr. Chairman, my first words on this item are to congratulate all the employees of that department whose work is almost above reproach and gives quick results which leave far behind those of all other departments of the Canadian government.
Before the advent of radio, television and telephone, the work of the Post Office employees represented a service indispensable to the moral and cultural life of the Canadian villages very remote from each other.
Thus, at that time the situation was the same as it is today, that is to say it is practically always impossible to determine the material value of the services given by those workers.
The minister has just given us a very glowing picture. If we look only at that side of it, it is all to the department's credit. But there is another side which shows a record performance. If there had been a contest between the departments of the Canadian government as to what department could work most efficiently for the longest time with the most poorly paid staff, I am sure that the Post Office Department would have won the trophy.
I will take only a few minutes to point out the lot of postal contractors in rural ridings.
When we see workers, in all parts of Canada, joining together within labour unions

May 19, 1966
Supply-Post Office
to get better wages and working conditions, we cannot but conclude that the method of individual tenders for contracts is out of date. When a contract is up for renewal, it sometimes happens that some prankster tenders against the regular contractor who has been doing his work faithfully for years. Under the circumstances, the latter is forced to keep on working at miserly wages because in order to keep his job, he must submit the lowest tender.
That old custom is, in my opinion, the reason why some contractors get only $5.50 for four hours of work a day. The same work brought them $2.50 in 1939.
In my riding I know an honest contractor who has been working for the Post Office Department since 1936. He serves 53 families every day and, as his only reward, he gets $625 a year, or 4 cents a day per family.
If the beggars who roam the countryside filed an income tax return, I am sure that they would admit to more than 4 cents per family called on. Not only are our beggars better paid, but they work only when it suits them. They are not forced to walk in the rain or on cold days, nor at the same time in the same ranges, every day of the week. They can change scenery by moving to another parish, another county and even another province.
Nowadays, $625 a year is ridiculous. One dollar per hour for someone who has to use his own car to do his work, is pure nonsense.
There is no need to be an accountant to notice the difference between the minister's salary and this employee's, since, as I said prev.ously, the remuneration of the mail carrier concerned is $625 only. It is only fair that I specify for the information of all Canadians, and especially my constituents, the Postmaster General's salary. As can be seen on page 365 of the estimates for the fiscal year 1966-67, it is as follows:
Yearly salary:	$15,000
Motor car allowance:	$ 2,000
And we add to that: $6,000 as emoluments of a member of parliament and $12,000 as salary, for a total of $35,000. This amount of $35,000 represents the employment of 55 contractors at $625 a year; 55 persons, two hours daily, represent 110 hours; 110 hours per day represent 660 hours a week.
I leave it up to the minister to make the computation for one month and for one year, so that he may realize the real gap in that department.

I am asking the minister personally to inquire among the mail contractors and to carry out the salary adjustments required. I am sure that when the question of equitable treatment for this category of workers disseminated across Canada is raised, the minister will be in a position to rely on the approval of the whole house. As for the carrier service given by the department in certain cities in Canada, I feel I must advise that the cities of Portneuf constituency have already sent to the department their requests on this matter, so that the citizens may be more adequately served.
The minister advised them that such service was not possible for the time being, since there were not 2,000 families within the boundaries of such cities.
If the figure of 2,000 families was set for cities like Montreal or Ottawa, it is clear that such a minimum makes sense, because such cities are built vertically and it becomes easy to find 2,000 families within a rather small area. But when it is realized how our cities in the rural constituencies are spread out, since in most cases, the lots are much larger than the houses and that the houses themselves are mostly one-story, seldom two-story, the result is that an area of four square miles often represents only 1,500 families.
Then, families living one and a half miles from the post office have to cover that distance to get to the mail and this is often impossible for a mother who is busy at home with her young children. The same is true in the case of older persons. For the one whose work compels him to travel in another direction, trips to the post office also become costly.
This is why, I believe that the department should review its position and reduce from 2,000 to 1,000 the minimum number of families required for the establishment of a mail delivery service. By solving this problem, the minister would kill two birds with one stone: In addition to doing justice by improving those services, he would contribute to create employment for those who are out of work in those towns and who are still in quest of the definition of prosperity given and repeated by His Excellency the Governor General at the opening of parliament.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Mr. Roxburgh:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words about this department. Before I do so, I want to compliment the minister upon his report and upon the fine
May 19, 1966

way in which he has carried on as head of the postal department. I have been pleased to note that some members have discussed the same subject with which I should like to deal, the plight of the rural mail carrier. I believe this is one of the weaknesses of the federal postal department. I want to compliment the hon. member for Lambton-Kent and the hon. member for Portneuf upon the information they have provided, with which I heartily agree.
We know, of course, that the rural mail carrier acquires his position by contract. Once he receives his contract he does not have an opportunity of getting an increase for a two-year period. This business of contracts was all right for the horse and buggy days. It was all right until the provincial and federal governments started putting up taxes so often that the poor mail carrier believed the taxes were being increased every month. This fact influences the rural mail carrier greatly, when he is attempting to make a proper contract that will permit him to support his wife and family, and do his work. This work is extremely necessary to the federal government. I should like to give one illustration concerning a mail carrier who has been doing this work for the federal government for close to 40 years. He asked for an increase to the extent of the large sum of $50-not $50 a month but $50 a year. In fairness to the federal government, I must say they gave him that $50 increase. However, before the little man could put one red cent of that increase into his pocket, the provincial government decided to raise their taxes. Overnight his $50 was wiped out and he was back where he started.
I think, Mr. Chairman, the position of rural mail carriers should be worth so much money to the government. I do not believe these people should be hired by contract. The hon. member for Lambton-Kent mentioned that the contracts did not always go to the lowest bidder. However, even if a contract goes to the lowest bidder, that does not mean he is always the best man for the job. I believe that the time when rural mail carriers should be hired by contract is long past. I suggest to the Post Office Department they should take another look at the matter. These men should he paid a straight salary, the same as the urban mail carriers receive. They are just as important as or more important than the urban mail carriers, who have good sidewalks. The urban carrier may have some rain or snow, but there are few days when he
Supply-Post Office
cannot get to his job. On the other hand, the rural mail carrier not only has the weather to contend with, but he has to contend with roads.
I imagine that the Postmaster General, in days gone by, has ridden with the rural mail carrier. 1 have done so, and I would not take his job if they gave me twice the money, especially during the spring when the roads are in the worst condition. However, the mail has to be delivered. I have just received a letter from one of these carriers, as no doubt other hon. members have. This chap says that as a result of the large increase in the cost of living over the last two years, he has had to request an increase. He has to furnish a car or a truck, gas, and work six days a week. As he says, these carriers are not entitled to have an increase for a two year period. I just wanted to bring this to the attention of the Postmaster General because I feel he is a man who will look after the interests of the ordinary people. I sincerely feel that his department should take another look at the situation and at least pay a living wage to these mail carriers, because that is not being done at the moment.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Chairman, I first want to offer my congratulations to our new Postmaster General. It is said that we always get a good job from a new broom and I am sure, after listening to his able opening remarks tonight, that we can expect action in the Post Office Department. I for one think we need some action in that department. I feel that for too long the post office has looked upon itself as a crown corporation which is supposed to end up, shall we say, in the blue. Our post office was designed to give service to the public. Their main function should not be to balance their books.
By and large, the people who work for the Post Office Department are amongst the finest civil servants we have in Canada. A great many of them have worked long years for miserable wages. They have not had bargaining rights. I am not one who pushes for bargaining rights for these people. I feel that our appreciation of the wonderful service the Post Office Department always renders should make us keep their working conditions so far ahead of their demands that they will be scratching their heads trying to decide the new working conditions they should request. In fact, if we did our job as legislators in a democratic state, particularly where money

May 19, 1966
Supply-Post Office
matters are concerned, the need for overemphasizing unionism would be quite unnecessary.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
We know that the postal employees of Canada found it necessary to strike, and people are always arguing whether or not a strike can be legal. In my opinion a strike is never legal. I believe a strike which is justified should have never been made necessary in the first place; a strike which is not justified is unlawful and a travesty of democratic rights. I say again that it is up to us-and the lead, of course, must come from the Postmaster General himself-to see that his great department is given a square deal.
With regard to the design of post offices, we can be penny wise and pound foolish when we resort to minimal designs. Canada is a young and flourishing country, and if we are to build post offices at all, then, like mounted police barracks, they should be a showcase. They should be of the finest both as to architecture and as to utility. Every citizen in Canada uses the services of a post office. Some of the small, square brick buildings which fly our flag out front make me shudder. It is very poor economy to build one of these miserable little boxes, because ten years from now they will be entirely out of date. They have never been beautiful and in many cases they are not even useful.
I also do not think that the staff and the people using these buildings are consulted enough as to design. We are inclined to go to architects, and architects are not always right. Sometimes they have futuristic ideas, and I am sure sacrifice usefulness of a building to their own particular conception of what is new, fine and beautiful. I have spoken to the staffs of several post offices in my own district. They are miserable little places.
I beg the Postmaster General to take a personal interest in the designing of post offices and to consult the staffs who have to use them, wherever possible doing away with the idea of minimal standards. I would rather see five post offices beautifully built than ten which will never be useful and are certainly not beautiful.
The same thing can be said for the design of stamps, Mr. Chairman. The original cost of designing a postage stamp is very small indeed, when you consider the fact that a minimum of 18 million copies of most stamps is run off. I would prefer that the artists be Canadians, of course, in every case. I do not

think there is a more universal advertisement for Canada than beautiful postage stamps. In 1930 we put out a 50-cent stamp which used as its motif the Bluenose. This stamp has been rated at more than one international competition as the most beautiful stamp in the world, and I do not see why a return to that standard could not be made.
In this direction Switzerland is away ahead of us, and a great many nations with much less wealth and prestige in the world shame us in the general design of their stamps. Again, I think our young and active Postmaster General could take an interest in this matter. I might point out that right here in Ottawa are two very fine organizations he could consult. I sometimes think it best to go outside the department if the designs of stamps are not up to the old standard; and I can assure the Postmaster General that they are not.
I would suggest to the minister that experts in all phases of philately are to be found in the Recreational Association of the Civil Service. Then there is the Ottawa Philatelic Society, one of the oldest philatelic societies in the world, with experts on Canadian stamps as members. These people would be glad to give the Postmaster General the benefit of their intimate knowledge of this subject.
While on the subject of postage stamps I should like to suggest that in the very near future we might give our native people a shot in the arm by putting out a set of stamps in their honour, such as a different stamp for each tribe of our native people, including the Eskimos. Perhaps we could issue them in the order in which the treaties were signed, or something of that nature, in order to cover Canada from coast to coast. I am sure the design would be very appealing, especially now that our native people are taking their proper place as honoured and fully-participating citizens both in their country and ours.
Talking time is somewhat restricted on this matter, Mr. Chairman, and I do not want to take up any more time of the committee. However, I should just like to make this point. There are 265 federal members of parliament. I would suggest that the Postmaster General would break new ground if he were to use them on every occasion when matters arise concerning the post office department. This department has perhaps suffered over the years, I think, from partisanship; but for the general good of the public
May 19, 1966



and the provision of better postal service I think a lot could be done if the Postmaster General were to consult us on local matters.
For example, about seven years ago I knew a post office would be needed in my home town, so I got in touch with the Post Office Department and suggested that, as they would be building within the next few years, it might be a good idea to buy some land, which they did. The land for which they paid $4,000 has not yet been built on, but you could not buy the same land today for less than twice that amount. I suggest that this type of co-operation with hon. members of this house is available to the Postmaster General in 265 constituencies in Canada. Therefore I should just like to ask the Postmaster General to break new ground and to take advantage of people who are willing to co-operate with him to the greatest extent.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I am anxious to comment on the post office estimates as they have been presented to the house for the year 1966-67. I have spoken each time that the post office estimates have been brought forward in the past four years, but more particularly I wish to speak tonight about the estimates of the Post Office Department because of the strike which was forced on the Canadian public last summer.
In making these remarks I wish to state that I was entirely on the side of the striking employees and could find no fault in the action they took. There are upwards of 20 members of parliament in the Toronto area. When the strike started in Toronto I went down and spoke to the strikers, telling them I would bring some matters to the attention of the House of Commons at the first opportunity. Two other Liberal members from Toronto also expressed support for the strikers in the city. However, I will not mention their names, because I cannot see them in the house tonight and I have not asked their permission.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I wish to state flatly that those men and women who found it necessary to go out on what some called a wildcat strike last July had every justification for their actions. I mentioned that many of them were forced to live under circumstances which were a discredit to the Canadian government. I say this because they were government employees. I have listened intently to the presentation by the Postmaster General of the figures for the past two years. He made reference to the
Supply-Post Office
estimates which are to be found in the blue book. In the year ending March 31, 1966, the Post Office Department showed a deficit of $11 millions. I congratulated the then Postmaster General when I spoke on July 17, 1964, and I congratulate the present Postmaster General, the hon. member for Lon-gueuil, as I speak tonight, on the fact that they are now taking cognizance of the valuable services rendered to the Post Office Department by other departments of government.
For many years the Post Office Department was subsidized by other government departments, such as the Department of Public Works, which owned many of the post offices in which postal services are enjoyed by the general public, but for which the Post Office Department pays no rent. The Glassco report drew attention to the self-evident injustice of such a situation, and since then the Postmaster General has made an obeisance in recognition of the fact that services were indeed being rendered by other departments. Having taken cognizance of those services they point out that the total over-all deficit for the last year of operation was $11 millions.
Mr. Chairman, there are two ways of arriving at this deficit. One is by including among the expenditures of the department sums which do not need to be included in the post office estimates. Second, it is possible to arrive at a deficit if you do not charge enough for the services which are rendered. Then, if there is a deficit, you can tell the employees: We cannot afford to pay you what you require in order to live in a decent way, and we have the figures to prove it.
If hon. members will turn to the blue book for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1967, they will find on page 365 a paragraph setting out the various approximate values of major services not included in the estimates of the department. They include contributions to the superannuation account by the Department of Finance, $9,438,700; contributions to the Canada Pension Plan account from the same department, $2,856,500; employees' surgical-medical insurance premiums, by the Department of Finance, $1,137,000. Take these three items alone and they will come to a total of approximately $13 millions. Include them in the post office figures and you can come up with a deficit of $11 million and tell the employees: We cannot raise your pay because we have an $11 million deficit.

May 19, 1966
Supply-Post Office
I declared in July, 1964, and I repeat tonight, that we need not have a funded superannuation account or funded pension plan in order to pay pensions to the employees of the Post Office Department. When an organization such as the government of Canada has power to tax, it can pay superannuation out of current account and it can pay pensions out of current account. This is a bookkeeping entry, and set out in the blue book it can create an apparent deficit where none exists. The figures can then be used as an excuse for telling employees that their pay cannot be raised, thus forcing them to strike.
Another way of strengthening the statement that the department cannot afford to pay its employees proper wages is by failing to charge enough for the services which are being rendered. I regret to say, after reading my remarks made on July 17, 1964, when I was commenting on those post office estimates-that is, a little more than 22 months ago-I know of no single suggestion of mine which was advanced at that time which the Post Office Department has accepted. This is some kind of tribute, I suppose. The department not only paid no attention to any particular suggestion, it ignored the entire group. I hope that a little more attention will be paid to the suggestions I made in July, 1964, now that the cabinet has had a strike on their hands and the Canadian public has been greatly inconvenienced as a result.
This wildcat strike, in certain areas, particularly in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, would not have been necessary had there been sufficient revenue coming into the post office to cover the cost of increases in the remuneration of its employees.
I drew attention to some of the unfair practices which prevailed in the setting of postage rates two years ago. But when I spoke in July, 1964, I did not make any mention of the fact that no zone rate is imposed in this country, except in the case of parcel post. If a magazine is printed in New York city and sent to a subscriber in San Francisco it may cross eight postal zones in the United States, and the advertising content of the publication pays an increased postage rate depending on the distance which the magazine or newspaper travels. This is nothing but a fair imposition, and this practice should be adopted in Canada.
A zone rate of postage has been advocated in respect of periodicals in Canada for more than 40 years, to my personal knowledge. Why should a publisher of a magazine in

Toronto, be able to mail his publication to Victoria at a rate which is exactly the same as he would pay were he mailing it to Oakville, six miles away? Why should a publisher in Montreal be able to send his periodical to a city in Alberta at the same price he would pay to send it to Lachute?
The government controls the Canadian National Railways. If a customer ships anything by freight on the C.N.R. he pays according to the mileage traversed. If he sends anything by express he pays according to the mileage. If he sends a telegram through the C.N.R. system he pays in accordance with the distance the telegram goes. When a passenger travels on a plane belonging to Air Canada, which is a crown corporation, he pays according to the distance he flies. If he is shipping anything by air freight or air express, again he pays in accordance with the distance his goods are to be moved. People using the telephone system pay according to the distance over which they call. If hon. members are going through certain of our provinces where a government telephone service is in operation they will find that the provincial governments have rates which vary according to the distance called.
It is an established fact that the further you travel the more you pay-the further you ship, the more you pay-except in the postal service of Canada. If you want to mail something from Toronto to Vancouver the cost is the same as if you mailed the same thing from Toronto to Newmarket.
Why cannot we introduce a zone postal system and increase the revenues from second class mail to the point at which we shall not need to tell post office employees that they cannot be given the money to which they are entitled because there is no money in the till?
I am not opposed to collective bargaining in the slightest. I have favoured collective bargaining all my life because I think that owners have an advantage over employees because they are better established financially. But simply to state that it is intended to allow employees to take part in collective bargaining is begging the question, because if the employer can point to an $11 million deficit he can tell the collective bargaining agents: "I cannot pay you any more money because I have not got it. True enough, you have a collective bargaining agency and I am happy to deal with you as a collective bargaining agency, but I have not got any money-to pay you."
May 19, 1966

[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
The government is in a position to get that money. I heartily endorse the comments of the member for New Westminster. I have a high regard for him not only as a man and a gentleman but as a working, practical newspaperman whom I have known in the publishing business for many years. I endorse the comments he made tonight with regard to periodicals which come into this country, which we take all around this nation and do not get a cent of remuneration for. Then we wind up saying to our postal workers that we have not any money to give them.
In 1964 I spent considerable time referring to these periodicals published in the United States, France, Great Britain and Denmark, which are sent to subscribers in Canada. The nation where the publication is mailed retains 100 per cent of the postal revenue received, but when that periodical crosses the Canadian border the Canadian taxpayer hauls it any distance necessary for nothing. The rough idea is that for every subscription to a Danish newspaper or magazine that comes into Canada there is a Canadian periodical going to Denmark.
Figure it out for yourself, Mr. Chairman. With 20 million people in Canada and the population of Denmark somewhere around the 4 million mark, what likelihood is there going to be of a counterweight between Canadian periodicals going to Denmark and Danish publications coming here? But we have this international convention which we are always told cannot be altered for three or four years, because the convention only meets every five years.
I personally know that for 30 years publishers in Canada have demanded of Canadian governments-the Mackenzie King administration, the Bennett administration, the St. Laurent administration, the Diefen-baker administration and the present administration: In the name of heaven let the Canadian taxpayer have some relief. Let the Canadian taxpayers be compensated by these publishers in foreign lands who send periodicals into this nation and, once they reach our border, we have to carry them without cost to the points where the subscribers reside.
How we can expect the post office employees to put up any longer than 1966-67 with that kind of thing is beyond my comprehension. The post office employees are looking into the revenues of this department. They are not satisfied, as they used to be in the past, to be told, "There is a deficit, and
Supply-Post Office
therefore no money for you." The post office is rendering a valuable service and should be gathering a revenue from the users of that service that will compensate for the service performed.
I have here in my hand the official Canada Postal Guide giving postal rates, and I wish to deal with a subject on which I spent some time in 1964, 22 months ago, but about which nothing has been done since. I ask why do we carry-
-weeklies, fortnightlies and monthlies published in any place having a population of not more than 10,000, to the extent of a free circulation of 2,500 copies to regular subscribers and news dealers within 40 miles of the place of publication free?
This refers particularly to what are known as small country weeklies, and if we are going to carry them free how can we be expected to increase the remuneration of the employees of the department? Because we cannot increase the remuneration of the employees we have a strike, and people start to scream that the post office workers strike should not be allowed, because their work is vital and necessary. It is vital and necessary, but they should be compensated properly for the vital work they are performing.
I said in 1964, and I repeat again tonight, that if a small merchant in a small town, where there is a small weekly, wants to send something by mail to someone on a rural route he has to pay to send it, be it toothpaste, tobacco, or whatever it is that the customer has telephoned for, but if the local newspaper publisher is favoured with a subscription from a farmer on the same route he does not have to pay because 2,500 copies of his paper are carried free within 40 miles radius of the place of publication.
Surely the small weeklies are strong enough financially to pay for the services rendered to them by the Post Office Department? I wonder how well hon. members know the ownership of these small weeklies. Many hon. members think of them as something turned out by the local printer, who is having a struggle to make ends meet. Have they ever stopped to realize the number of small town weeklies owned by multimillion-naires and by multimillion-dollar publishing houses?
There have been three little weekly papers sold in central Ontario since Christmas time. The owners of those three papers today are multimillionaires, but the Post Office Department is carrying 2,500 copies of their papers free of charge on the outdated basis that the local publisher cannot afford to pay

May 19, 1966
Supply-Post Office
the ordinary rate. In point of fact some of these owners I am speaking about can more afford to pay the proper rate than the Post Office Department can afford to carry their newspapers for free. I cannot imagine a single publisher of a small weekly in Canada today, in 1966, writing an editorial endeavouring to justify free service on 2,500 copies of his publication, particularly when we are faced with postal employees walking out on a wildcat strike for higher wages.
The hon. member for Norfolk and the hon. member for Portneuf referred to the compensation that is paid to couriers on the rural routes. That has been a crying shame for years. It is unfortunate that these routes are put out on a tender basis. The people who tender to become rural route couriers today have to figure out every possible means of submitting the lowest price if they want to get and hold a contract. They take their family car and write its capital cost off against family pleasure in order to quote the lowest rate possible.
In many cases they are part-time employees in other fields of endeavour, and they tender to become rural couriers at the lowest rate in order to add up three or four sources of income to make a living wage. Surely the Post Office Department knows what it costs to operate courier cars per mile over the kinds of roads that prevail in the areas served, and over the kind of ground they have to traverse, be it gumbo, macadam, straight gravel or whatever it is.
Surely the Post Office Department knows what would be fair compensation for these courier routes, and should engage men or women to carry the mails on them at a living wage, and not on a competitive tender basis.
I often think, and I am sure many hon. members who saw the cartoon, must also think of the aviators in the air force flying at something like 600 miles an hour in one of the modern planes, with the pilot saying to the navigator, "It gives you a great sense of safety and satisfaction to know that every part in this plane was purchased at the lowest possible tender price."
If we would only pay according to the service that is given to us-I am speaking now of the rural route couriers who give faithful, dependable service-instead of asking them to cut prices and corners, we would not have the couriers continually protesting about the unsatisfactory remuneration they receive. I am certain that no small weekly newspaper editor is going to try to justify free service
IMr. Cowan.]
for his publication, knowing that the rural route couriers operating out of his local post office are not getting a satisfactory wage because of the expenses incurred in delivering his newspaper free on rural routes. Dealing with the rates charged by the post office, I remember the former hon. member for Port Arthur, Douglas Fisher, making several speeches in the house regarding the unfair rates in the department, but no attention was paid to his comments, any more than is paid to mine. But of course these rates give the grounds on which it is possible to tell the post office employees. "We have not got the money. Therefore we cannot pay you the increased wage you think you are entitled to"-and which the Canadian public would support, if the employees were able to make a nation-wide presentation of the facts to the Canadian public. Why in the name of heaven should a Canadian periodical that is printed once a week have to pay three cents a pound to be carried across this nation, whereas a monthly publication can get the same service with a charge of If cents a pound?
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Is any man in this House of Commons able to justify today the fact that the Toronto Star Weekly or papers of that nature published in Canada have to pay three cents a pound while publications such as Reader's Digest which is a great Canadian periodical, owned by people in Pleasantville, New York, pass through the mail at If cents a pound? That magazine is bloodsucking the Canadian publishing industry in an advertising way, in addition to contributing to the post office deficit to the point that we tell the postal employees we cannot pay them any more money.
The rates which are being charged on commercial paper have been exposed more than once. I know of no justification for a special rate being paid by the biggest industries in this country, known as a special commercial paper rate. Two years ago when I spoke on this matter I received a letter from the Postmaster General pointing out that the special rate granted on commercial paper, such as monthly invoices, was quite proper because there was a government act to cover it. I have heard in the past of government acts, and there are some of them on the statute books now, which cannot be justified by the facts of life.
May 19, 1966

Simply a reference to a government act does not make an unfair rate a fair rate, particularly when you have the protests of the employees to the effect that they are being asked to work for wages that are unjustifiable in their view, and which would be unjustifiable in the view of the public if the Canadian public knew the situation. I would not be speaking at all tonight were I not provoked by the fact that the postal employees are not being paid according to the services they are rendering but according to the revenue of the Post Office Department, and that revenue is not properly calculated.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Chairman, may I clarify one thing. There is no relationship between the profit or deficit of the department and increases in salaries of postal employees. Salaries are based on duties performed. Right now these salaries are being looked at by Treasury Board and the pay research bureau in an effort to establish classifications for these people. With collective bargaining there will be a much better opportunity for the postal employees to bargain through strength against strength, and this will balance the bargaining in respect of increases. I repeat again that there is no relationship at all between the profits or deficits of the department and increases in pay of the employees.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, that is the best defence one can make for carrying periodicals free of charge in the postal service, I suppose; but I still argue that if the Post Office Department was being compensated for the service it renders to the people who make use of that service, namely the big publishers and small publishers of the country, the revenue would be there with which to compensate the employees, according to the services they render. I do not believe the compensation for a postal employee should be based on what a lighthouse keeper on the Atlantic coast receives, or on what a railwayman does on the line between Edmonton and Prince George. I think they should be compensated for the work they do according to the service they are rendering, and this service should be paid for by the people who are making use of it. It is largely the publishers who create the big deficits in the Post Office Department today.
I have advocated before that these papers which come in from across the border should pay according to the service rendered. This
Supply-Post Office
can be calculated in the same way we calculate the payments in respect of the parcel post rate across the country. I do wish that the rate charged for daily newpapers, weekly newspapers, monthly and semi-monthly publications were based on the service rendered to the publishers, and not on some hypothetical figure somebody has dreamed up as being what the publishers would be willing to pay. Why should the millionaires who publish the agricultural papers in Canada which go out on the rural routes be granted a cheap rate, while the couriers there are complaining about their wages. These papers are published by the McConnells of Montreal and Siftons of Winnipeg. The publishers should pay according to the service rendered. When they do, then the department will be able to pay the postal employees a just and proper wage. I only hope that in the study he is making Judge Montpetit will look into the revenue side of the Post Office Department, as well as the operations of the department. In my opinion the operations of the department are well nigh perfect. There is no more loyal body of employees in the Canadian civil service than there is in the Post Office Department. I know whereof I speak because I dealt with them personally for a period of more than 30 years. The Post Office Department can be proud of the service rendered by its employees-the many thousands -under very trying circumstances and without proper compensation.


Mr. Madill:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few personal observations concerning mail carriers in the rural areas. My remarks will be brief and I hope constructive.
I should like to recommend that the department make an annual review of all rural mail contracts if during the fiscal year the cost of living and the cost of operating an automobile in the transport of mail have increased. We all are aware of the increase in the cost of automobile insurance, the cost of gasoline, the cost of maintenance of a car, and the initial purchase price of an automobile. Regardless of the amount of dedicated service a mail courier may have given, his mail contract automatically is put up for public tender every four years. If a lower tender is submitted, invariably the contract is given to the lowest bidder. This does not provide any incentive to those who wish to give good service. This means that a rural mail carrier is a little timid when he submits his contract for renewal. He is almost afraid

May 19, 1966
Supply-Post Office
to ask for a raise, in case he loses the contract. The only other method he has is that if his contract has been renewed for two years he can apply for an increase. This is the only assurance he has that he might get an increase over the four-year period.
In essence it is necessary to acquire a raise in this way in order to avoid losing a contract. Quite often I see older cars being used and I wonder whether they would pass an inspection in respect of highway safety. They use these cars simply because for financial reasons they cannot afford to drive better cars. I do not think this is any asset to the Post Office Department. The department should issue a plate which has on it "rural mail carrier" and make it mandatory that all mail carriers have it on their car when they are transporting mail. This would identify the carrier to the rural public using the highways and byways, and would be a safety factor, because the pepole would realize that this car would be stopping at mail boxes.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
There are no fringe benefits attached to rural mail carrier positions. They have no pensions and little security under present conditions. They must subsidize their income from other sources because their income from the carrying of mail is not sufficient to support themselves and their families.
Another recommendation I think has merit is that they be provided with some kind of uniform which they could wear during their postal services. They would be in this way easily identified and would have some prestige in the eyes of the public.
I trust the minister and his department will give full consideration to my recommendations, and I hope that some of them will be accepted and put into being.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I never
thought I would be here, after listening to the remarks of the hon. member for York-Humber, in a position to agree with what he said. However unbelievable it may be, that has happened tonight and I find myself in agreement with him. He said that he supported the work stoppage or strike carried out by the postal workers of Canada last year. I also was in agreement with that strike and I am amazed that there has only been one in recent years, because the conditions under which they work and live are deplorable.
The minister said in an interjection while the hon. member for York-Humber was speaking that once collective bargaining was

established postal workers like other government employees will have the right to negotiate in respect of work conditions and pay. That may be true, but it is also true that there is now a commission headed by Mr. Justice Montpetit making an inquiry into the grievances of postal employees. We must all accept our share of the responsibility for these poor conditions, and I do not think that the government or the parliament of Canada can be proud of the fact it required a work stoppage to force the appointment of a commission to look into postal workers' conditions.
The conditions under which postal workers have been forced to work for many years, their wages, hours of work and holidays are almost unbelievable. These employees, as well as others in government service, have not had the right of collective bargaining, which means that they had not been able to sit down with the government to talk over their grievances, or bring their desires to the attention of public officials. I find it hard to understand how past postmasters general, and the present Postmaster General, with whom I have had some very satisfactory dealings, have not been aware of the kind of conditions that exist. Indeed it is hard to believe that these people were only able to force the government to appoint a commission of inquiry by striking.
I have a memorandum in my hand presented to Mr. Justice Montpetit by the Ottawa local of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, a copy of which I am sure has reached the hands of the Postmaster General. I should like to read the first two paragraphs of this memorandum which appear below the heading "health and welfare", and the subheading "building conditions". They read as follows:
We firmly believe that if proper hygienic conditions prevailed in the Ottawa post office, there would be a marked decrease in sick leave, and that personnel would have a greater incentive to perform their duties. A higher morale would exist. This in itself would be to the advantage of the department, thus causing production to increase and contribute to a better service to the general public.
It is a disgusting fact that standards in the Ottawa office are in a deplorable state. Lunch rooms are inadequate and some are cluttered with lockers, storage cabinets, etc. Garbage receptacles are not properly maintained or cleaned. Proximity of washrooms to the lunchrooms in some instances is certainly not conducive to pleasant or hygenic meals.
I could continue to read from this memorandum, but surely those two paragraphs are
May 19, 1966

sufficient to indicate the situation that exists right here in Ottawa. The minister could easily look into these conditions by taking a five minute walk from this building, and I find it hard to believe that these conditions could exist here in the capital city.
No private industry in the province of Ontario could expect its workers to tolerate these conditions and I am sure that the health authorities here in Ottawa and the Department of Labour in the province of Ontario would close down such an operation within 24 hours of the discovery of such conditions.
It seems to me that the Postmaster General does not have to wait for the report of Mr. Justice Montpetit to do something about this situation. He could and should act now. The situation which exists even now is deplorable and would not be tolerated by any other department. We have been and are living in a condition of relatively full employment. Employees in both government and private industry know that they can change their jobs, and in some cases take advantage of this situation by not giving a fair day's work. I have talked with members of parliament who are not satisfied that their secretaries do a reasonable day's work. I do not know of any other place where an employer who is dissatisfied with his employee can fine his employee $5 per day because of a mistake he has made or because of dissatisfaction with his work.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: The situation will change under the new act.


David Orlikow: That may well be true, but the point is that these conditions have existed for many years. It is not good enough to say that after Mr. Justice Montpetit makes his report the situation will change.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: New legislation will make a difference.


David Orlikow: The point is that new legislation is not needed to correct the situation. This kind of system was instituted unilaterally by a previous government. You do not need new legislation; the Postmaster General could issue a directive tomorrow that this kind of thing stop tomorrow, and it would stop.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: Do it now.


David Orlikow: "Do it now" is a very good slogan, and I suggest to the Postmaster
Supply-Post Office
General that he adopt that slogan and do it now-not later, because there never was any justification for this kind of disciplinary action, and it certainly cannot be justified in 1966.
One of the reasons for the strike was the salary paid to postal workers. I am not concerned whether the strike was legal or illegal, because if there ever was a justifiable stoppage, it was the stoppage of the postal workers. Let us all admit the fact that year after year they had come to whichever government was in power, cap in hand, pleading for the most minimal changes, which pleas were ignored repeatedly by government. It was not until the stoppage that they got action.
I submit that the salary paid to postal workers has been, and is still, totally inadequate. In this day and age, for a married man to have to live on the wages which are still being paid to postal workers is a disgrace. I submit that the postal workers are entitled now to a very substantial increase in pay. The minister will say, and rightly so, that as soon as the collective bargaining legislation is passed, this matter will be negotiated. I say that we have to face the record, look at the facts and admit what we have done.
One of the complaints of the postal workers is that, while the government of Canada has passed a labour standards act which says that for all employees who come under federal jurisdiction there shall be a five-day, 40 hour week, and that those who work more than 40 hours in a five-day week shall be paid time and a half for overtime, postal workers are today working five and a half or six days a week, with no extra pay. I understand that letter carriers are required to deliver the letters on their route and receive no overtime pay regardless of the length of time it takes to deliver this mail. I understand that letter carriers work without any official starting time, without a coffee break, without a lunch period; and regardless of how long it takes to deliver their mail, they receive no overtime pay. Again, this question may be negotiated. But I say that a good employer does not need to have this kind of thing negotiated; a good employer would see that all workers were paid for the work they did.
There is one other matter with which I wish to deal, Mr. Chairman, before I sit down. This refers to the question of the appeal board. I speak about this matter specifically because of one particular case which I discussed with the present minister. It was the

May 19. 1966
Supply-Post Office
case of a postal employee in my own constituency. I shall not go into the details of what he did. Suffice it to say that the postal officials in Winnipeg dismissed him. He appealed the case, as he had a right to do, and an appeal board was set up. A three-man board went to Winnipeg, and the secretary of the Postal Workers Union went to Winnipeg to represent this man. The appeal board heard the case and brought down a report to the effect that, while what the employee had done was not proper, dismissal was too severe a penalty. The Civil Service Commission, or the post office-I am still not sure which one is responsible, because each blames the other-after a good deal of study ignored completely the recommendation of the appeal board, as under the present rules they have the right to do, and the man was dismissed.
I do not know how any organization, whether it be government or private employer, can have a good, healthy relationship with its employees if, having established procedures for appeal, it ignores the unanimous recommendation of an appeal board. Again, Mr. Chairman, I am sure this kind of matter will be straightened out following the passage of the collective bargaining legislation and negotiation between the postal workers and the government. But unless the government indicates that they are prepared to be a good deal more understanding of the problems of individual workers, and postal workers in particular, I think we will have a continuation of the difficulties we had last year.
I wish to deal with one more matter and then intend to sit down. I hope that this Postmaster General will have a fresh look at the whole question of surveillance of postal employees. I have some idea, although I have not the detailed knowledge of the Postmaster General and his deputy, of the problems which arise as a result of the possibility that there may be theft, as may be the case in any large group of employees who handle money and valuables. At the same time I think it is very disheartening, and this is putting it mildly-I am searching for a word and cannot find it-and a terrible thing for the morale of postal workers, or indeed any workers, to know that no matter what they are doing and where they are, whether they are at work, in the lunchroom or in the washroom, somebody-Big Brother-will be looking down on them.
Not many of us would like to live under those conditions. It may be that some surveillance is necessary. If it is necessary, this kind

of thing should be worked out with the employees organizations. I think the employees organizations are just as interested as the government and the Postmaster General to see that the workers do the job they are supposed to do. As far as I can find out, the method being used was instituted completely unilaterally by government, with no consultation. I have looked into this matter fairly extensively, and not one of the postal workers union executive officers has agreed that they were ever consulted. They say they were told the government was instituting the system of surveillance which is now in operation but none of them agreed that they ever approved of this method.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
It seems to me that if this system is necessary-and I am doubtful that it is-it should be revised after the most careful and frank discussion with the representatives of the employees. I hope we will never have a repetition of the stoppages which occurred in the postal service last year, but we will unless there is a tremendous change in the thinking and approach of not just the Postmaster General-because postmasters general come and go, and in recent years they have been coming and going very quickly-but there has to be a complete revision in the thinking of the top officials of the Post Office Department. Unless there is, Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that we can have the kind of service from postal employees to which the people of this country are entitled.


Mr. Benson:: Mr. Chairman, I believe I should say a few words in answer to the hon. member for Winnipeg North because I was very much involved in the postal strike or the discontinuance of work last summer. First of all, I should like to say that I believe in the three years this government has been in power, considering the three bills which are now before us, it has done more with respect to collective bargaining in the civil service than any government in Canada's history. I believe these three bills provide collective bargaining, with the choice to the civil service organization of the right to strike or the right to compulsory arbitration binding on both the government and the civil service The new public service employment act and amendments to the Financial Administration Act have created an entirely new environment in which the civil service of Canada can work.
May 19, 1966



I regret, as everyone regrets, the stoppage of work by postal employees last summer. This grew out of a system that developed in Canada whereby the conditions of employment and ultimately the wages of civil servants in Canada were determined arbitrarily. It was a wrong system whereby you had arbitration by the Civil Service Commission before you had consultation between the employers and employees. I suggest that the new acts which are presently before this parliament will entirely correct this situation. If the hon. member for Winnipeg North will look at this new legislation carefully he will find there is provision whereby the conditions of employment of people throughout the whole civil service of Canada will be governed, not department by department, but in another way through the collective bargaining process. I think this is a great step forward. It is one of the most progressive steps that has ever been taken in employee-employer relations in Canada.
My hon. friend has spoken about the difficulties that the employees in the Post Office Department have had. I sympathize with their difficulties, and I sympathized with them during the last work stoppage last year. I think this government acted completely responsibly, based on the system within which the government had to operate as a result of legislation passed by this parliament. In three brief years we have taken the steps necessary to correct this situation. I think the Postmaster General has reacted toward the postal employees very sympathetically. However, the real protection for the postal employees and for all civil servants, lies in the legislation which is presently before this house, the collective bargaining legislation, the public service employment act and the Financial Administration Act.
I think the difficulties which were raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North will be taken care of by this legislation. It seems to me that when he gets up and starts crying at this point, when the government has introduced legislation to correct these difficulties, it is like somebody standing up now and saying that some government did something which was improper back in 1918 or 1916. I believe this government has taken every responsible step toward correcting the inequities and improprieties in dealing with the civil service in Canada. We have introduced these measures on a completely impartial
Supply-Post Office
basis. The bills can be considered and amended impartially by all the members of the house. When they pass this House of Commons we will have the best civil service legislation, and the employees of the government of Canada will have become public servants and will be in a position second to none in the world.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister permit a question? Do I understand from what he has said that he thinks the government that is in power should not criticize the mistakes of previous governments?


Edgar John Benson: No, all I was saying was that the hon. member for Winnipeg North is not a member of the government in power. I do not mind people criticizing what has happened in the past in the public service in Canada. All I am saying is that since this government was elected in 1963, by the appointment of the Heeney Commission and the introduction of these three pieces of legislation we now have before parliament, it has taken a step which will provide legislation and rights for civil servants in Canada which are second to none anywhere in the world.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: May I ask the minister one question? In asking it, may I make it clear I am not quarrelling with the presentation the minister made about the bills that are shortly to come before us. Assuming those bills are going to be approved by this house, and the process of collective bargaining becomes effective, would he not agree that from an employer's point of view the processes of collective bargaining might be a lot easier if some of the grosser inequities of the past to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North referred were removed before the bargaining process began?


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask a question before you answer that one?


Edgar John Benson: Well, Mr. Chairman-


Gordon Minto Churchill: I want to stop the course of this inquiry. Are we not on post office estimates?


Edgar John Benson: With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I should like to answer this particular question.


Michael Starr: If this fight is going to be carried on between the government and the N.D.P. when we are trying to co-operate, then we will have to reconsider our position. We

May 19, 1966
Supply-Post Office
have time being taken up by argument between the government and the N.D.P. and we cannot keep on co-operating if this situation exists. I would hope that this would stop so that we can go on with the business before us. Otherwise, we will have to have an allocation of time so that we get our proper share of time based on the number of members we have in this house.
Under the circumstances, I call it ten o'clock.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman.


Michael Starr: Ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: As a member in this house, I object to-


Michael Starr: You can object all you like.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: -somebody questioning my right as a member to speak on matters that are under discussion, namely the estimates of the Post Office Department.


Maurice Rinfret: Order.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I should like the minister to answer because I consider that to be a bona fide question.


Frank Howard: You will never get to be leader that way.


Mr. Mcllraith:: Notwithstanding the irritations of the last few moments, I wonder if we could not agree not to see the clock for a few minutes in order to finish the estimates of this department, because there is a good program of work for tomorrow.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We are not considering the estimates of the department, we are talking about three bills that are not before the house.


George James McIlraith: I qualified my appeal to the house by saying, notwithstanding the irritations to progress in the last few minutes, will hon. members consider trying to clear up this department tonight, because there is a great deal of work for tomorrow. Perhaps we could get directly to the Post Office Department and it would take a very few minutes.


Michael Starr: If we are prepared to pass the estimates of this department in the next 20 minutes, we will carry on.


Maurice Rinfret: Is there agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Mr. Southam:: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be brief.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, if we are to carry on I should like the minister to be given the opportunity of answering the question he was about to answer when he was interrupted by the hon. member for Ontario.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I recognize the hon. member for Moose Mountain.


Richard Russell Southam: Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity to make a few remarks on the estimates of the Postmaster General now under review. Before continuing-


Mr. Gauthier:: No, it is ten o'clock.
1English]


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, would you allow the hon. member for Moose Mountain, whom you recognized as having the floor, to continue?


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I wish to point out that it is ten o'clock.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: I am asking whether the hon. member would still co-operate for a few minutes, in case we could finish this evening.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) has been speaking long enough.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: I would ask the hon.
member to co-operate.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: He has spoken for ten minutes.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: If he does not wish to co-operate with him, I would ask the hon. member to be kind enough to co-operate with me.
IEnglish]


Richard Russell Southam: Mr. Chairman, before continuing with my remarks I should like to associate myself with other hon. members who have expressed their appreciation of the comprehensive review given by the Postmaster General of the work of his department. I should also like to express the hope
May 19, 1966

that he has a reasonably long tenure of office in this department. I am thinking, of course, of the recent succession of ministers who have held the office, which I feel has not contributed very much to the efficiency of the Post Office Department or helped the morale of the very capable civil servants who work under the minister. It has also given concern to the public of Canada at large.
Previous to the present government's taking office, when the government which was headed by the Leader of the Opposition was in office, we took under consideration changing the trend which had developed in the provision of postal premises, particularly those in western Canada. Up to that time large sums of money were allocated to the large urban centres of Canada much to the detriment of the smaller areas in the west which, even if they only had small populations, were contributing to the tax structure of the country and felt they had been neglected.
We reversed the trend which had existed over the last number of years and, under the leadership of Hon. Howard Green, former minister of public works, working in conjunction with the then postmaster general, Mr. Hamilton, and the hon. member for Ontario as minister of labour, we established an extensive program of post office construction under the winter works program, especially in these rural areas. These ranged in cost from a nominal $18,000 to $25,000, which was not too heavy a drain on the federal coffers but provided a long awaited and much needed improvement to our postal facilities, particularly in the west.
As far as I can determine at the present time, this worth-while program has been retarded or reduced in our part of the country by the present government. The indications are that only seven post offices will be constructed in Saskatchewan this year, if I have the figures aright. This is a far cry from the program originally in existence for a number of years, and it is not good enough. We have between 1,100 and 1,200 cities, towns and villages in the province of Saskatchewan, so looking at it on a proportionate basis seven post offices in this fiscal year is not sufficient.
In the period 1958 to 1963 post offices were constructed at points in my particular area such as Frobisher, Redvers, Fillmore, Carlyle and Maryfield, which are typical rural points. They have greatly appreciated the benefit of
Supply-Post Office
these new postal premises, which have certainly enhanced the postal services to the public in these areas. Estevan, the only city in my area of Saskatchewan, is very appreciative of the postal delivery service which was recently established under the present administration. I, as member of parliament, and officials from that area had received many representations for several years before a survey was made.
New postal premises should now be constructed at such places as Torquay and Creelman, to name only two in my riding. Many requests have been made by representative citizen bodies in these towns for the construction of crown buildings to provide better postal services there. May I suggest that the Postmaster General reconsider the applications from these areas and make provision in this fiscal year for the construction of the required post offices, even though he may need to include corresponding amounts in supplementary estimates.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: First, I should like to congratulate the minister on his appointment. He is a young man with a bright future, and we are all looking forward to the benefits we can expect from his administration during the months ahead. I also wish to pay tribute to the staff in Ottawa and the post office staffs throughout the country, particularly to the mail carriers who deliver the rural mail and do this monotonous work day after day, often unrecognized by the people they serve. I am glad to note that this socialized branch of government is performing good service throughout the country. It is a model for the extension of this principle into other departments.
I wonder whether the minister or any of his officials has given any thought to the question of the postal department becoming a crown corporation. There are some countries where the post office is run as a crown corporation. If consideration has been given to this matter I would be interested to know what the result of these studies has been with respect to the efficiency of a crown corporation, compared with a department of government.
I wish to say a few words about post office employees. It is obvious that last year the employees had to take drastic action to bring their complaints to the attention of the government and of the public generally. I listened with great interest to the remarks made by the Minister of National Revenue

May 19. 1966
Supply-Post Office
and I was very pleased to hear oi his hopes with respect to the legislation to be introduced. We all know that the situation of the postal employees needs to be considerably improved. We hope that by the passing of the legislation providing for collective bargaining, their salaries will be increased and their working conditions made easier.
In this connection I wish to put in a word for the postmasters of small offices. Only two or three months ago my attention was called to the salaries paid to the postmaster in an isolated district in my riding. I forget the exact amount but I thought at the time it was an extremely small salary to be paid for the work which had to be done-not exactly the volume, but the hours during which the work required attention. I trust that when the position of the employees generally is being considered similar consideration will be given to postmasters, especially those in smaller post offices where there is no opportunity to earn the revenue which is earned in some of the larger offices.
A word with respect to the design of buildings. The hon. member for Athabasca referred to this subject. I have always been interested in building design. In recent years the Post Office Department has had a program for building post offices in smaller communities, and I suggest further consideration be given to the design of these post offices. They should be designed to meet the environment in which they are being built. If built on the prairies, I can well understand the California bungalow type with a flat roof; but in mountainous country a different type of design is more suitable if it is to be in harmony with the surrounding buildings. When travelling across Canada all post offices one enters in small communities should not be identical one with the other.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
Also, further consideration should be given to the installation of air conditioning in climates where it is required, particularly on account of the lint which I understand comes from the handling of mail bags.
I am a bit of a stickler so far as protocol and courtesy are concerned, and there is a great lack of both in our modern society. I believe many of our ills would be overcome if our people were trained to have good manners, but we are living in a world where good manners are almost obsolete. People push by you without saying pardon, and they even occupy your desk in this house and you have

to stand beside them for ten minutes in order to take your seat.
I am referring to the matter of flying the flag. It is becoming quite prevalent in many of the small buildings of the Department of Public Works that the flag is raised, stays up over night, and remains flying until it is tattered, at which time they send for a new one. I suggest that the minister would be well advised to issue instructions that the flag be raised at sunrise and lowered at sundown, which is the custom in our country.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: They are not my
buildings.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The minister rather laughs at my suggestion, but I suggest there should be a certain amount of self-discipline within a department with respect to our flag. I was not one who voted for it, but it is our flag. I respect it, and I suggest that such a direction be sent out to the janitors of all post offices in Canada.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: They are public works employees.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Then I suggest that the Minister of Public Works be tipped off.
Consideration should also be given to the scale of remuneration paid to rural mail route operators. I know in some cases where contracts, because they are difficult to perform, are fairly reasonably remunerated. But in other cases where there is considerable bidding, contractors have undertaken jobs which they cannot afford to perform. There are one or two in my riding and they deserve consideration.
The public should be informed of what a rural route contractor has undertaken to do and where he is supposed to deliver the mail. On occasions, in heavy snowstorms a contractor passes by mail boxes because he cannot get his vehicle close to them. The public along a mail route should understand what a contractor has undertaken to do. Post office patrons should be informed of the type of mailbox they should build to suit the convenience of the department and contractor.
I have known a case where a man put his mail box up in a tree, and in such an instance it is quite unfair to ask the contractor to drive some distance off to the side of the road to put mail in the box. The swing-type box is more convenient. Mail boxes should be standardized. One sees all sorts of boxes along the routes.
May IS. 1966


An hon. Member:: In Kootenay West?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have seen some strange things happen with the Post Office Department in Kootenay West. In one small office, which is not in operation now, the postmaster used to put in his own day at the office. Then he used to hang the bag for registered mail and the bag for ordinary mail on the post office door. The bus would come along about four hours later and pick them up. Over a period of many years this went on, but nobody stole the mail because they were all so honest in the part of the country I represent. However, that is not carried on at the present time because now we have more of a floating population.
I should like to say a word about stamps. I think the stamps issued by the Post Office Department have improved throughout the years, although we still are somewhat behind Indonesia, Switzerland, and countries of that sort. I think we should continue still to do our best to keep up with some of the underdeveloped countries in Asia.
In respect of the services provided by the department in larger and smaller centres, I suggest that it might be a good idea to have some of the senior officials within the district -say for instance in British Columbia the district superintendent or senior inspector -make a point of addressing organizations such as service clubs, labour bodies or other groups concerning the work and services being undertaken by the Post Office Department. I think by doing this we would add to the understanding by the public of the work done and the services provided by the department. I have been told that in other departments the senior officials are rather reluctant to do this, because they are almost afraid of stepping into the field of policy. I think the minister who now is searching for new ideas might draw up a set of guide lines on subjects which might be covered by senior officials when they address organizations such as Rotary clubs and the like.
I am not quite clear as to what is the function of the international bureau. I see there is an item in the estimates in respect of this. Would the minister explain what Canada's relationship is to this bureau and what it undertakes. I was going to say something about air transportation, but I see time is passing and my friends to my rear are waiting impatiently hoping I will get through as soon as possible, because they wish to take part in the ten o'clock show, which probably
Supply-Post Office
will not get started until 10.30. I should like the minister to explain why more second class mail cannot be carried at present by air. I am not speaking of periodicals. Why cannot more second class mail be carried by air than is being carried at the present time?
In conclusion I should like to suggest that the minister take advantage of the wealth of wisdom and ideas which are found in the ordinary member of parliament in this house when he visits a particular area, because quite often the member is closer to the problem than is the inspector who may be sent in from some outside point. However, we stand very firmly against any form of patronage and we know the minister agrees with us in this regard.


Maurice Rinfret: The hon. member for Comox-Alberni.


Michael Starr: I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)


Frank Howard: What a nasty man, Mike. You get worse every day.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege in view of the remarks just made by an hon. member of this house, whose party has taken up most of the time we have been considering these estimates. In view of his remarks and the fact that some of our members want to speak we should now call it ten o'clock.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the hon. member who wishes to speak could meet with me some time tomorrow and I could then give answers to some of his specific questions in relation to my department.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I did not quite follow what the Postmaster General said.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: I suggested that perhaps the hon. member who wanted to speak could meet with me some time tomorrow and make his requests in respect of my department so that these estimates could be passed tonight.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I have been in this house long enough to know better than accept that sort of beguiling request from a minister, particularly when I am referring to matters of policy.


Michael Starr: Let us call it ten o'clock.
May 19, 1966

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Mr.   Cole@Longueuil: I have accepted
many suggestions made by other hon. members on other occasions.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we propose to continue the consideration of estimates, commencing with those of the Post Office Department, to be followed by those of the Departments of Industry, Defence Production, and Citizenship and Immigration, then the estimates of the Privy Council and Legislation. Tuesday we will begin by considering the second reading of the bill in respect of the organization of government departments, to be followed by resolutions and bills, of which there are four, relating to employment in the public service.
Perhaps I should add, if I may have the indulgence of the house, that there will be a problem arising regarding our consideration of estimates in that there is for the first time by the standing orders a limitation on the total time allocated. It seems that if there is to be a fair apportionment of the time allotted among the members of all parties, there will have to be some procedure worked out.
My purpose in mentioning this, Mr. Speaker, is to give hon. members an opportunity to think about how we can achieve this proper apportionment so that some members will not have more time at the expense of others. The time limitation is related to the total time allowed and not to specific items.
[Translationj



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.

Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this matter of the extension of grain elevator facilities in Prince Rupert, as I have done on many occasions in the past. On one of the earlier occasions the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) made some reference to what he called the distribution of a poison pen letter in western Canada, someone was kind enough to send me a copy of

that letter and I should like to quote from it briefly. In part it states:
From the year 1962 until the present time, Hon. Alvin Hamilton, in his role as spokesman for western agriculture, has been keenly aware of the need for improved elevator space and has pressed for this needed construction with initiative and persistence.
That letter was circulated by the Conservative party and I should like to inform this house that it is not a true statement. When the hon. member for Qu'Appelle was the minister of agriculture he wrote a letter to the Prince Rupert chamber of commerce in which he flatly refused to extend grain elevator facilities in the city of Prince Rupert. That letter was written in 1963. So I wish that the Conservatives, when they distributed this information, had taken the trouble to learn the facts.
The National Farm Union presented a brief to the government not long ago and in that brief expressed their regret that the government was not going to proceed with the extension of the grain elevator at Prince Rupert. I submit that their concern over the matter of grain movement is one which others of us should also be concerned about. The Prince Rupert grain elevator, by the designation of officials in the Department of Agriculture and the Board of Grain Commissioners, has been rated as the second most efficient grain elevator in the country.
In a report dated April 12, 1962, in which it was urged that the elevator be extended, the general manager of the Canadian Government Elevators stated that a far more efficient operation could be carried out at Prince Rupert than is possible with the present l\ million bushels capacity, if the grain elevator were extended. At that time we had an average cargo shipment out of Rupert of some 500,000 or 550,000 bushels on each ship. We have had shipments even larger than that to move. Unfortunately, with the limited working capacity of the elevator being 850,000 bushels, it is just not possible to have two cargoes of grain available at the same time; as a consequence there is delay in the shipment of grain through the port of Prince Rupert. This has required, of course, the Canadian Wheat Board to place strict control upon the movement of grain into Rupert because they do not want cars sitting up on the track, unloaded, waiting for the grain to be screened and stored ready for shipment.
There is another serious problem in Rupert because of the limited facilities, and this
May 19. 1966

involves the cleaning of grain. The report of the general manager of Canadian Government Elevators deals with this matter by pointing out that it caused some delay in the loading of ships at the port and as a consequence they had to employ casual labour and overtime workers to a far greater extent than would otherwise have been necessary. In his report he intimated that in the year 1961-62 a saving of approximately $75,000 in overtime and casual payrolls could have been realized had the additional space been available.
The Conservative government when in office refused to deal with this matter, even though extended facilities were recommended by Canadian Government Elevators. The Liberal government has now taken the course of refusing to proceed with the elevator because of what it classifies as inordinately high bids on the cost of the elevator, while at the same time they are prepared to pour millions of dollars into increased construction projects such as the centre of the performing arts and Expo '67.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that before this situation deteriorates to an even worse state than it has, the government should take some definitive action and proceed with the construction of this elevator at the earliest possible moment.


Bruce Silas Beer: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to thank the hon. member for again bringing this matter forward. I also thank him for the tribute he paid to the facility at Prince Rupert. I have had the opportunity of visiting Prince Rupert and seeing this very excellent handling facility in operation. It is well known, of course, that it is a very efficient operation and has handled nine times its capacity within the season. I think that is probably a record for this type of elevator. I would remind the hon. member that the government has not suggested cancellation of this extension. As was indicated by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) the extension of facilities in Prince Rupert was simply deferred and should be proceeded with at a later date.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)


Frank Howard: Will the hon. member permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrei):: I regret to inform the hon. member that the period of time allotted to him to put his question has elapsed. There is another period of time
DEBATES	5353
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion during which the minister or his representative can reply. I do not believe that questions can be asked of the parliamentary secretary at this time?


Frank Howard: Because of time?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: These are the rules which govern our procedure at ten o'clock.


Frank Howard: I will ask him tomorrow.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-REQUEST FOR TEXTBOOKS IN FRENCH LANGUAGE

Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, further to the question I put to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) concerning bilingualism at the C.N.R., which the Chair ruled out of order, I now want to ask the minister, or his representative, if he is aware that at the C.N.R. bilingualism is trampled under foot.
The best proof I can give of this, is the letter, dated May 11, 1966, from the president of the C.N.R. signed by R. T. Vaughan.
I had written to him about Mr. Blackburn who complained about having failed his signalling examination because he was a French-Canadian unilingual. Mr. Vaughan wrote the following letter in reply, barely two days ago.
He answered me:
Some time ago, you have exchanged correspondence with Mr. Gordon about Mr. Jean Marc Blackburn. The latter was complaining that he had been fired by the C.N.R. because he was not sufficiently conversant with the English language.
I swear to you, Mr. Speaker, that if the same requirements were applied to all English speaking people who are unilingual in the civil service, only about 18 per cent of the personnel would remain throughout Canada.
Is that total bilingualism such as was preached all through the election campaign by the Liberal party? One set of laws for French speaking Canadians, another for English speaking Canadians; one law for the rich, another for the poor. Such, too, is the reason for all our differences since 1867, to save the remains of confederation the meaning of which a certain English speaking group has to this day failed to grasp fully.
French Canadians are required to study with English text books in order to survive and if a voice is raised in protest, the other group seems shocked and asks: What do those French Canadians want?
May 19, 1966

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
We are constantly treated with contempt and when we refuse to knuckle under any longer, obstacles are raised to the advancement of our people.
For instance, on the Saguenay-Lake St. John train that plies between Dolbeau and Chicoutimi, we have been asking the government for four years now, to have French speaking personnel on a train serving a population about 98 per cent French speaking. I take that train every Friday and on numerous occasions, I have noted that the employees spoke only English and I even had to act as interpreter on the train because the employees were unilingual.
Well, believe it or not, that is taking place on trains which serve a population which is 98 per cent French Canadian.
I would like to see the reaction of those good westerners if anyone ever tried to put on their trains a French Canadian who did not speak a single word of English. And some people talk about the province of Quebec being revolutionary minded.
Who knows but that the makers of that revolution are some English speaking people who have never understood and still do not want to understand anything about the discrimination which we are facing today.
Mr. Vaughan says very candidly in his letter that the examiner, Mr. Bissonnette, is perfectly bilingual, whereas all the books used for the courses are in English only.
They put handcuffs on us and say: Be happy, at least your jailer speaks your language.
If that is what the government calls cooperative federalism, you may be sure that we will fight it to the death.
Mr. Vaughan also says in his letter that Mr. Tardif wrote in French to Mr. Blackburn to inform him that his services were no longer required for signalling.
Well, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to telling a French Canadian: step aside and make room for someone else, then another French Canadian is used to do the work.
At least, Mr. Vaughan is sincere when he writes me:
With regard to the signalling courses, I must tell you that they are the same throughout the network and that the manuals are in English only.
And Mr. Vaughan concludes:
Therefore, we would have to translate not only the courses, hut also the changes resulting from technological progress.

What is the government waiting for to do something? Another centennial? For a hundred years, we have been told: "it is necessary", "it would be better"; promises are made from one election to the next, but nothing is ever done. And what reason is given for that? Listen to Mr. Vaughan himself:
Because of the high cost of such an undertaking and also because of the lack of competent translators, we are unable to do it for the time being.
Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, a vice president of the Canadian National Railways who dares to write those lines about the high cost of the translation work, when the president of the C.N.R. is paid $75,000 a year, over and above a special train that is provided to him for his travelling. When I think, Mr. Speaker, that they come and speak about the cost of translation. Well, in all that, the vice-president brings forward the argument of the high cost of translation as concerns respect for confederation. And what is more-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel):: Order. I regret, but I have to interrupt the hon. member, because the time alloted to him has now expired.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, we have been assured in the discussions with the officials of the Canadian National Railways that the gentleman referred to in this letter was not dismissed because he was unable to speak English, but rather that he simply did not qualify for the position. He was offered an alternative position which he has accepted.
The signalling courses given by the C.N.R. are conducted along the same lines as similar engineering courses offered by l'Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal. The course is given in both English and French, using however, an English language manual. As is the case at many educational institutions in Quebec, while the text of the manual is in English, instruction is given in French.
This is not to say that the technical manuals are not available in French from the C.N.R. or that the company is not progressing in its bilingualism policy. Only today the company issued a press release, and if the hon. member will permit me I should like to quote from the release.
Canadian National is intensifying its efforts in developing a comprehensive and practical business and technical railway terminology In the French language adapted to North American conditions ...
May 19, 1966

The company's translation bureau will be expanded with the addition of a terminology section and which hereafter will be known as "Linguistic Services". Its function will be to gather material and to make it easily available to the employees and to the customers of the railway.
[DOT] (10:40 p.m.)
"The lack of an adequate and easily accessible French language railway terminology adapted to North American realities is becoming a serious handicap especially when long range goals are considered", said Mr. Gordon.
"We have encountered this problem in our extensive customer and community relations and the need is felt daily in such vital activities as employee training, and employee communications. Consequently the objective of linguistic services will be to facilitate and encourage the use of French as well as English as a working language for both oral and written communications within the Canadian National system."
Linguistic services will report to the vice president and secretary of the company, Mr. R. T. Vaughan and will be headed by Frederic Phaneuf until now special assistant to the vice president St. Lawrence region.
Mr. Phaneuf is well known in public relations and translation circles and is currently president of the Society of Translators and Interpreters of Canada.
The decision to create a Canadian National linguistic service arises from a recommendation of Canadian National permanent committee on bilingualism which is under the chairmanship of Mr. Maurice Archer, vice president research and development. Canadian National linguistic sections will work in close conjunction with similar organizations in the federal government, in the Quebec provincial government and in other provinces, where established, as well as in private industry.



UNITED NATIONS-PROPOSED JURISDICTION OVER HIGH SEAS AND OUTER SPACE

Thomas Speakman Barnett: Before orders of the day were called today I addressed a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs asking him whether the government had under consideration a proposal which had been advanced that the United Nations be given ownership and jurisdiction over the high seas and outer space. Mr. Speaker ruled that this question was more suitable for the order paper, but since I felt it involved a matter of great national and international importance it seemed to me we should know as soon as possible whether our government had this matter under consideration and learn, if possible, what its views are.
The organization which made the report to which I referred is the commission of the United Nations Association of the United States of America. In its 17th annual report, this commission, which has been set up to promote the establishment of peace, put forward in some detail a proposal to extend the
DEBATES	5355
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion jurisdiction of the United Nations in this area. The report states that in the commission's view the United Nations should declare the title of the international community to the high seas and outer space, for six reasons.
The reasons given are as follows: to avoid conflicts between nations over these areas, to keep their resources from being wasted, to prevent their military use, to head off their contamination, to make sure all nations could benefit from their resources, and to provide the United Nations with an independent source of income. The final point refers to the resources of the high seas and I suppose at some future date outer space could be used to help provide the United Nations with an independent source of income.
This report, which was signed by 70 members, including scholars, writers, editors, union leaders and business executives, all members of the United Nations Association in the United States, has, in my view, pinpointed matters of grave concern not only to Canadians but to all the peoples of the world, and matters which are relevant to the internal problems of this country.
I make particular reference to questions related to the resources of the high seas, with which I, and other hon. members have become much involved from the viewpoint of the future of the fishing resources of Canada. The house will recall there was much discussion in this connection when the bill to extend the territorial seas and fishing zones of our country was introduced.
I think that the fact that this proposal is put forward by a responsible body in the United States, expressing a viewpoint in many ways contradictory to that which is held by the United States, particularly in relation to the fisheries negotiations currently taking place in Seattle, makes it a matter worthy of immediate consideration by this house and we should have some statement from the government on its views.
Not only are our own resources involved but also what is known as the cornerstone of our foreign policy, namely support for the United Nations. Certainly this idea is related to our involvement with the costs and maintenance of the various UN peace keeping forces.
This commission has suggested that if the United Nations could derive revenues, what we in Canada would call royalties, from leasing resources of the high seas, those funds could be used by the Secretary General for the maintenance of a peace keeping force
5356	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion enlisted directly with the United Nations. It is suggested that a force of some 2,000 men would be appropriate for this purpose, immediately available under the direction of the Secretary General of the United Nations for dispatch to trouble spots, until such time as contingents from member nations could be gathered and sent to aid it.
This proposal is one which should be of great interest not only to hon. members but to Canadians generally. It is also one that should be brought forward for formal study by the General Assembly of the United Nations, as is suggested by this commission.


Mr. John R. Matheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, we are grateful to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) for having raised this interesting question. Twice in the course of his remarks he has stated that this proposal was put forward by a responsible body. It is important that no one be misled.
To this date the government has examined only the press accounts, but it has been clearly ascertained from these newspaper stories that the commission making this recommendation is an entirely private body, part of
DEBATES	May 19. 1966
the United Nations Association of the United States of America, and not a committee of the United Nations organization.
[DOT] (10:50 p.m.)
It is hoped that eventually we shall be able to give careful consideration to its suggestions when we see a first-hand account of its annual report which we have yet to receive. We have noted, however, that as mentioned by the hon. member one of these suggestions is United Nations ownership of both the high seas and outer space. While it is true that the General Assembly has passed resolutions treating outer space in much the same manner as the high seas, for instance in declaring that it was not subject to national appropriation, a proposal that ownership of outer space and the high seas should be vested in the United Nations obviously would have far reaching legal implications and consequently would require very thorough study.
[Translation]	.
Motion agreed to and house adjourned at 10.53 p.m.

Friday, May 20, 19G6