1967-04-24

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the house I should like to table a statement I have issued on behalf of the government in connection with the fiftieth anniversary of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert): What are the names of the personnel working in the greater Saint John area for the Canada youth commission and what are their specific duties?


Mr. John R. Matheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: I am informed by the Company of Young Canadians as follows: Mr. and Mrs. G. Fatels and Miss S. Williamson are the Company of Young Canadians' volunteers working in Saint John, N.B. They were requested by the Saint John urban redevelopment office to assist in the development of the north end - west side urban renewal scheme, and have been working with the residents of that area in studying the redevelopment opportunities available in that program.


CENTENNIAL COMMEMORATION OF LOUTS RIEL
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	Has the government of Canada or the Canadian centennial commission any plans to arrange for the commemoration of Louis Riel during centennial year?
2.	If so, what is the nature of these plans or arrangements?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the centennial commission as follows: The confederation train and caravans, in sections dealing with western Canada (1869) (1885) commemorate Mr. Louis Riel.
Under Festival Canada, a program of the centennial commission, an opera entitled "Riel" has been commissioned. The libretto is by Mr. Mavor Moore and the music by Mr. Harry Somers.


TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT TAKEOVER OF ROCKCLIFFE AIR STATION
Mr. Forresiall: 1.	Is it the intention of the Department of Transport to take over the airfield and all or part of Its facilities at the Rockcliffe air station as of April 1, 1967?
2.	If so, have the Canadian armed forces agreed to this turnover, and what facilities are to be included?
3.	Are steps being taken to locate storage space for goods and material now stored in the two hangars located on the northern boundary of the air station so that these may be vacated and turned over without delay to the Department of Transport?
4.	Is there existing storage space in the so-called ready hangars located at the extreme southeast section of the Uplands airport where such goods and material could be stored?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Departments of Transport and National Defence as follows: 1. It is the intention of the Department of Transport to take over the airport proper and one associated building at the Rockcliffe air station, to be operated on a temporary basis, day VFR conditions, and at minimal licenceable standards for the convenience of light local and itinerant aircraft. Further consideration will be given to its continued operation if the needs of the aviation industry warrant. The takeover is to be effective as soon after April 1, 1967, as these takeover arrangements can be completed.
2.	The Department of National Defence proposed this takeover, which includes the land and runway complex comprising the airfield and one building.
3.	Only one of the two hangars on the northern boundary is being vacated.
4.	No.

April 24, 1967
Questions


CENTENNIAL COMMISSION GRANT FOR DINNER HONOURING GEORGE BROWN
Mr, Hales: 1.	Did the centennial commission make a grant towards the dinner recently held in Toronto in honour of George Brown, one of the Fathers of Confederation?
2.	For what amount was the grant?
3.	By whom was the grant requested?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the centennial commission as follows: 1. Yes.
2. $2,000.
3. Mr. Ralph Cowan, M.P., on behalf of the centennial dinner committee, which dinner was organized by a group of businessmen and editors from Toronto.


CONFEDERATION CENTRE, CHARLOTTETOWN -CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARD OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What amounts have been paid by the government of Canada towards the operational and maintenance costs of the Confederation centre, Charlottetown?
2.	What was the date of such payments?
3.	Has an undertaking been given by the government to contribute an annual contribution for such purposes and, if so, what is the amount?
4.	Is this amount the equivalent of the total operating and maintenance costs and, if not, what is the difference?
5.	What contributions has the Canada Council made towards support of activities presented in the Confederation centre?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by my department and by the Canada Council as follows: 1 and 2.
Amount	Date of cheque
$ 45,000.00	April 3, 1967
25,000.00	December 5, 1966
100,000.00	November 2, 1966
25,000.00	September 1966
25,000.00	August 1966
25,000.00	May 1966
22,500.00	January 1966
87,500.00	July 1965
40,000.00	May 7, 1965
$395,000.00	
3.	Yes, to the extent of one half of the total operating and maintenance cost but not to exceed $175,000 each year.
4.	Answered by number 3.
5.	Apart from some $36,500 provided toward the architectural competition for the

design of the centre, the council has provided some $173,000 toward the support of activities at the centre, as follows: $10,000 in the year 1964-65, $62,937 in 1965-66 and $100,800 in 1966-67.


ARDA PROJECT No. 7030
Mr. Schreyer: Regarding the answer on April 5 to question No. 2,789, what was the cost per major item that was involved in the $20,000 expenditure for ARDA project No. 7030?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: The data provided by the province of Manitoba when the project was proposed were:
		Total	Federal
		cost	share
1.	Provincial staff analyst	$10,000	$ 5,0002.	Other staff consultant	6,000	3,0003.	Material and supplies	2,000	1,0004.	Report (The People of	Manitoba)	2,000	1,000Total cost	$20,000	$10,000


DELAY IN AIR CANADA FLIGHT, MONTREAL-WINNIPEG
Mr. Jorgenson: 1.	Was the three hour delay of the Air Canada DC-9 aircraft flight of March 18, 1967, from Montreal to Winnipeg via Ottawa, in any way related to insufficient facilities or staff at Dorval?
2.	Was the aircraft out of service time in any way related to difficulties arising from the recent implementation of midnight shift requirements?
3.	How many hours was the aircraft available at the overhaul base prior to its being released as airworthy on its regular service that morning?
4.	What were the specific reasons for the three hour departure delay?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. No.
2. No.
3 and 4. The aircraft which it had been planned to use for this flight remained overnight at the Montreal station. A fault existed in the electrical system. Component replacement did not rectify the problem. The plan was revised to call up an aircraft which was undergoing a schedule check at the maintenance base. This aircraft had arrived at the base at 2400 hours and was released as serviceable following the check at 0845. Following servicing the flight departed Montreal at 0945 operating two hours 45 minutes late.
April 24, 1967


STAMP COMMEMORATING SIR CHARLES SAUNDERS
Mr. Irvine: Is it the intention of the government during this centennial year to introduce a special stamp or in some other way to recognize the great contributions made by Sir Charles Edward Saunders, the originator and founder of Marquis wheat, who was born in our confederation year in London, Ontario, and (a) if so, of what will the recognition consist (b) if not, for what reason?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker. As a result of the contribution the Canada Post Office is making in commemorating the centennial of confederation, the philatelic program for 1967 is one of the heaviest in Canada's history. Numerous outstanding subjects were suggested for portrayal on postage stamps, but it was necessary to defer many worthy suggestions even though they were of national and international significance.


PARK STEAMSHIP CO.
Mr. Gregoire: 1.	Is Park Steamship Company, Limited, still operating and, if so, will it be given a French name?
2.	If it is no longer in operation, has the company returned its letters patent?
3.	If it is still in operation (a) what are its activities (b) who are its directors (c) when will it stop its activities?


Hon. John N. Turner (Registrar General):: 1. No. Surrendered its charter June 27, 1966.
2.	Yes.
3.	Not applicable.


RETURNING OFFICER, VILLENEUVE CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Caouette: 1.	Is Mr. Fontaine the returning officer for the constituency of Villeneuve?
2.	Has he been replaced as the returning officer for the new constituency of Villeneuve and, if so, for what reason?


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: 1. Yes, Mr. Fontaine is the present returning officer for the Villeneuve riding.
2. Yes.
According to the Canada Elections Act, a returning officer must be appointed by the governor in council for each electoral district,
Inquiries of the Ministry Now, as the boundaries of the present electoral district of Villeneuve were readjusted by virtue of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (13 Elizabeth II, c. 31), a returning officer had to be appointed for this new electoral district-and this was done accordingly.


GRANT FOR FERRY SERVICE, BAIE COMEAU-RIMOUSKI
Mr. Ricard: Has the federal government received a request for grants on behalf of the Compagnie Nord-Sud Limitee in relation to the ferry service between Baie Comeau and Rimouski?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister regarding the new regime which has come to power in Greece by a military coup d'etat. In view of the fact that this government appears to be a military dictatorship which has suspended many of the democratic provisions of the constitution and imprisoned a number of political leaders, I want to ask the Prime Minister if Canada intends to recognize the new regime and continue diplomatic relations with that government.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the question of recognition of a new regime is an important one, and it will be considered by the government. Meanwhile I do not think I can say anything else about the change in the internal government of Greece.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the Canadian government considered withholding recognition until such time as there is some indication of the restoration of democratic rights in that country and some assurance given with respect to the security of the political prisoners?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Of course, Mr. Speaker, that is a hypothetical question. As far as the latter part of the question is concerned, we have no information which would lead us to believe

April 24, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry
that the recognized standards of international	AIR CANADA
law and justice will not be observed by the inquiries as to service to regina and
government now in power in Greece.	Winnipeg


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether any information has been received from our embassy in Athens as to the safety of Canadian citizens who may be in the country.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. A report has come in from our embassy indicating that to the best of their knowledge all Canadians are safe. I also noted in this morning's news reports that there has been no fighting or violence following last night's events in Greece.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister give any indication to this house of the course to be followed by Canada at the emergency session of the United Nations to deal with the question of South-West Africa, which opens in New York today.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the special assembly which has been called to consider this and one other question is, as my hon. friend knows, meeting today. The first item on the agenda is to the one mentioned by my hon. friend, consideration of a report from the committee that has been discussing this question in the light of the assembly resolution of last autumn.
I understand three resolutions were submitted to that committee, and the committee has not made a unanimous report. Two of the resolutions provided for the territory to be administered or supervised by the security council because of the alleged failure of the mandate and the mandatory country; the third was a resolution sponsored by Canada, and I think two other countries, providing for-I am just relying on memory now-an inspection of the situation by the United Nations Secretary General or a representative. That is the resolution which the Canadian delegate to the special assembly will be supporting.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I regret that I could not give him notice; I have been away and have just returned. Last year when DC-9's were put into service I asked a question about DC-9 service by Air Canada to Saskatchewan. At the time the answer was that the target date for this service would be May 1. We are getting rather close to that date now, and I am wondering whether the minister can ascertain when Air Canada will indeed put DC-9's into service to Regina, and whether the target date remains as announced.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to make inquiries.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. At the same time the minister is making his inquiry would he ascertain whether the direct flight between Ottawa and Winnipeg is to be discontinued on May 1 and, if so, why?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to do that too.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry. May I preface it by welcoming the minister back to the house after his extensive trip.
Because of the decline in the production of motor vehicles in Canada, is it a fact that Canadian car manufacturers are asking to be relieved of certain commitments which they agreed to when the United States-Canada auto pact was signed?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I replied to a similar question before my departure. I thank the hon. member for welcoming me back, but at the moment I have nothing to add to the reply I made previously.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister assure the house
April 24. 1967

that no relief from these commitments will be granted?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: If at some time in the future it may be impossible to fulfil some commitments which have been made, I do not think the hon. member would wish to insist on impossibilities.



NATURAL GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can he say when the United States authority may render a decision on the Great Lakes application; and can he say also when the National Energy Board of Canada will be considering a new application filed, as I understand, by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The answer to the first question is that I wish I knew. The answer to the second question is, on May 23.



HIGHWAY SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: May
I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Mr. Speaker. Will the government act on the recommendation of the justice and legal affairs committee to set up a federal board charged with responsibility for all matters of motoring safety?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: have not had an opportunity of studying this matter, but I shall do so at the earliest possible moment.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the escalation of pressure on the members of this house for an investigation into the protection of animals, will the Prime Minister indicate when the government plans to assign this matter to a parliamentary committee?
Inquiries of the Ministry Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
I am afraid I cannot answer that question. I shall be glad to look into it.



STEVEN TRUSCOTT-INQUIRY AS TO FINDINGS OF SUPREME COURT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Solicitor General. Will the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to the Steven Truscott case be announced this week and, if so, does the minister know on what day the decision will be made known?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: can only say that I share the hon. member's hope that we will receive the judgment in this case very soon.
HAL BANKS-INQUIRY AS TO EXTRADITION On the orders of the day:


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to ask the Minister of Justice a question. Has the minister any further information he can give the house with respect to the question I asked him on April 14 as to whether Harold Chamberlain Banks is to be charged under the Criminal Code with perjury?


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Yes, I have an answer to that question. It is also an answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce the other day. This matter has been placed in the hands of the local provincial crown attorney, Mr. John Cassels, who I expect in turn has been consulting with his superiors in the attorney general's department at Toronto. The investigating officers are receiving their advice from these sources. In my view, under the circumstances any statement relating to possible proceedings should come from the provincial authorities.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: I wish to direct to the Minister of Agriculture the same question that I addressed to the acting minister last Wednesday. The acting minister said he would refer this matter to the minister on the minister's return to the house. My question is as follows. What was or what will be the government's response to the request that fluid milk be reinstated in the dairy subsidization program?

April 24, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: The government's program as announced entails a basic distribution of functions as between federal and provincial responsibilities. Inasmuch as the provinces already exercise a responsibility for quotas and price levels of fluid milk the fluid milk producer and his support are clearly and primarily a provincial responsibility. I believe that the distribution of responsibilities, with the provinces assuming the responsibility for support of the fluid milk producer and the federal government assuming responsibility for the support of the manufacturing milk producer, will in the long run serve the best interests of the dairy farmers of Canada.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Could the minister tell the house what he has heard from those provinces which have no subsidy program for surplus fluid milk? Will the federal or provincial governments give relief in the near future to take care of this deficiency, now that the subsidy has been removed?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, of course I cannot speak for the provinces. I believe that all provinces or provincial agencies set the price of fluid milk, and that either the provincial government or one of its agencies sets the quota. If any province in its wisdom, as happened in Ontario this past year, feels that it wishes to subsidize fluid milk producers at figures over and above their production quotas, and basic prices, that of course is a decision that must be made by that province's government.


Mr. H. A. Moore (Weiaskiwin):: Is the minister aware that this new policy is causing an increase in the price of bottled milk sold on the street?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is an argument and not a question.



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Latulippe (Compion-Fron-tenanc):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister.
Could he inform the house why he intends to have reconsidered the decision taken by the house on capital punishment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think
this question is in order.
(Mr. Olson.]



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Robson Muir: My question is addressed to the Minister of Justice; I apologize for not having given him notice but perhaps he will take this as notice. Would the minister look into the relevant sections of the Criminal Code to see whether something could be done to tighten up the provisions relating to N.S.F. cheques?


Mr. Speaker:: I think this is a question which might well be placed on the order paper.



PROTEST AGAINST SLOW MOVEMENT FROM LAKEHEAD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport with regard to negotiations which were under way last week between the great lakes shipping companies and the Canadian Wheat Board. Can the minister say whether these negotiations have been successfully concluded, or whether grain is still not moving from the lakehead positions?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not sure whether the one situation would follow from the other. I regret to say that since this is not primarily my ministerial responsibility I did not make special inquiries this morning with regard to the matter. But I will.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of recent remarks by the minister about the desirability of extending our national parks may I ask whether the hon. gentleman has any new legislation in mind which would give expression to these new ideas?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: I can
assure the hon. member that we intend at the new session to introduce a measure with respect to parks, and we are in negotiation with a number of provinces looking toward additional parks in Canada.
April 24. 1967


Thomas Miller Bell: Can the minister say whether his ideas include the expansion of the park in New Brunswick?


Arthur Laing: We are thinking in those terms, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: wish to address a question to the Minister of Industry, and first say how glad we are to have him back in our midst. Last week the Prime Minister said that more than one department was looking into the problem facing the people on Bell Island, Newfoundland, and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration told us what his department was doing in this connection. I want to ask the Minister of Industry whether his department is conducting research, either on its own or through the National Research Council, into the possibility of upgrading the ore deposits on Bell Island or pelletizing the ore there in order to make use of the two billion tons of recoverable ore which are estimated to be on the island.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: thank the hon. gentleman for his kind expression of welcome. As far as Bell Island is concerned, extensive investigations were carried out about two and a half years ago as to the possibility of chemical treatment of the ore to make it appropriate for use in Canadian furnaces. I regret to say that in spite of the intensive research work done we have not as yet produced an economic answer.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question may I ask the minister by whom these tests were conducted, and is it possible to get copies of the report?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Basically, Mr. Speaker, by the National Research Council together with outside consultants, and I will see if it is possible to make a copy of the report available to the hon. gentleman.


Mr. Joseph P. O'Keefe (Si. John's East):: May I ask the minister if those steps will be continued to investigate the problems of the ore at Bell Island.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the conclusions of those conducting these investigations were such as to warrant or justify continuing them any further.
Inquiries of the Ministry BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE



REQUEST FOR ANSWER TO QUESTION ON ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works and ask him if he is waiting until he can give me an affirmative reply in answer to question No. 2,728 which has been on the order paper since March 10. This has reference to the harbour development at Chandler, Quebec.


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to look into the matter immediately.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saini-Hyacin-the-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport.
Would the minister have any further information to give the house concerning the sale of the ferry Pere Nouvel?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I could perhaps remind the hon. gentleman that certain arrangements were made by the federal government to assist in inaugurating this service, and the contractor undertook to carry on the service until December 31, 1966. Since that time there has been no obligation on the part of the contractor toward the federal government, and any relation he would have now I should think would be with the provincial authorities.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forresiall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport and ask if he could be charitable to us in the maritimes and tell us whether it will be this fall, or perhaps hopefully this spring, when we will get the maritime transportation study report?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Hope springs eternal, Mr. Speaker, and I hope it will be in the spring.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What year?

April 24, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact many of the provinces have built roads under the roads to resources program and have not completed all their planned work, and apparently are not willing to continue without further federal assistance, may I ask the minister is the government considering further financial assistance in this regard?


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



INQUIRY AS TO APPLICATION OF BILINGUAL PREMIUM POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put another question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Since we are now celebrating the national secretaries' week, could the Prime Minister take this opportunity to grant the 7 per cent raise, retroactive to October 1, 1966, to the secretaries of members of parliament and others who are recognized as being bilingual?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question has already been asked.



REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT SO MEMBERS MAY ATTEND EXPO OPENING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works in his capacity as government house leader. In view of the fact that all members of parliament have been invited to attend the opening of Expo on Thursday of this week would the minister say whether a decision has yet been reached as to whether or not the house will sit that day.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, it is planned that the house will not sit that day.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What about Friday?


George James McIlraith: We are prepared to not sit on Thursday.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. Will the minister advise this house the reason for the leasing of Air Canada aircraft to move reserve units to training establishments? If our defence forces are fully equipped and competent to meet defence commitments, why is it necessary in Canada to move reserve forces by private fleets of aircraft?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that this question might be placed on the order paper.


Harold Edward Winch: The contract is being signed this week, Mr. Speaker.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the concern that is felt by many people in the lower mainland of British Columbia, could the minister indicate whether any conferences are going to be held with provincial authorities regarding the implementation of the recommendations in the Fraser river board report?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am going to meet on this particular subject next month, I believe on May 3, with the British Columbia minister responsible for water. With respect to possible flooding, I might say that all possible measures are now being taken, and I might also say we are having an interdepartmental meeting this afternoon to try to co-ordinate these measures as well as possible at the federal level.


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell us if the emergency measures apply to emergencies in the current year, or are they merely for future undertakings?


Jean-Luc Pepin: In the current year, Mr. Speaker.
April 24, 1967	COMMONS



PARLIAMENT HILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. Some visitors from the west came to parliament hill Saturday to see the national capital. Can the minister explain why the perpetual flame was extinguished at that time?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Rene Tremblay (Malapedia-Maiane):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development.
Following a week-end meeting at Cabano, in Quebec, where an important section of the territory of the Lower St. Lawrence Development Board decided not to join the area as a whole in the implementation of the Rural Development Plan, is the minister in a position to say whether this decision will somehow affect the implementation of the ARDA program in the lower St. Lawrence and Gaspe peninsula?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question seems too general in character to be asked at this time.


René Tremblay: At ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on Friday I was asked, I think by the members for Halifax, concerning a deportation order against one Stanislaw Lu-baszko. The minister concerned has received representations on behalf of this man. No action will be taken to remove him from Canada until the minister has had an opportunity to review all aspects of the case.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the Prime Minister and the minister for their expediency in this matter. In
National Defence Act Amendment the absence of the appropriate minister may I ask the Prime Minister whether he will look into the possibility of this man being permitted to attend church services; in other words, perhaps he might be taken out of the isolation in which he now finds himself.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I will be seeing the minister this evening and can mention this to him at that time.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question which I wished to address to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in connection with Expo in Montreal. Since these cockatoos that are able to speak French and English are not paid in cash, will those which master both languages be given 7 per cent more food than the unilingual ones, or a 7 per cent higher perch in the pecking order at Expo?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, April 21, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-243, to amend the National Defence Act and other acts in consequence thereof-Mr. Hellyer- Mr. Batten in the chair.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose on Friday evening clause 5 was under consideration. Clause 2 had been allowed to stand. The proceedings in respect of this bill are subject to the time allocation order which was adopted Thursday, April 20, 1967.
On clause 5-Embodiment.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, call the vote. We are ready to vote on this clause. Call the yeas and nays.
Clause agreed to: yeas, 77; nays, 43.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I declare clause 5 as
amended carried.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 6-Officers and men members of Canadian Forces.
Mr. Hellyer:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a suggestion in respect of the procedure for this afternoon. Would the committee agree to stand clauses 6 and 7 and proceed with the
15236	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment consequential items commencing with clause 8? The committee then could return to the substantive clauses once the consequential and general clauses had been dealt with. I realize that all clauses were examined in detail by the standing committee on national defence and it may be the opinion of this committee that it is not necessary to repeat in full the discussion here. It might be preferable, however, if hon. members would agree, to proceed to clause 8 at this time and consider the clauses which are not too controversial. This would allow us to spend all the remaining time on the substantive clauses in part I of the bill.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, this suggestion by the minister comes rather late in the day. If the minister had accepted the first reasonable proposal which I put forward about four times that we stand clauses 2 and 6 until next fall, this would have made some sense. I am surprised that he is not now prepared to do that. In fact when he got up to speak earlier that is what I thought he was going to say. In view of the unrest in the services and in view of the difference of opinion which exists across the country with regard to this bill the suggestion I put forward appears to be more and more reasonable each day. This would not interfere at all with the process of drafting the regulations.
I do not wish to impute motives to the minister, but the suggestion he has made this afternoon conceivably could prevent or curtail discussion of clauses 6 and 7 which are vital to the bill. We might find ourselves taking up time on the inconsequential clauses which are in part II. Our preference is to continue now with clause 6 which is one of the vital clauses in the bill. Much as I should like to agree with the Minister of National Defence, who never agrees with me, I have to reject his suggestion as unsound.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Oh, no. I have just said that this is one of the vital clauses in the bill and I propose to move an amendment to improve it.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
The first part of clause 6 reads as follows:
Officers and men who were members of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army or the Royal Canadian Air Force immediately prior to the coming into force of this Part are, subject to the provisions of the National Defence Act, members of the Canadian Forces.
This is one of the compulsory features which have been introduced into this bill. As
[Mr. Hellyer.J
DEBATES	April 24, 1967
soon as it becomes law the members of the navy, army and air force will be shifted into forces to be known as the Canadian Forces. We discussed this during defence committee hearings, and I think it would be worth while to re-emphasize the subject of those discussions at this time, because there are many more members present to give it their attention.
During the committee hearings 1 moved two amendments to this clause, which were voted down in the normal fashion by Liberal members voting against any of our proposals. I intend to put those proposals before the committee of the whole house in order that it may decide whether or not they are valuable.
Clause 6 introduces a compulsory feature. Men who are now in the three services are all volunteers. When they enlisted, whether it was last year or five, 15 or 20 years ago, they made a definite choice. They had the opportunity, wishing to serve their country, to become members of the army, the navy or the air force. Each officer and man made a deliberate choice as to the service in which he wished to devote some part of his life. Some of them deliberately chose a service in which to make a lifetime career. The government through this bill now intends to shift those officers and men from these three services into the Canadian Forces. The names of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Royal Canadian Air Force and the Canadian Army will disappear.
These officers and men who chose to make a contribution to Canada as members of one of the three services will no longer have this choice. They will be shifted into the Canadian Forces and will no longer be able to take pride as members of the navy, army or air force. The government is now saying that they are now in the services and will remain as members of the renamed service without any choice in the matter.
I gave an example of what happened in the past during the committee hearings and I should like to repeat it on this occasion. It is drawn from the experience of September, 1939. On September 1, 1939 officers and men were attested, enlisted, and sworn into the Canadian field force. I speak from practical knowledge because I was acting as assistant to the adjutant of our regiment on that occasion. These officers and men became members of the Canadian field force. Within a short period of time the cabinet at Ottawa changed the name to the Canadian active service
April 24, 1967	COMMONS
force. The documents which had been prepared for the Canadian field force were destroyed.
All this has been recounted in the official history of the Canadian effort during wartime by Colonel Stacey. There was great wastage of time and money. New documents were issued in the name of the Canadian active service force and we were instructed throughout the army to re-enlist, reattest and swear in again the people who had been members of the Canadian field force. We went through all that reattestation.
The Canadian active service force provided only for service in Canada, so when the decision was reached that forces would be sent overseas-and it was reached very quickly-instructions came again from the cabinet through the Department of National Defence to the effect that everyone who had been sworn in to the Canadian active service force must be asked whether he wished to serve only in Canada or elsewhere in the world abroad. We had to go through the whole process once again. That happened in wartime when the officers and men were all volunteers.
In wartime it is conceivable that no one would object to a name being changed half a dozen times, from the Canadian field force to the Canadian active service force, the Canadian expeditionary force or anything of that nature. However, the government of that day took the stand that the officers and men, having specifically entered the Canadian field forces, should have the opportunity of saying whether they wanted to belong to a force of a different name.
That opportunity was given and the change was made. When it came to determining whether they would serve elsewhere than in Canada the government of the day decided the officers and men should have yet another opportunity to make a choice. When the several thousand who had been reattested into the Canadian active service force were asked whether they would serve outside Canada only a very small number declined to sign on for service abroad. The official history indicates that there were only about 500 all told who declined.
The point is that even in wartime the officers and men were given that choice. They were all volunteers and free citizens of this country. Our objection is that under clause 6 this opportunity is not to be given to the officers and men who are now in the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army, and the 23033-963
National Defence Act Amendment Royal Canadian Air Force. Without being reattested or sworn in, and without any choice whatsoever in this matter, once this bill is declared law these officers and men become members of the Canadian Forces.
I should like to move the following amendment to clear up this matter, and I am sure the Minister of National Defence, now that he has had time to think this over, will agree that this freedom of choice should be offered to the officers and men now in the services. Consequently I move:
That clause 6 be amended by adding thereto the following subclause:
(3) No officer or man who was a member of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army, or the Royal Canadian Air Force immediately prior to the coming into force of this part shall be enrolled in the Canadian Forces without his consent registered by reattestation.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Question.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, the matter raised in this amendment is most serious, one which will have the most far reaching and the longest lasting consequences of any in this bill. Unlike the minister I am not one who believes that the bill before us will provide the answer to our defence posture over the next 40 or 50 years. Indeed, I will be quite surprised if we do not find ourselves in the position of having to make further changes within the next two or three years.
However, it is to the amendment to clause 6 that I would like to address my remarks. Perhaps I will start by analyzing it as I understand it. It is quite clear when it says that officers and men who were members of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army or the Royal Canadian Air Force immediately prior to the coming into force of this part are, subject to the provisions of the National Defence Act, members of the Canadian Forces.
It says in effect, as the previous speaker pointed out, that this is compulsory. The word "conscription" has certain connotations, but I think it is an expression of the government's failure to recognize any moral responsibility whatsoever to serving officers and men in the three services.
The explanation of clause 6 is not very clear. The remarks of the minister concerning this clause leave much to be desired. All we know about clause 6 is that it is transitional. However, as I mentioned, a better explanation is needed. So strongly do I feel about this lack of information that in my opinion the government is open to the charge that its
April 24, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment failure to explain fully and properly the meaning of this clause is nothing more or less than a deliberate attempt to gloss over its very serious and far reaching implications.
I am not prepared simply to look at the word "transitional", to accept it and move on to the next clause. It is my hope that in the course of the remarks we may make on this clause the minister might give second thought to what is happening. As I read the clause and analyse it, I find the government is indeed saying to our 103,000 serving personnel "You are being transferred. You are fine, decent chaps; you know we have your best interests at heart, but just go along with our plan." In effect it says to them "Come along with us and we will look after you. The days of the identifiable services are gone, but have no particular fears about the new force. We will give you nothing at all to worry about. You will be there all right, but you will be there simply because we have decided. We will take care of you."
This is an abandonment of the very essence of the structure of our force, that is its voluntary nature. Every flag officer, every general, every air marshal and every commissioned officer is being told to burn his commission or toss it into the wastepaper basket. Since each was commissioned into only one of the three services, they are in effect being ordered to join the new force, and to accept something which is not part of the commission they originally accepted. Every officer and every man has been attested into the service of his choice, but he is now being attested into the service of the government's choice. Again I say this denies the voluntary nature and aspect of the structure of the Canadian armed forces.
First let us examine the voluntary aspects of their service. Each serving officer and man joined one and only one of the three services. He did so of his own free will after first having committed himself to a career for life in the Canadian forces and after having chosen which of the three services he wanted to join. He did this voluntarily. These men are in every sense of the word volunteers. Indeed, the officers volunteered to serve for life; that is for the length of time prescribed in the regulations for officers of the rank they would attain during their particular careers.
Each officer in any service on joining voluntarily had a different undertaking to the officers in the other services. This was the result of the free exercise of his choice. A naval officer decided to be different from an army


officer. Under the existing regulations naval officers who reach the rank of lieutenant commander have a career which continues until they reach the age of 45. An army major, whose rank is equivalent to that of the lieutenant commander, has a career which continues until he reaches the age of 49. An air force squadron leader, whose rank is equivalent to that of a major or lieutenant commander, serves to the age of 47 if he is on the flying list. Commanders, lieutenant colonels and wing commanders have careers which last until they reach the ages of 50, 49 and 49 respectively. Captains of the navy, colonels and group captains have careers which continue until they reach respectively the ages of 55, 51 and 51.
At one time the minister indicated that these careers were different. The fact is that each of the officers who joined voluntarily joined for a career which would last a certain length of time. I will repeat a word which I think is the key word in this context, namely "voluntary". They did so voluntarily. As far as I know no one as yet has been informed as to the length of the career which will apply to any particular rank in the new force.
The reason I introduce this problem is that serving officers and men are quite concerned about it. This legislation simply says to the whole of the officers' corps "Don't worry about it, old fellow. We will look after it. You no longer have anything to say about it."
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I come back to another point, the use of the word "transitional" in the explanation concerning clause 6. The explanation of the intent of the clause covers up the matter quite successfully. A cursory reading of the clause would, I suppose, leave a person in the same state as members of the committee were left, quite confused. What is important today is whether or not we have the right to permit this confusion, this uncertainty, to continue. What does the government mean and what does the minister mean by the use of the word "transitional"? Matters such as this must be cleared up so that the men who are being arbitrarily transferred will understand what it is they are transferring to, for what period of time and under what conditions.
If we pass this legislation without the consent of the officers and men, the bargain made with respect to the length of their careers, to which I referred earlier, will be broken. Alternatively, differences will be created which will most certainly cause resentment in rank levels where the different lengths of career
April 24, 1967

apply. This is a natural consequence of the failure to clarify these matter,i before this clause receives the approval of 'his committee. This again, is the underlying reason for the suggestion by the official opp isition that clauses 2 and 6 be allowed to stan 1 until the fall. This procedure would permit t \e departmental people time to come up with adequate answers and detailed explanation!; so that these men would know where they i e going and what is going to happen.
The fact that lieutenant commande s may have longer careers than hitherto and inajors may have shorter ones means you are p. aying around with the careers of officers \ 'hose lives have been voluntarily dedicated to a particular aspect of the service of Canada. This is not morally right, whether or not it is legal. While members of parliament may have the legal and constitutional right to do as they desire, there is a greater moral order, and sometimes I believe it would be wise for us to keep this in mind. We are doing something serious here, and this clause should be substantially amended.
I suggest that the amendment before us is a good one. If it is not made then not only the government but the House of Commons will have broken faith with these 102,000 men whose careers are governed by the promotion regulations in each of the three services. These regulations differ, but that is immaterial to the issue. Whether one service has a faster or slower method of promotion is not a matter of dispute. We do not argue about that at all because that was so in the past and must be so in the future. Promotion is geared to the requirements of the fighting environment. When you get to be even as old as I am you find it is more difficult to run uphill, and I am still fairly young. These factors must govern and because of that this area is not in dispute.
The point at issue is the fact that each of the services has separate promotional regulations. This is a fundamental thing, and I come back again to the freedom of choice. Before any man should be invited to accept a modified or unified system, he should have the new system fully explained to him and then be asked whether he will go along with it. If you transfer him without his consent you are compelling him to accept a different structure from the one for which he volunteered in the first place.
I believe this is the burden of the argument in support of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. The
23033-963 \
National Defence Act Amendment National Defence Act has provided, I think quite properly and fairly, that no officer or man can be transferred from one service to another without his consent except when the forces are on active service. This would be during a period of emergency as determined by parliament. The National Defence Act uses these words:
No officer or man shall without his consent be transferred from the regular forces to the reserve forces, or from the reserve forces to the regular forces, or from the service of the Canadian forces in which he has been enrolled to another service of the Canadian forces.
This is subject to the following exception:
An officer or man on active service, may for the period of such service, be transferred from the component of the service of the Canadian forces in which he has been enrolled to the same component of another service of the Canadian forces or from the reserve forces to the regular forces.
If clause 6 passes without amendment we will have shown a total disregard for the undertaking given to the officers and men who volunteered to serve Canada in the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force. This view was clearly expressed to the committee by one witness, and the reference is found at page 1050 of minutes of proceedings No. 20 for February 15, 1967. Rear Admiral William Landymore spoke at great length on this point but I shall not read his evidence into the record. I commend it to any member of the committee who is interested. This is one senior officer's opinion of the effect of the moral obligation which is left as a result of the amendment of this section of the National Defence Act.
I have listened to all the evidence in the committee and I have reread it on a number of occasions during the last two or three weeks. I cannot find anywhere in the evidence given by any of the officers, either presently serving or recently released, any argument whatever which effectively counteracts the argument advanced in favour of the amendment moved by the hon. member. The minister has not attempted to prove that the government has neither legal nor moral obligations. I am sure he has accepted the fact there is a legal obligation, as the judge advocate general told the committee there was.
I believe that the minister recognizes the moral obligation whenever he is asked directly , but he has never done or said anything to counteract the meaningful amendment which is now before us. As I said earlier it has been
15240	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment glossed over as though it was unworthy of debate. We do not have the right to gloss over something which so radically affects the lives of the officers and men who have volunteered to serve and, if necessary, to give their lives in defence of this country. The judge advocate general, Brigadier Lawson, in his evidence before the committee concerning this clause pointed out that in his opinion it is law. We accept that, and I am not talking about the legality of it at all.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
It may be of some interest to some people to pursue this matter in the courts of our country, particularly from a civil rights point of view. There are two sections in the Canadian Bill of Rights which it is interesting to look at in connection with this clause, though other hon. members will deal with this aspect of the matter in more detail. The judge advocate general pointed out that he thought we had better be very careful about his advice. I should like to refer the committee to a question and answer exchange reported at page 2077 of minutes of proceedings and evidence No. 32 for March 14. The question put by the hon. member for Calgary North was as follows:
I do not think it was ever considered that a lawful duty would be to put an infantry battalion commander in the command of a ship.


Mr. Lawson:: It certainly would have been a legal duty, Mr. Harkness, no matter how foolish it might have been.


Mr. Harkness:: No, but I say, I do not think that to go and command a ship could even have been interpret as one of that infantry officer's lawful duties.


Edward M. Lawson: Oh yes; I would say it would, sir.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Under the naval provisions he is responsible for the safety of the ship, but he has no background, or training, or means of being responsible for the safety of that ship.


Edward M. Lawson: Oh, I agree with you, it would be a very foolish-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Well, that is why I do not think that it even would be legal.


Edward M. Lawson: Well, no: I think in law, this would be a lawful duty.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, this comment speaks for itself. If I may extend this point, though I do not want to belabour it, there are international marine laws which have some bearing on the matter. I am referring to certain marine laws which exist under maritime law.
According to article 10.07 of Queen's Regulations the following regulations apply:
(a)	No officer or man may be transferred from one list to another without his consent.
(b)	No man can be transferred from one trade to another without his consent.
[Mr. Forrestall.l
DEBATES	April 24, 19S7
This same article prescribes for each of the three services respectively. In each case consent is required. Therefore it follows that if consent of the individual for a transfer within a service is required, in view of the existence of section 26 of the National Defence Act there does exist a very reasonable doubt that when this bill is enacted it will be in fact be legal. As I mentioned, it is already in conflict with certain provisions under maritime law with regard to the lawful duties of a captain of a ship. It is in contradiction to section 26 of the present act. While the brigadier says that parliament is an end unto itself, and this may be so, I suggest that we are overlooking certain moral obligations. Indeed, we must accord respect to the laws of countries other than our own, and I make this point in connection with our obligations under maritime law.
I hope that some serving officer will have the courage, the determination and the guts to take this question to the Supreme Court of Canada under the Bill of Rights to find out whether the bill is legal. On the other hand, I hope all of them do not do so because I understand the Supreme Court is very busy at this time of year. However, it has been suggested that this might happen.
Whether the bill is legal or not, anybody who has read the evidence given at the committee hearings, has sat and listened to this debate and has bothered to inform himself-a tremendous amount has been written and said about this bill-must be driven to the firm conclusion that there is no doubt in light of the evidence that it is morally wrong to move members of the armed forces, arbitrarily without their consent and without their exercising an option, from the force in which they voluntarily elected to serve and perhaps die for their country to some other force. It is equally as immoral as giving a lieutenant in the army command of a ship or giving the command of a ship or an aircraft to any unqualified person.
I feel that the government has arbitrarily broken a very basic term of the contract entered into with these serving men. The minister should find in his heart some grounds for giving these men a choice. Let the men decide whether or not this is what they want to do. If he did so I think the minister would find that the vast majority of them would willingly serve in the new force because they would have the knowledge that they did so voluntarily. It is this business of having this rammed down their bloody
April 24, 1967

throats to which they object. Give the men an option. Give them a few months to make up their minds. If the men who joined the navy feel in their own minds there is a substantial loss of the marine and naval traditions of Canada, then give them the option of retiring voluntarily without any pension penalty. Give these men the full benefits to which they are entitled. Certainly the ones with whom I have spoken and corresponded seem to be sincere, loyal and dedicated. If the minister were to do this, he might find that his plans for the future of the Canadian forces would be implemented much more harmoniously.


Mr. Nugent:: Mr. Chairman, I think the members of this committee should realize that unless the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre carries we will be asked to pass a law which brings in for the first time peacetime conscription in Canada. We are discussing a peacetime voluntary force in a democratic country and the government is now proposing conscription. There have been a couple of occasions in this nation's history when a major upheaval occurred over the conscription issue. Yet on both occasions conscription was justified because this country's very life was at stake and we were then involved in a very serious conflict. However, there is no war in sight today and no reason has been advanced on the part of the government for resorting to conscription.
What makes it even more reprehensible is that this conscription does not apply to a particular class of people who might be suitable for the armed services or whose presence in the services might be necessary for the preservation of this country. We are going to limit this conscription to those who are now serving in our armed forces simply because these people agreed with the government of Canada to serve in one or other of our forces as they exist today. Certainly anybody who looks at the situation in this light, which I think is the only fair light in which to look at it, must demand compelling reasons from the government for resorting to peacetime conscription of the members of our armed forces.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
How can the minister in all fairness conscript these men? Our men in the past have enlisted in the service of their choice as volunteers. If we take the navy as an example, they enlisted in the navy because they like naval traditions, naval life, the brotherhood of seafaring fighting men, and the kinds
National Defence Act Amendment of trades they could learn in the naval environment. Reasons of this sort induced people to enlist voluntarily.
I say there can be no mistaking what the minister is doing. He-when I refer to the minister I refer to the government-is changing the agreement that was made with these volunteers. The government in effect is saying: You have no choice. Is that fair? Should that sort of thing be necessary if the men, as the minister alleges, are enthusiastic about serving in his new armed force? The minister and General Allard say that the men will be proud and anxious to serve in this force. If that is so, why is there this discrimination? What is the minister afraid of? If the men are so enthusiastic, why is he afraid of giving them a choice?
When men have served 15 or 20 years of a 20 or 25-year career it is difficult for them to give up their pension rights and to find a suitable job in civy street. Why does the minister need clause 7 to reassure the men that in the new force they will perform duties similar to those they performed in the old force? The answer seems obvious. The minister seeks to conscript in peacetime a small number of men. The government is changing the terms of the employment contract unilaterally. I can only conclude that the minister has less confidence in this measure than have the members of this house or of the armed forces.
Furthermore, I am not satisfied that parliament has the legal right to do what it seeks to do. In my view this clause deals with civil rights. It has nothing to do with matters pertaining to the armed forces. Brigadier Lawson says that the men who enlist in our armed forces have no contract. That argument has little weight because in my view this clause deals essentially with a matter of civil rights. I know that military affairs come within the ambit of the federal government, but I also know that civil rights do not. They come within the ambit of the provincial governments. By passing this clause parliament may be infringing on the exclusive right of the provinces to deal with civil matters, civil rights legislation being an exclusive prerogative of the provincial governments. Dominion-provincial relations are important matters. Do we, therefore, wish to go ahead blithely and pass this clause if there is any question about provincial rights being involved?
The government is seeking to change a contract that the men entered into voluntarily and it is seeking to do so in peactime when
15242	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment no national emergency or disaster is upon us.
I know that in wartime the government may abrogate civil rights, but we are not at war. Must the government, then, conscript a small group of people by saying to them, "Your contract with the government is to be changed?"
I cannot help feeling that somebody will take this clause before the courts and make a test case of it. What will happen if, as I expect may happen, the courts rule that this clause in sum and substance deals with civil rights and not with a defence matter and that the enacting of this clause was beyond the constitutional authority of parliament? Should the courts reach that decision this law would be null and void. The minister would find himself in a strange position because if he wanted to keep his armed force he would have to offer substantial monetary inducements. The situation the country would be confronted with would be that the members of the armed forces would not be subject to the provisions of this clause. Actually they would be governed by no effective law and the result would be chaos. I can imagine the pay raises that would be offered and the blandishments that would be held out to induce personnel to re-enlist. That is the picture as I see it, and that is what the minister risks by introducing the compulsory aspect of this clause.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I should like to study the law more closely. It may be I am wrong in my contention as to the law but I think there is a good chance I am right. If I am and the courts should throw out this clause, where will the minister be? He will have a force without a single body in it. Legally, there would be no one in it; there would be no troops, nobody subject to the old discipline. But the minister intends to take this risk. He wants compulsion. Why? He tells us that most of the men will want to stay, that only a small group will want to leave. He tells us that most of them would be constrained by concern for their careers, that many who did not welcome the proposals enthusiastically would probably stay in the force anyway. In any case, in light of the terms of clause 7 he says they would not have much to worry about.
This is the situation if the minister's words can be relied on. He would prefer to risk being left without troops than take the course we suggest. He would prefer to take the chance that he is possibly telling the truth and these people might re-enlist. This says a

DEBATES	April 24. 1967
lot for the confidence he has in his own appraisal of the circumstances and in his own testimony.
We know there is one circumstance which might well dissuade troops from re-enlisting. Unification plans are still hazy. General Allard has told us that the plans are not yet complete, and we have the testimony of General Moncel that the government seems to be proceeding with the plan which was the worst of the four considered, the one which was so bad that he rejected it out of hand. We cannot doubt that there is uncertainty as to exactly the form unification will take. Contrary to the minister's testimony, I suppose there is a natural anxiety on the part of those in our armed forces concerning the reactions of members of the forces in other countries to those serving under this hybrid, unknown, untried scheme. They wonder what kind of beast they will be taken for.
Members of this house know very well how important the effect of these things is on morale and esprit de corps. If the minister were ready to admit this he would not be talking so blithely about wiping out the identity of the three forces. We can only take it that our view is the correct one and that there are good reasons why the men should hesitate to volunteer to re-enlist. Otherwise the minister is right, in which case there would be no reason to resort to conscription for the first time.
For some reason or other the minister always does things the hard way. We know he would prefer to ram something through parliament than seek co-operation. We know he would prefer to trample on parliament rather than have parliament help him. We know he would prefer to keep parliament in the dark as to the facts or mislead parliament as to the facts rather than explain things frankly. But in this instance, since there is obviously something so contrary to common sense about this proposal I cannot help feeling I have missed the point somehow and that there must be some argument to be advanced from the other side in connection with so serious a proposal and one which is so unfair to all who have volunteered.
It is important that what we do in this house should be fair to those who serve in our forces. Their views on whether or not parliament is behind them will certainly be a major factor in the future if we are to get the best out of these men. We must not even appear to do something which is unfair to them. But there has not been a single word
April 24, 1967

spoken on this subject yet either by the minister or by the associate minister. I hope one or the other will get up and explain why it is necessary to conscript people despite the assurance that most of them are enthusiastic about this plan.


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Chairman, I do not share the legal and constitutional fears which have been expressed by the hon. member for Halifax and by the hon. member for Ed-monton-Strathcona. However, I am impressed by their statement that there is a moral obligation to give those who volunteered under certain conditions the chance of changing their minds if the law steps in to change the conditions under which they are to serve.
It is strange that in the discussion so far neither of the two hon. members who spoke so eloquently about moral obligations and peacetime conscription mentioned that in the defence committee the minister clearly and unequivocally stated that except in the case of national emergency an opportunity would be given to those who had enlisted in the services to opt out of their obligations. If such an option exists I suggest it is a travesty of the facts to talk about peacetime conscription. A conscript who can opt out is obviously not bound by a very dangerous form of conscription.
I am sympathetic toward the amendment but it does seem to me that administratively it might be far more satisfactory if those who are presently in the services were allowed to opt out rather than that they should be given the opportunity to re-enlist. I can see a number of reasons why it might be better to adopt the opting-out provision. The minister has stated clearly-and this is on record in the proceedings of the committee-that this option will be given.
I believe the minister should repeat this statement, as no doubt he is willing to do, in which case much of the difficulty which has been suggested would be removed. Not only should he make a statement along these lines but somehow, in the legislation itself, the right to opt out should be clearly conferred. After all, even though the minister has made a statement to this effect, he will not be minister for ever. He may be promoted upstairs or he may be demoted downstairs. I do not know. I think it would be much better if this option were clearly embodied in the law. It may be that the minister has some intention of making such a change. If he does so, the claim that he is conscripting people in peacetime will not be a very serious one. If

National Defence Act Amendment he does not, I am afraid suspicion, however unjustified, will linger. I hope he will clarify the position while we are in committee.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Greenwood has just made an interesting observation with respect to compulsory service. He has suggested it would be much better to give serving personnel the opportunity to opt in rather than to opt out. I ask him this: just what would re-attestation be but an opportunity to do either of these things? Therefore in this amendment, which calls for the re-attestation of the forces, the hon. member's argument is met because on re-attestation nobody would re-attest only those people who want to opt into the unified force. The argument that it is better to give the men the opportunity to opt in rather than to opt out is exactly what this amendment meets. No man signing re-attestation papers would be doing anything other than opting into the unified force.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The whole question of compulsory service or conscription, as it is better known, is all wrapped up with the minister's confidence in his own bill. He maintains that the service people are behind it and that a majority of the senior officers are behind it. How can he say there is a majority? Has he taken a poll and will he give us the result of that poll? Despite what the Minister of Transport thinks about the evidence given before the defence committee and despite the opinion of the Minister of National Defence on expert evidence, although I think he should recall what he himself said about experts, the fact remains that Air Chief Marshal Miller, the recently retired chief of staff, told the committee that each individual who had signed with a particular service had an agreement with that service and before going into the unified force it would be necessary to tear up his old agreement and let him sign a new one.
During the discussion on clause 2 I asked the Minister of National Defence several times to make the tape recordings of the committee hearings available to us. I made that request for the simple reason that I want to compare what is on the tapes with the printed version of the defence committee hearings. For instance, on two or three occasions the minister referred to the contract which each and every serviceman has. He used the words "the contract." If there was such a contract then each individual must be given an opportunity to sign a new one. I
April 24, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment have failed to turn up those words in the printed record of the defence committee hearings and that is why I want the tapes produced. I asked for them previously. Again I request that the tapes of the defence committee hearings be made available to us. If we get the tapes we shall have the minister's own words in reference to a contract which each and every serviceman has. If there is such a contract then it is legal and binding, and in order to put a man into the unified force the contract must be rewritten.
To return to the minister's confidence in his bill, here is a pure and simple test of that confidence. Let him allow each and every serviceman to re-attest. But no, the minister will not permit that. I dare say he may be struggling with some kind of amendment to cover something that is already available, at least according to the instructions I have received from the Department of National Defence, namely, that anybody can get out of the service on six months' notice. If the minister is thinking of such an amendment I can tell him there is no reason for it because that is the instruction I received from the department in the fall.


An hon. Member:: Instruction?


Donald MacInnis: Exactly, instruction. The minister said that to reattest the men would bring about chaos. What kind of chaos would it bring about? If the minister's confidence is well placed, everybody is going to rush to sign up again. This is peacetime. In referring once again to the arguments of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre I should like to read from page 43 of the Official History of the Canadian Army where it is stated:
Government decided to place militia on active service in Canada (mobile force). Although all submissions to Council were ready and all plans made, we were horrified to hear the cabinet decided at the last minute to change the name of the mobile force from "Canadian Field Force" to "Canadian Active Service Force." The result being many changes, torn up stencils, and $65,000 worth of mobilization forms almost useless. Very hectic day-but we managed to get the general order 135/1939 issued and in the mail to all districts.
It goes on to elaborate on the fact that during wartime each and every serviceman, with the change of name of the force, was given the opportunity to reattest. I quote this because a request was made in the defence committee for a legal opinion from the Department of Justice on whether or not this could be done. It was reported to the committee that a legal opinion was given. If need be,

I apologize to the brigadier, but so far as I am concerned the legal opinion was only hearsay. We saw nothing in writing from the Department of Justice. We do not know who in the Department of Justice gave that opinion and until that information is provided it still remains a very pertinent question whether or not this move by the Department of National Defence is legal.
Again I call the minister's attention to what happened in wartime in respect of the decision to send a force overseas. It involved changing the basis upon which men had enlisted in the active service force. These men had enlisted as volunteers. I quote from page 63 of the Official History of the Canadian Army:
The Minister of National Defence had explained to the House of Commons on 11 September that under the Militia Act (section 68) no man could be required to serve in the field continuously for a longer period than one year, unless he had volunteered to serve for a longer period or "for the war." He suggested that if a decision were made to use part of the active service force overseas the men might be "re-enlisted for overseas service." The statement issued on 19 September confirmed that this would be done, the men of both divisions being re-attested on a basis of volunteering for service in Canada or elsewhere for the duration of the war. Orders were shortly sent out that the whole of the active service force was to be re-attested in this way.
Again I draw the minister's attention to the fact that this re-attestation took place during wartime. I quote further:
During the afternoon parade at Picton the terms of the "Supplementary Declaration," Form M.F.M.2 (x) were read and explained to Picton Coys., and they were told that they might have a short time in which to discuss these terms and deliberate over them. However one strong voice called out: "I don't need any time on mine I Bring on the declaration! I'm all set to sign!" This was the signal for quite an outburst of enthusiasm, and there was a period of shouting and cheering. The upshot was that when the Coys, were called upon to sign for overseas service "D" Coy. turned out to a man, but five members of 'C" Coy. refused to sign and were heartily booed as a result.
In all, only five officers and 532 other ranks of the C.A.S.F. declined to re-attest and were struck off the strength, "services no longer required."
The minister says that to re-attest the service personnel into the unified force in peacetime would bring about chaos. This is another indication that he has absolutely no confidence whatsoever in his bill, and I would especially draw his attention to this little incident. Could I have the minister's attention, please?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You have it.
April 24, 1967


Donald MacInnis: Is he
aware of the fact that one of his colleagues-when I say one of his colleagues I am talking about one of his cabinet colleagues-saw fit to invite me into his office to discuss this very clause and having discussed it, having made references to the examples I have just quoted, this minister, who nevertheless stands up and votes against what we are trying to do on this side, agreed and himself provided a few precedents to back up what we are now arguing, that men in the peacetime forces certainly should be given the opportunity to reattest, especially since the government saw fit to reattest the men during wartime.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


J. Michael Forrestall: Will the real minister stand up?


Donald MacInnis: I might also draw to the attention of the minister some other official records. I am referring to the period following the war in Europe and the activities which were still going on in the Pacific. On April 4 the Prime Minister made a statement in the House of Commons on the Pacific program. This included the information that the men to be employed against Japan would be chosen from those who elected to serve in the Pacific theatre. In other words, there would be no compulsion.
I do not mind competing with members present in the house, Mr. Chairman, but I am having a rough time competing with the noise coming from behind the curtains on the other side.


An hon. Member:: Just keep on reading.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Donald MacInnis: The
hon. member for Russell could not carry water for a serviceman let alone carry anything else around here. I think the hon. member should be ashamed of himself for being here in this house and allowing Canadian men to be put into the new service compulsorily. The hon. member sits in his seat day in and day out and never makes a worthwhile contribution of any kind other than interjections. If the hon. member for Russell, who is a very prominent member in the snake pit, thinks he can bother me by his interjections-


Mr. Tardif:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman; the hon. member is quite right when he says I sit here regularly, but when he says I make no contribution I should like
National Defence Act Amendment to say to him that he is making no contribution when he says nothing but foolish things and wastes our time.


Donald MacInnis: I am
waiting for your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I should amend what I said and say that the hon. member sits here on occasions.


The Deputy Chairman:: The hon. member for Cape Breton South has the floor.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, did I hear a ruling on the question of privilege?


Maurice Rinfret: The hon. member for Russell, having been mentioned by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, wished to state his point and has done so. The hon. member for Cape Breton South has the floor.


Donald MacInnis: When
are we going to get the truth from the Minister of National Defence? When are we going to get the truth concerning what happened in the defence committee? When are we to get the tapes so that we will be able to check them against the printed testimony? When will we hear the minister deny that there is a contract which has been signed by all members in the services? Is the minister now going to get up and deny that he said there was a contract? Is the minister going to deny what the chairman of the defence committee said in the house? I defy the minister to get up and deny these things.
The minister has sat here and listened to the arguments from this side of the house. Now they are bringing in the guillotine. We will have to stop discussing unification and the welfare of the armed services. Why? I will tell you why. They want to go down to Expo on Thursday. They want to take Thursday off. That is the reason we have to stop discussing unification. We have to go down to Expo; we have to wine and dine at the expense of the servicemen. That is what they are doing. How many members on that side can get up and say that the serviceman is receiving the privileges to which he is entitled? How many can stand up and say that this is not compulsory service? Let us hear from the member for Russell now. I have to raise my voice to make myself heard. If anyone has the guts, let him get up, raise his voice and say that what I am saying is wrong and that there is no compulsion about this bill. Let the minister who invited me into his
15246
April 24. 1967

National Defence Act Amendment office and agreed with my arguments in respect of clause 6 get up and say he does not agree with me.
What do we get from the Liberal party? The same old attitude. Imagine the nerve this government has when it says we must stop the debate on this bill so that we can go down to Expo. This is what the government is trying to put across to the country-stop this talk about unification so that we can go down and be wined and dined while the Canadian serviceman not only is being compulsorily put into the service but is being put into a service which from now on will not have the distinction of being voluntary. We are now to follow the policy of those countries which have conscription. This is what the minister is bringing about. If he is now going to bring in an amendment to soften this blow, let me remind him that a serviceman today can obtain his release from the service on six months' notice. If that is not so, then may I say that a minister of this government has written a letter to that effect. I have that letter.
Let the Liberal members get up and recall what went on in the committee on national defence. Let everybody remember that the Minister of Transport said that there are no experts on unification because it has never been tried before. He has cast a reflection on every man who has served his country and served it well. The Minister of Transport is laughing. It is surprising that the minister is laughing because whether he likes it or not a number of members of his own party have contradicted his argument. The Minister of National Defence has contradicted him. Members of his party have stood up and read speeches which were probably prepared by officials of the Department of National Defence.
How many people in this country are aware of what the opposition was up against when they were fighting this matter in the committee? The other evening an hon. member referred to the fact that I was appointed to the committee very late in the hearings. He spoke about my contribution. He went so far as to say that I had fallaciously represented that unification could lead to conscription. I should like to have the hon. member refute my arguments. I maintain that what I say in this regard is the truth.
In so far as what went on in the committee is concerned, how many people in this country are aware of the fact that the minister sat behind his committee members along with members of his staff, including his deputy

minister, who were there for the express purpose of feeding to the Liberal members on the committee questions which they themselves did not have sufficient knowledge to ask? How many people in this country know about that situation? How many people in this country will believe the Minister of Transport who said that these serving officers or old hats, or whatever he referred to them as, know nothing about this situation, that what was wanted was fresh minds with imagination and that experience and knowledge did not mean anything? That reference includes not only those officers who have recently retired but must also include those now serving in a senior capacity. The Minister of Transport said: "They do not mean a thing". He says there are no experts on unification. He says that it has never been tried before. If it has never been tried before, why did so many members of his party say that unification is a good thing and that the United States marines have it?
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
There is a contradiction between what the Minister of Transport and the Minister of National Defence have said. One can go through the discussion and find these ministers contradicting each other day after day, but in the final analysis the Minister of National Defence has used that lie to advance his argument. Perhaps someone will suggest that this is unparliamentary language, but a spade is a spade no matter how you look at it. So far as the original use of the word "lie" during this debate is concerned and whether or not it is parliamentary, it was introduced by the minister when he suggested that members on this side were repeating lies. I ask the minister now who originated the lies we supposedly have been repeating.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. I wish the hon. member would not pluralize that word. I used it in the singular.


Donald MacInnis: That still does not get you off the hook. Who originally used the word or told the lie that we have been accused of repeating? Let the minister rise on a question of privilege and tell us who originated that lie.


An hon. Member:: Order. Stick to the point.


Donald MacInnis: You
have a lot of helpers down at this end, Mr. Chairman, but I do not suppose you will recognize any of them. Who originated that
April 24, 1967

lie? Was it originated by a serving officer who testified before the committee? Was it originated by the Minister of Justice who was quoted, or was it originated by a member of the press? The minister has never answered the question. Yet he is the one who made the suggestion first and he has continually allowed his position to be advanced by that big lie. I am not referring to the big lie technique, and I will repeat this outside the house. I am referring to the big, deliberate lie of which he spoke and took advantage.
The minister now suggests that we should put our service personnel into one unified force without giving them the opportunity of volunteering honourably to be servicemen. Apparently there must now be an element of compulsion even though on several occasions during wartime a choice was given to the men. Let me remind the minister that one of his own colleagues in the cabinet has agreed with this suggestion, although I am sure he will vote against the amendment.
The actions on the part of ministers have been very strange indeed. The former minister of finance-I have not been able to keep up with his promotions-saw fit to sit back and laugh at certain suggestions from this side. I wonder whether he laughed when the Minister of Transport said he should resign. The suggestion was made that no minister who gives the government bad advice should remain in this house. He gives all kinds of advice outside this house on economics and the actions of other parties such as the New Democrats or the Conservatives. He has often given advice to the Liberal party, but I notice that his stature in that regard has decreased considerably.
Only a week or so ago the Minister of Transport when expressing his opinion about unification suggested that anyone who gives bad advice should resign. Surely one might infer from that statement that the Prime Minister should no longer be here because he accepted bad advice. The former minister of finance, as he is best known in the house, makes all kinds of statements regarding issues in this country. Yet he apparently does not see fit to express his opinion in the house on the unification issue. Why does he not express an opinion? Why does he not get up and support the lies upon which the minister of defence has been relying?
The Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence assured us that every opportunity would be given to hon. members to hear evidence and examine this bill. One can find by considering the evidence before the

National Defence Act Amendment committee that the Minister of National Defence was sorry that an opportunity was not given to other people to appear before the committee. In spite of that fact he and his colleagues have now decided to use the guillotine to cut off consideration. Presumably they find that necessary in order that we may visit Expo on Thursday.
What this minister and the Prime Minister are doing in respect of unification of our armed forces is shameful. On a number of occasions during wartime the serving personnel of this country were given the opportunity to reattest. The Minister of National Defence professes confidence in the provisions of this bill. Yet he says if we were to allow the personnel to make a choice it would bring about chaos. How could that be so? The hon. member for Greenwood referred to the suggestion that our service personnel should be given the opportunity to opt into the unified force. Apparently the Liberals were willing to accept that suggestion. All they need to do to show their acceptance is vote for this amendment. Of course, they realize that if an opportunity is given to the serving personnel to opt in they will also be given the opportunity to opt out. I suggest that if the minister does have the confidence in this measure which he professes he should accept this amendment.
Surely we should continue our Canadian forces on a voluntary basis. We should remove any stigma that may be attached to a compulsory service requirement. Although some ministers have expressed a different feeling, I believe the Minister of National Defence could meet a great many of the objections of hon. members on this side by accepting this simple amendment. He should give the serving personnel of this country the same opportunity provided on several occasions during wartime, the opportunity to choose to re-attest. The legality could be considered later, but I think this principle should be accepted by the government at this time.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, for clarification in respect of this clause I should like to ask the minister whether or not he can shed some light on the current status of the armed forces pension fund. It is my understanding that it stands at something over $2 billion and that during the fiscal year 1965-66 $37 million was paid out in pensions. Can the minister advise the committee whether it would not be possible for the government to give consideration to those who choose to take the existing avenue of recourse to resignation rather than
15248	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment whatever may come afterwards? Can the minister tell us whether or not there is sufficient money in the fund to justify the suggestion put forward by Admiral Landymore at page 1052 of the proceedings of the defence committee on February 15 where he pointed out the following:
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
In order to treat everyone fairly, each officer and man must be given a full pension. By this I mean, a pension equal to 2 per cent of his pay and allowances (averaged over the last six years of service) for each year of service, for all those who have served ten or more years. For those who have served less than ten years-they should have their pension contributions returned to them-
In addition I agree fully they should be given some kind of a settling-out grant, if that is indeed what it is. I raise this question simply because of the illustration given by Admiral Landymore in his testimony. He gave the case history of two officers of the same age who joined the R.C.N. on the same day. Both were still serving at the age of 44 and both had completed 25 years of service. One had been more successful than the other and had reached the rank of naval captain while his term mate was still a lieutenant commander. I suppose that actuarially speaking they are the same age and would have the same life expectancy and therefore the captain who paid in slightly more, because the system is contributory, might be expected to draw slightly more out of the fund. But indeed, as Admiral Landymore pointed out in his evidence, this was not the case. He said:
But this doesn't happen. The captain's pension is subject to a 55 per cent reduction. The lieutenant commander's pension is reduced by 5 per cent. The captain will receive a pension of less than $3,000 a year, while the lieutenant commander receives a pension of about $5,000 a year. The captain has been penalized-he has paid more for his pension, he has taken greater responsibility, and, for his success he receives a much smaller pension.
Before we get to the point of determination on this clause I wonder whether the minister could give us some information on this matter? I would like to move a further amendment after we have dealt with this one, and I believe this is the appropriate place for it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, this is a most important clause and one which deserves the careful consideration of the committee.
First of all I should like to assure hon. members that these matters were given thoughtful consideration in the department and by the law officers of the crown. It has been suggested that the relationship between

DEBATES	April 24, 1967
officers and men and the crown is contractual in nature. It has long been held, both in the United Kingdom and Canada, that there is no bilateral contract between the Crown and an officer or man serving in the forces of the crown. Thus in 1896 it was said in a case in the United Kingdom:
-it has been laid down over and over again . . . that all engagements between those in the military service of the crown and the crown are voluntary only on the part of the crown and give no occasion for an action in respect of any alleged contract.
This case was applied in a Canadian judgment in 1921 where it was said that for both officers and men of the Canadian forces the engagements "are voluntary only on the part of the crown". The same decision was reached in 1940 when the Exchequer Court examined some nine previous cases.
In 1959, in an action for the recovery of pay and allowances, the Exchequer Court was called upon to determine whether anything in the National Defence Act had altered the previous non-contractual relationship between the crown and officers and men. In delivering judgment it was said:
-I think, that in construing the provisions of the National Defence Act I must apply the presumption that parliament, when enacting that act, did not intend to alter such a well established principle unless there be found therein language which in express terms or by clear implication leads to the conclusion that such an alteration was intended. An examination of the act satisfies me that it contains no such express terms or any language which clearly implies that such an alteration was intended.
It has also been suggested by hon. gentlemen opposite that this clause is not within the jurisdiction of parliament and that it comes into conflict with the constitution.
It has long been held that legislation by the government of Canada which properly relates to one of the heads of Section 91 of the B.N.A. Act is intra vires although it may affect the property and civil rights of individuals. Heading 7 of Section 91 is "Militia, Military and Naval Service, and Defence."
In 1958 the Supreme Court of Canada quoted with approval a judgment of the Privy Council in which it was said:
Most of the specific subjects in Section 91 do affect property and civil rights but, so far as the legislation of parliament in pith and substance is operating within the enumerated powers, there is constitutional authority to interfere with such rights.
A decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1962 is directly in point. In that case the Supreme Court was called upon to
April 24, 1967

decide whether a provision of the Exchequer Court Act, which provided that an officer or man of the armed forces was deemed to be a servant of the crown for purposes of establishing liability, was ultra vires as affecting property and civil rights. Part of the judgment reads as follows:
In my opinion, to declare the nature of the relationship existing between the crown and members of the armed forces for any or all purposes is legislation within the exclusive jurisdiction of parliament under head 7 and accordingly, intra vires. This does not depend, in my view, upon any such ground as that to do this is necessarily incidental to the powers of parliament under head 7: it is a direct dealing with the matter within such powers.
In considering this bill it must be presumed that officers and men join the service to serve their country, Canada. I do not think it is too unreasonable to assume that they will want to continue to serve Canada in the unified service. Nevertheless I think it can be argued that in view of the fundamental nature of the change proposed in merging three services into one, the officers and men should not, except in an emergency, be required to continue to serve against their will.
It was for this reason that I gave the standing committee on defence the assurance that the present policy in respect of releases would continue. I must admit that I have been impressed by the argument that it would be preferable to write the provision into the law rather than to rely on a statement of policy. I propose therefore, after we have disposed of the amendment now before us, to ask one of my colleagues to move the following as an amendment.
That clause 6 be amended by adding thereto subclauses three and four as follows:
6. (3) Notwithstanding anything in this act or in the National Defence Act and subject to subsection 4, where an officer or man was a member of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army or the Royal Canadian Air Force immediately prior to the day on which this act is proclaimed and, within two months after that day, makes application in writing to his commanding officer for his release, he is entitled, except in an emergency, to be released within six months after that day.
(4) Where a person while an officer or man has received university, advanced technical or aircrew training or education at public expense, his right to release under subsection 3 is subject to such conditions as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Governor in Council.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I am advised, Mr. Chairman, that there is some question of the amendment now before us being in order because, as I understand it, it is in exactly the same wording as an amendment moved by the hon. member for

National Defence Act Amendment Winnipeg South Centre in the committee, as recorded at pages 2371 and 2372. It is my understanding that a decision of the committee is binding on the house. Nevertheless, if you find that this amendment is in order I would ask the committee to defeat it and then I will ask one of my colleagues to introduce the amendment to which I have just referred and which I hope will be found generally acceptable.
Before I resume my seat, Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal briefly with the question of pensions which was raised by the hon. member for Halifax. First of all, there is no more money in the fund than is required to meet its obligations. As a matter of fact, hon. members will recall that in the estimates recently presented to the House of Commons the largest single increase, I think something in the order of $75 million for the fiscal year, was required to meet an actuarial deficit-I think only one fifth of the actuarial deficit -caused by increases in pay awarded to members of the armed forces last year.
It is true to say, therefore, that notwithstanding the size of the fund, the fund is committed to meet obligations on the basis of undertakings presently in force. It is a very generous pension fund, and I think quite rightly so because service in the armed forces is unlike service in many other fields of endeavour in that it requires the best of an officer or man during his most productive years. It is not unreasonable, therefore, that he should be treated accordingly by the people of this country. It was designed in order to keep officers and men in the forces once they had served for a reasonable period of time, and by and large it has been successful in doing this.
It is one of the provisions, I think, of most industrial and public pension plans, that after a certain period of service there is a definite advantage to the individual to remain in the organization or service in which he is employed. I believe one could raise a general question about the desirability of this kind of pension plan and the regidity that it introduces into our system, and perhaps the desirability of having much more portability than presently exists between different pension plans. However, at the moment we are looking at the problem strictly in the context of the legislation now before us, and in that context I think we must admit this bill does not change the circumstances under which the pension law was written in so far as its general application is concerned.
April 24, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment
Servicemen leaving the service now are subjected to an actuarial reduction. They receive a smaller pension over a longer period of time, and this has been taken into account in determining the payments required to the fund from time to time, including the actuarial deficit to which I referred a moment ago. A suggestion was made to the effect that the actuarial reduction not apply. The result would be that a special benefit would be provided for people leaving the service. I think this would not be acceptable for one reason, according to my discussions with the officers and men of the forces, and that is that the people who would be most likely to take advantage of it are the pilots, engineers, lawyers and professional people whose training would be in the greatest demand in the civilian economy.
This problem has been freely discussed internally. We have come to the conclusion that the result of this kind of special treatment would not reflect directly our appreciation of the bill now before us but would reflect much more closely the opportunity available to individuals in the civilian economy. We have gone into this question very carefully over a long period of time to see whether or not there might be some relaxation in the present reduction at some senior levels. At the present time we have not been able to devise a policy which meets satisfactorily all the cases. We are still looking into it. I have not seen as yet a proposal which was not subject to very serious technical reservations.


J. Michael Forrestall: Surely the minister will accept the fact that there is a tremendous disparity between captains and lieutenant commanders?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I freely admit, as I did in the other committee, that there are basic anomalies in the law. It is under general review to see if we cannot design a more equitable law. In the meantime there are anomalies which are known by my hon. friend and others.
Under these circumstances, Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that the fund is fully committed to meet present obligations, any bonuses or extra considerations given to those who desired to leave the service as a result of this bill would be a considerable additional charge on the public account. We have decided this would not be in the best interests of the service or the country at the present time.


Herman Maxwell Batten: May I make a reference to the point of order raised by the Minister of


National Defence with regard to the amendment before the committee. I should point out that in the opinion of the Chair a decision made in the committee on national defence with reference to an amendment does not bind this house. If that were so, then all the amendments made in the standing committee and recorded in this bill would also be binding on the committee of the whole.
May I refer hon. members to page 523 of May, seventeenth edition, the second paragraph under the heading, "Synopsis of Stages of a bill"? This paragraph reads:
Upon this principle, it is laid down by Hatsell, and is constantly exemplified, "that in every stage of a bill, every part of the bill is open to amendment, either for insertion or omission, whether the same amendment has been, in a former stage, accepted or rejected''.


J. Michael Forrestall: I have one or two questions for the minister concerning pensions. Are my figures correct, that approximately $37 million was paid out in the fiscal year 1965-66 while some $55 million was taken in?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not have the figures before me, Mr. Chairman, but they sound reasonable. I would be willing to accept them until otherwise advised.


J. Michael Forrestall: My other question must be, what has happened to the pension fund? Has it gone back into general revenues? Is it not kept separate? This is a contributory plan and the money belongs to these men, no matter how they get it back.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am afraid the question being asked is well outside of my jurisdiction. If I had to give a reply merely from my own vague knowledge of the subject, it would be that these are largely bookkeeping entries in government accounts and the money has already been used for other governmental purposes but the interest is credited to the account each year, a (5:00 p.m.)


J. Michael Forrestall: That is what I am afraid of.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Then the total amount outstanding in the account is available to meet the liabilities of the fund. If I understand the system correctly, it is merely that the funds have been used on government account and the interest accrues on that basis.


Mr. Groos:: Mr. Chairman, just before we vote on this amendment I should like to say that I agree with some of the things said by the hon. member for Halifax just prior to the
April 24. 1967

minister's remarks, particularly in respect of the case to which he referred of the captain and the lieutenant commander and the disparity in their pensions. Bilateral contract or not, Mr. Chairman, as the minister has explained this is undoubtedly legal. However,
I was glad to hear the minister make the point that this anomaly is being studied at the moment.
Although this is an inequity I know it is unintentional. Certainly it is not intentional under the arrangements proposed by this bill.
I hope the minister and the department will continue to give the matter special attention because I believe it wrong in every way-I deem this inequity in effect to be a penalty-to penalize any man or officer who has the intelligence or distinction to be promoted, as is the situation in this case. Therefore I hope that the minister can find some way to resolve this question in the near future.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, I should like to comment on a couple of matters raised by the minister in connection with whether or not a contract exists between the serviceman and the government. Although the argument he used that the government is not bound by the contract and that the courts have held that what the government gives the serviceman under what we regard as an agreement is a voluntary payment may perhaps be technically correct, I would point out that while the serviceman is bound he is only bound to the extent to which he signs.
The minister told us that a serviceman joins the services to serve Canada, and then he used this in the same context when talking about a contract. That is completely misleading. The serviceman is not bound to serve Canada in this context. He is bound to serve in the armed force that he joined, and that is all he is bound to do. I want to make sure that we are not misled by what the minister says and that there is no suggestion that when a man joins the armed services he is bound to serve Canada and therefore automatically bound to serve this new force. That argument does not hold water when subjected to legal interpretation. I do not think I would have too much difficulty in distinguishing the other cases in light of the pith and substance of this legislation, but that question can be argued before the courts.
The minister has suggested that a man can be released from the forces by giving notice within two months after the coming into force of this legislation and be released after the expiration of six months. As far as I am

National Defence Act Amendment concerned this puts the matter on the wrong basis. This legislation provides that a man is voluntarily transferred to the new force unless he takes the opportunity to release himself from the forces within a certain length of time. This does not alter the fact that this amounts to peacetime conscription. This release is only available to certain people who disagree with unification, and I can see that the six months' period is going to be made plain hell for anybody who waits for his release under those conditions.
We all know, what the minister has done to senior officers who disagreed with him, and I have some idea what would happen to members of the forces, who today are unable to voice their feelings and live in fear and trembling down through the ranks, if they said something which was not in accordance with the minister's policy. I think that the minister's explanation is most unsatisfactory.
Amendment (Mr. Churchill) negatived: Yeas, 25; nays, 74.


Maurice Rinfret: I declare the
amendment lost.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wonder whether my colleague the Minister of Transport would be good enough to move this amendment for me, Mr. Chairman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could move the amendment and the Chair could read it without my doing so, if that is agreeable.


Maurice Rinfret: It is moved by the Minister of Transport:
That clause 6 be amended by adding thereto subclauses (3) and (4) as follows:
(3)	Notwithstanding anything in this act or in the National Defence Act and subject to subsection (4), where an officer or man was a member of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army or the Royal Canadian Air Force immediately prior to the day on which this act is proclaimed and, within two months after that day, makes application in writing to his commanding officer for his release, he is entitled, except in an emergency, to be released within six months after that day.
(4)	Where a person while an officer or man has received university, advanced technical or aircrew training or education at public expense, his right to release under subsection (3) is subject to such conditions as may be prescribed in regulations made by the governor in council.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, the minister would like us to think that he has made quite a concession here. But all he is doing of course is writing into the bill something that he has already said in committee and this
April 24, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment merely clarifies it. The minister is still retaining the objectionable factor that my amendment was intended to cure, namely, compulsory transfer from the present services into the new service.
I am even wondering whether there is a catch in the amendment. It contains the words, "except in an emergency". Section 31 of the present act, which is not being amended, deals with the problem of securing a release from the forces. That section provides:
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Except during an emergency or when he is on active service, an officer or man is entitled to be released at the expiration of the term of service for which he is enrolled or re-engaged.
That applies to the end of a man's service. An exception is made in case of an emergency or when the man is on active service. We were told by the Judge Advocate General in the committee hearings that since the Korean war officers and men in the services have been on active service. Is the minister taking shelter behind the phrase "on active service"? If an officer or man applies for release, under the proposed amendment, will the department's reply be that he is on active service and must complete his full term? What is the minister's answer?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The answer would be in the negative, that matter being covered in proposed subsection 3 by the words "except in an emergency". This proposed subsection would not be effected by the fact the armed services are on active service.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have another question about pensions. Where a man or officer wishes to withdraw, does the minister contemplate any penalty with respect to his pension? Will that penalty be any different from any penalty the man might incur now if he were to withdraw voluntarily?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If I understood the hon. member's question, the present regulations would apply and there would be no penalty. In all fairness I must differentiate between how the word "penalty" is used and what a penalty is. We must be careful of our language here. What is normally called a penalty is an actuarial reduction. There would be no other penalty beyond the actuarial reduction and the regulations presently in force would continue to apply.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I intend to vote against the amendment because it retains that compulsion to which I have been objecting. I regret

that the minister has not sufficient confidence in our armed forces personnel to permit them to reattest. For some time now he has been telling us that everybody in the services wants to go along with his plan. Yet he will not risk his ideas by putting an attestation paper in front of armed forces personnel to prove his point. I doubt very much that conditions in the services are as happy and pleasant as the minister says they are. I think there is unrest in the services. Were the minister absolutely sure of his men he would do as we did in September, 1939, when we reattested the volunteers twice in a row without trouble. The official history shows that only 500 men out of several thousand failed to reattest. Perhaps a small number only would fail to reattest again, were they granted the privilege of attesting with respect to enrolment in the service. I am afraid that the minister does not have the courage of his convictions.


J. Michael Forrestall: May I ask the minister a question? It is obvious that the amendment will carry. I agree with the position adopted by previous speakers. Will the minister undertake to communicate the intent of the amendment to our armed services without delay so that its meaning may be clear to them and they need not resort to news media or other unofficial means of communication to obtain information about the amendment?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, I shall be pleased to give that undertaking. A lengthy telegram is being prepared to be sent to members of the armed forces when the bill is passed by this house and the other place setting out a number of provisions, including this one, and informing our armed forces personnel what they can expect in the months ahead and when the regulations will be made available to them for perusal.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask the minister a question similar to one I asked before. I do not expect a reply from the minister but I ask it hoping for a reply. My question involves those men who, two months after this bill is proclaimed and becomes law, say they do not wish to re-enlist. It is well known that in our forces there may be ambitious sergeants eager to prove to their superiors that they are worthy to be promoted. Ambitious sergeants can make life intolerable for men who have to wait six months before being released. In view of the hardship that some men may suffer at the hands of ambitious sergeants would the minister not consider shortening the waiting period to two or
April 24, 1367

National Defence Act Amendment three months? Is there any reason why that Mr. Hellyer: I do not think that would alter cannot be done?	the effect of the law at all.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Six months is the maximum period, Mr. Chairman. That time period is included in the bill out of deference to those who will be posted to replace people seeking release. Some notice must be given so that another serviceman may be posted to replace the man wishing to go. This time period is necessary for the administrative machine to function in some sort of reasonable fashion and to give fair notice to the replacement officer or man and to his family.


Donald MacInnis: I ask
the mover of the amendment to define "emergency" as set out in the amendment.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Perhaps I could tell the hon. member. It means war, invasion-


Donald MacInnis: On a
point of order, Mr. Chairman, I asked the mover of the amendment to say what is meant by emergency. This again shows the slipshod way in which the government handles the affairs of our armed forces.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman has been in this house and in the committee long enough to know that when a minister is piloting a bill through the house and asks one of his colleagues to move an amendment that is merely a matter of formality and that the minister who is dealing with a bill is in the best position to explain precisely what the meaning of the amendment is. It does not seem to me that there is any particular reason on this occasion for the hon. gentleman to extend that usual courtesy for which he is so famous.


Donald MacInnis: As I
may have said before, when it comes to courtesy and rudeness between the Minister of Transport and myself I may he ahead on courtesy and the minister may be ahead on rudeness. I ask the Minister of National Defence whether he will not strengthen his amendment by using the words "national emergency" to make clear that by national emergency a war or something of that kind is contemplated.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think the conditions I have described are considered to be national emergencies.


Donald MacInnis: Well, would you mind writing in the word "national" then?


Donald MacInnis: It certainly qualifies the term. If the minister thinks it would make no difference, there should be no objection to writing the word in. A national emergency would be one affecting the whole of Canada. The department could dream up any number of emergencies so far as the armed forces are concerned.
What the minister has said about administrative difficulties is another indication that the Department of National Defence is not operating as efficiently as it should or as it did during wartime. During the war the department was able to reattest the men on very short notice indeed. In fact, within one day they went ahead with a decision to do it. Now the minister says at least two months are needed. This is a reflection on the administration of the department and it implies a lack of competence on the part of the minister. He tells us now that the addition of the word "national" would not result in any change. In that case, why not write it into the bill?
Amendment (Mr. Pickersgill) agreed to: Yeas 66; nays, 28.


Maurice Rinfret: I declare the amendment carried. Shall the clause as amended in the standing committee and further amended in committee of the whole carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 7-Restriction on employment.
Maurice Rinfret: Shall clause 7 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Let us not be in such haste. There are groans from the other side, as usual. I do not intend to make a long speech. I did put forward a proposal the other day which would have shortened our consideration of this bill but it was not accepted. We discussed the bill on Tuesday and Wednesday when we should have been doing other business. Had my proposal been accepted we would not have had this debate on Thursday or Friday or today. This is where the time has been taken up.
While I am speaking of time I think it is going too far for people to announce to the public in one way or another that the time of the House of Commons spent on this bill has
15254	COMMONS DEBATES	April 24, 1967
National Defence Act Amendment been as great as they say. It is hardly fair to give the impression to the public, as some people have done, that this bill has been under discussion for 55 days or, according to others, for 29 days. It is quite untrue. The bill came under discussion on December 7 when the minister made his speech on second reading. Only then was it before the house for debate. That was on a Wednesday. The reply on December 7 by my hon. friend from Edmonton West was limited in time to about 20 minutes. Then the bill came up again on second reading earlier this year and we spent -what was it?

two days on second reading. In committee of the whole house we have now spent several days on it.


An hon. Member:: Sixteen.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is all the time which has been spent on this bill and I wish that those who make announcements over the air or in the papers would be fair to the House of Commons and give the people of Canada the correct impression. We have not spent an excessive amount of time on this bill which is of major importance.
Clause 7 of the bill reads:
Except in an emergency, no officer or man who was a member of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army or the Royal Canadian Air Force immediately prior to the coming into force of this part shall, without his consent, be required to perform any duty in the Canadian Forces that he could not have been required to perform as a member of such service.
This clause recognizes something which we think should continue to be recognized, namely, that men have made a definite choice in entering one of the three services and should be given an opportunity to continue in the service of their choice. It is intended to protect people who are now in the three services from being required to perform duties outside those they might have been expected to perform in their present services. Obviously some such clause was necessary or the hierarchy of the department might transfer officers and men from navy to army or from army to air force who had no wish to serve in an altered capacity.
The very fact that this clause appears in the bill indicates that people who enter the defence forces after the passage of this measure will be subject to transfer among the branches of the service. Otherwise, why is it here? There will be two types of people in this service after this bill is passed, those who have already entered the army, the navy or the air force and those who enter the defence

force later. Though the minister has told us they will not be required to do certain things, they will obviously be subject to transfer with or without their consent. This may have a bad effect on morale or it may lead to unsatisfactory conditions.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
We had an example offered us which, frankly, I consider to be somewhat ridiculous. A pilot exercise was carried out in which two members of the army served on board a destroyer. The purpose was to see whether it would be satisfactory for somebody from the army to serve at sea. It all depends on the individual. Some people could serve as readily on land as at sea or in the air, but I do not think this pilot project proved anything at all. Nevertheless it is an indication that what is intended is that men who enlist in the future are going to be shifted, without any leave on their part, from one branch of the service to another or from one area to another. Even those whose enlistment earlier was in a special force-navy, army or air force-in an emergency will be moved about under the provisions of this clause.
The whole point of clause 7 is that it indicates the complete obliteration of the three distinct services. Yet in wartime there will still be activity at sea, separate and apart from land and air, there will still be activity in the air, separate and apart from land and sea, and there will still be activity on land, separate and apart from sea and air. This is taking place in Viet Nam at the present time. In the Vietnamese war there have been fights between fighter aircraft, and we had an example involving Israel and Syria just two weeks ago. But the minister has told us, "Oh no, all of this is in the past. All of this is old-fashioned. That is the way people used to do it in the olden days but now it is all different. No longer will there be clashes between air forces or clashes between fleets."
The strange thing is that other countries are still maintaining their fleets. They are building up their submarine fleets. For example, I do not know how an army is going to deal with a submarine 400 miles off the coast of Canada. It would appear to me you would have to have ships and airplanes to undertake that task, but the minister tells us that all of this is to be altered and nothing is to be done as it was done in the past.
I point out that under clause 7 the intention is quite obvious in an emergency to move the people presently in the services from one force to another, and it is also the intention
April 24, 1967	COMMONS
that when new people enlist in the future they will not have the privilege of those now in the separate services to select what they are going to do. They will be liable to be shifted back and forth. It is an undesirable clause.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, I find this clause a little confusing. If we are to take the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra as correct, that all this bill does is change the name of the forces, then obviously it contains no provision to change the duties of serving personnel, and so I shall expect the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra to vote against this clause as being useless and redundant.


Grant Deachman: You had better reread my speech.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I got sick listening to it once, and heaven forbid I should have to reread it. The argument made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre applies. I imagine that when this act comes into force there is going to be a clear distinction so long as there remains in the new force anyone who is carried over from the old forces. There will be two classes of citizens, so to speak, in the armed forces, and this clause is going to make sure that it will be a permanent distinction. One class of citizen will be the new members who are subject to any duty at all in the combined forces and the other class will consist of those carried over from the old forces who, when ordered to change duties, can say, "Just a minute; here are my duties." In other words, whether in the country generally or in the armed forces we have always tried to avoid making a distinction between the working or serving conditions of one citizen and another, but this is going to be perpetuated by this bill and perpetuated not just for the six months during which anybody now serving can get out of the services after the coming into force of the bill.
I have an idea why the minister included this provision. It is to reassure people that their conditions of service will not change that drastically, that it will be the same old job. It is to tell them that, just as the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra said, "Maybe you will have a new uniform but there will be no drastic changes and you had better stay on." This reveals the depths of the minister's fear of how shocking members of the present forces find unification, his fear of the amount of demoralization that has set in and his fear of the degree to which serving personnel are
National Defence Act Amendment going to abandon the unified force when they get a chance. So this provision is thrown out as a crumb to try to stem the tide of revulsion sweeping the forces against this bill.
It also points up very drastically some of the speeches which the minister and his supporters have made respecting the duties of the new force and the advantages of interchangeability even under integration, such as those claimed for the common training command. We have had some indications that training command is not working all that well. It has been discovered that there is not that much training in common among the three services, that specialization sets in so quickly that already, according to the evidence, there is real doubt that having one amalgamated training command has accomplished anything. Some testimony has been given that it is a waste of time and more expensive than an individual training command for each of the services. However, if the claimed great advantages of unification are going to be brought out, are going to be sold, then I suppose the minister had to sell the idea of interchangeability and training command was an illustration of it. All I can say is that this certainly makes a mockery out of his argument of interchangeability because if they have been trained in one service they cannot be required to perform in another. If we are going to get any advantages out of interchangeability, and we doubt there will be any in a realistic sense, then under the new set up only the new men who enter the force can be interchanged, according to the provisions of this clause.
However, I think this will not be the hindrance that it appears to be because the facts of military life are going to take effect, especially with reference to the phrase "without his consent." The classic army situation of asking for three volunteers, you, you and you, is not really so far removed from the truth. Volunteers in most instances are just picked at random or the sergeant may say to them, "You are going to do this, won't you?" That will be the extent of it and I think this is a beautiful illustration of the fallacy of some of the arguments used by the minister. It is a perfect illustration of the never-never-land in which the Minister of National Defence seems to live, in that it shows what he will do to try to sell this bill, what he will do to try to take the stink out of what he is doing to the armed forces and the extent to which he will go to make us believe everything is fine. But all this accomplishes is really nothing. The only worth of this provision will be shown if life
15256	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment in the armed services is not realistic and if the phrase "without his consent" means something, but that is a pretty nebulous sort of thing because consent is too easily obtained.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
If I am wrong in that regard then, of course, the only effect of this clause will be to make a very distinct cleavage between the two classes of people who will be in the services from the time this legislation comes into effect and for all time. Since the new boys will have joined freely and will be willing to serve anywhere they may regard the old boys as second class citizens. This situation might accelerate the attempt of the old boys to get out or it might accentuate the differences which will exist between the two groups and lead to misunderstanding. I do not particularly care whether or not this clause passes. No doubt it is necessary for those who will have the will to stand up and take advantage of it. I believe it will create a good deal of confusion, but perhaps that is what the minister deserves for having brought in a bill of this kind.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall clause 7 carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Call the yeas and nays.
Clause agreed to: Yeas 51; nays 24.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Clause 8.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, we have pretty well completed part I, which is the essential part of the bill. I wonder whether we might revert now to clause 2. I think we would be prepared to deal with that clause without further discussion. If we then proceeded with part II we might make rapid progress in respect ot those clauses.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I think that is an agreeable suggestion if it meets the wishes of the committee.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is it the wish of members of the committee that we revert to clause 2?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On clause 2-Canadian Forces, Canadian Armed Forces.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, will you call the yeas and nays.
Clause agreed to: yeas 58; nays 22.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Although my point of order will have no effect on the outcome of the vote, I should like to say it is 
DEBATES	April 24, 1967
a well known rule that once a vote has been called, whether in committee or otherwise, members are not permitted to enter the chamber to record their votes. During the last two votes members on the Liberal side have rushed in in quite large numbers. At the time they were coming in this fact was drawn to the attention of the Chair, I believe, by shouts of order from this side of the house. It was most evident that quite a number of members on that side rushed in although the rules do not permit this. I realize my point of order is just that and has no effect on the vote. I believe, however, that the Chair recognizes the fact that these members did walk in after the vote was called.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I think the point of order raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton South is well taken. At this point I might read standing order No. 12 which is applicable in this regard. The standing order reads as follows:
(2) When Mr. Speaker is putting a question, no member shall enter, walk out of or across the House, or make any noise or disturbance.
I would ask members of the committee to adhere to that standing order.
Clauses 8 to 25 inclusive agreed to on division.
On clause 26-Drunkenness.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, may I say a few words in respect of this clause. I should like to apologize to the brigadier but I am still concerned about clause 26. I realize the seriousness and consequences of the act of being drunk while on duty. However, the clause reads:
Drunkenness is an offence and every person convicted thereof is liable to imprisonment for less than two years-
I wonder whether the minister, with the assistance of his law officers represented by the minister's very able assistant, would indicate whether this could be more closely tied in with the civil law or made a little clearer in relation to that law.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, it is very difficult to compare military and civil situations, although I suppose in some instances they are comparable. In the armed forces certain tasks have to be performed for the general safety of the organization as a whole. If a man were drunk on duty and failed to perform that task, that failure might result in a very serious loss of life of other members of the
April 24, 1967	COMMONS
forces. Such a failure could result in consequences of a very far-reaching nature.
Naturally the penalty provided in this regard relates to an extreme case. In most cases, as a matter of fact, the penalties applied are much less than the maximum, but one might envisage a situation where the magnitude of a crime and its consequences might be so great that a penalty of this order of magnitude would be justified, particularly as a deterrent to that kind of failure to perform.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, this is a permissive clause which gives the authority to a tribunal to send a man on active service to jail for up to two years on conviction. Let me give an example. Suppose it is 6.30 at night and four fellows are in the mess having a beer or two. One of them may not have had any lunch and is a little bit under the weather. That man is subject to a sentence of 90 days in jail. This seems absurd to me because most individuals who are thrown in jail in Canada for being drunk usually are sentenced to 24 hours and a fine of $5 and costs. That is the end of the matter. In any event I will leave the matter with those comments.
Clause 26 agreed to on division.
Clauses 27 to 65 inclusive agreed to on division.
Schedules A and B agreed to on division.
On clause 1-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to make a lengthy speech at this stage but I should like to make this comment. At this stage and subsequently on third reading we could delay the passage of this bill by a discussion on this point of importance. The defence of the realm is one of the prerogatives of the Crown which must be considered seriously. Just recently we witnessed a ceremony at which a representative of the crown was sworn in. During the course of that swearing-in ceremony it was obvious that the Queen's representative became the commander in chief of the military forces of Canada, the Canadian defence forces. In view of the grave responsibility which rests upon the representative of the crown in this regard it is essential that a minister at some stage-this would have to be done before third reading-indicate to the House of Commons that the consent of the Governor General has been obtained in respect of this fundamental change in this area of his responsibility.
National Defence Act Amendment
I suggest to the minister that considerable argument could be developed regarding this point which relates to a matter some people may feel inconsequential, archaic, old-fashioned or out of date. On the other hand, under our system of a constitutional monarchy with a parliament consisting of the crown, the House of Commons and the Senate, anything that infringes upon the prerogatives of the crown should be considered carefully. The House of Commons should not assume powers that have not been given.
I have read some debates on this subject. While I understand that practice and custom over the years have limited the prerogatives of the crown to a considerable extent, I realize what is happening in this country regarding the wiping out of so much of our tradition. Let me suggest to the minister that if he will give us an assurance now, or when he proceeds with the bill tomorrow, that he will make the customary statement indicating that the Governor General has been apprised of the nature of this bill and consents to this fundamental change in our armed forces, I will not prolong the debate on the issue of these prerogatives. Let me remind the committee that it is open to us at this stage and on third reading to put forward an argument which would effectively block the passage of this bill for some time. Is the minister now prepared to give that assurance?
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I will take that under consideration. I think it raises a rather fundamental constitutional issue. Certainly under our constitution parliament consists of three parts: the House of Commons, the Senate, and the crown as represented in our country by the Governor General. Therefore the bill cannot become law before it receives the consent of the Governor General who is the commander in chief of the armed forces. I do not wish to go beyond that at the moment but would want to take a look at some of the constitutional authorities.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Transport is fully aware of all this. We quite agree that there has to be the consent of the Governor General after the bill has been passed by both houses. What I am speaking about is approval prior to the removal of one of the prerogatives of the crown.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will certainly be willing to look into the matter because I am just as intrigued by the point as my hon. friend is.
April 24. 1967

National Defence Act Amendment Mr. Brewin: Mr. Chairman, if the minister is going to look into it I hope he will consider very seriously the view that in a constitutional monarchy control over legislation would appear to rest with this house in accordance with modern practice. I would be very surprised indeed if the Governor General's view on this matter would either be expressed by him or should even be sought from him. I would have thought the Governor General would carefully avoid injecting himself into a political matter of this nature which has been fully considered by parliament because the matter is so sweeping and so interesting. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre said the view he is propounding might be regarded as archaic and old-fashioned. I did not catch the third adjective but if I may I might possibly add "antediluvian". However, whatever it may be it is of sufficient interest that I hope the minister will not treat it lightly but will look into it seriously. My feeling certainly is that any intervention by the Governor General or any request for his intervention would, in this day and age, be a constitutional anomaly and one probably to be avoided.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I hope the hon. member for Greenwood is not attempting to muddy the waters. I was not asking for an intervention by the Governor General. The hon. member for Greenwood has intervention so much on his mind in connection with the peace restoring force, intervention of which he approves, that he is getting a bit confused. All I am suggesting is that the Governor General, being commander in chief of the forces of Canada, should be apprised in advance when something is going to be done with regard to the forces for which he is responsible. Has that been done? If it has not been done, will the minister do it? Will he inform the house that it has been done and that the Governor General has graciously consented that the government go ahead with this measure, after which it will receive royal assent?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that not an intervention?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am surprised the hon. member has not given us the reference. He debated the issue with regard to the petition of right in 1951. At that time five members of the House of Commons participated, namely hon. Mr. Garson who was then minister of justice; the hon. member for Prince Albert; the former member for Greenwood, Mr. Macdonnell; the former member for Eglinton, Mr. Fleming, and Mr. Coldwell. The hon. [Mr. Hellyer.l
member for Winnipeg North Centre also participated. The then minister of justice accepted their point of view. It was an interesting legal debate. He came back to the house before third reading and brought the message that the Governor General of that day consented to the house dealing with one of the prerogatives of the crown. This was done before third reading.
We have only taken about seven minutes on this point. I do not want to detain the house with this very interesting and potentially lengthy argument. Everyone can see that the hon. member for Greenwood and, on my invitation, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would love to get into such a lengthy, difficult and abstruse debate and would not add much light to it. I would ask the minister to look up the reference and to give us the assurance tomorrow.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was taught to yield not to temptation.
Clause agreed to on division.
Title agreed to on division.
Bill reported.


The Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time, at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock this day are as follows: The hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. Muir), Veterans Affairs-Camp Hill, N-S.-report of lack of hospital accommodation; the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), Water Resources-participation by Canada in "Water for Peace" Conference: the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Tremblay), ARDA-application of ARDA in the lower St. Lawrence and Gaspe region.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the progress we have made today I wonder whether it would not be the desire of the house to take a little longer for dinner than we might otherwise have done.
April 24, 1967


Mr, Hellyer:: Mr. Speaker, I was just going to do two things. First I wish to thank hon. members for their co-operation in committee of the whole house in respect of the bill to amend the National Defence Act and to say how much we appreciate the co-operation of hon. members on all sides of the house. I think there was a very thoughtful and careful examination of the bill in committee. The second thing I would like to do is to concur in the suggestion that in view of the progress we have made perhaps the house by mutual agreement might rise until eight o'clock this day.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is an order of the house made on Thursday, April 6, that the house suspend its sittings from seven to eight o'clock. If it is the wish of the house to suspend now until eight o'clock it will require unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before we rise could the house leader tell us what item of business will be called at eight o'clock?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to talk with the party leaders in the next five minutes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The sitting is suspended until eight o'clock.



SITTING SUSPENDED


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 8 p.m.


Hon. Jean Chretien (for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-278, respecting the occupational training of adults.


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to deliver a few remarks on the second reading of this bill on behalf of the minister, who was on his way to fulfil a speaking engagement prior to our being advised that the bill would be coming up for consideration this evening. The absence of the minister is entirely unavoidable, and I should like to make these remarks on
Occupational Training
his behalf. I do not believe anyone expected the unification bill would be disposed of this afternoon, after such a lengthy debate.
Mr. Speaker, the bill we are to discuss this evening is not new in principle, to members of this house. The policy on which it is based was made clear by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) last October. Essentially, what the bill does is to give the government of Canada power to buy various kinds of training for Canadian workers. Hitherto, we have not done this. We have reimbursed the provinces for a part of the costs that they incurred in providing training. The change puts us in a more positive role. It makes us responsible for seeing that training responds to the needs of the economy. But I want immediately to make it very clear that, in doing this, we are not violating provincial jurisdictions. We represent the consumers of training. We are enabling the demand for training to be effective.
To serve its purpose, training must be provided in the occupation in which the individual will be able to find employment suited to him. We propose to pay for that training. There is no thought of our doing the training. The bill of course does not provide for that. It simply makes us the financial agents of all the hundreds of thousands of Canadian workers whose future earnings are dependent on more training, but who do not have the resources to invest in the training at the time they need it.
There is no doubt about the economic need for the program. Canada's demands for skilled workers must very largely be met by tapping the reservoir of able but untrained people in our labour force. That is the principal way to meet the skilled manpower shortages which hold back our industrial growth. The bill is directed toward those goals. It is not designed to compete with provincial education and training systems. It is not to provide cultural betterment, or to help people go to university. Those are vital matters, but they are not what this program is about.
Every day technological change robs old skills of their value. Men and women who were once adequately trained find that they cannot compete in our increasingly technical world. Since 1949, for instance, over half a million farmers have left Canadian agriculture. Very few of them left with the skills that other industries needed. In our new economy the number of people who will have only one occupation during their lives is very

April 24, 1967
Occupational Training
small. But retraining people whose jobs are disappearing is only part of the task; we must also train the adults who earlier could not get the training that people need today. Even compared with ten years ago, school systems have been greatly expanded and diversified. They provide today's secondary school graduates with much more of the knowledge needed to earn one's way in the world.
But that has been no help to the great majority of people who are now working. The opportunities were not there during their youth. The training that will be financed under this legislation must meet the practical needs of a wide range of mature adults and it must frequently utilize techniques different from those normally employed in the training of youth. We cannot realistically ask a mature adult to return to school for an extended period of time; we must have accelerated courses which will do the job as quickly as possible. Adults want to work at a job; training is a route to that goal, not a goal itself.
The core of a successful adult training program is the ten months skill course. The provinces run a wide range of such courses, and we can expect that this range will widen further as the program expands. But workers all too often have forgotten-or never received-their basic training in arithmetic, scientific and linguistic skills. When this background is necessary for a skill course that a worker wants to take, we will pay for it. But the intent of the program is not extended educational training. The basic upgrading is simply a means to the objective, which is occupational training.
The individual courses that will be financed for adults will extend from a week to a year, depending on what they want and need. A man may need, and will be able to get, a one year upgrading course followed by a one year skill course. But this will not be a lifetime limit. A basic premise of the program is that our manpower needs shift over time. A man who must pursue several occupations during his working life may need training for each one.
It is not, of course, enough to make the proper kind of training available. Adults who have economic responsibilities need income during training. Those people who have been members of the labour force-for the past three years, or for one year if they have dependants-will be eligible for allowances to let them take training.
Eligibility for payment of training costs will require only that a person be one year above the school leaving age and have been

out of school for one year. Even the last condition will be waived for apprentices. But it would not be fair to give people who lack adult responsibilities the allowances designed to let people discharge those responsibilities. We would not wish, by offering .these allowances, to induce young people to drop out of school and take short term adult training when more high school training or a technological institute course is what they most need.
There will be no means test for allowances and a person need not be unemployed to qualify. These allowances are an income substitute to let people take training. They are not a form of relief. The allowances will initially be between a minimum of $35 and a maximum of $90 a week, varying with the number of dependants a man has and the general level of earnings in his province or region. The maximum scale will be $35 for a person who supports only himself, $55 for a person with one dependant, $65 if there are two dependants, and $75 if he has three or more dependants. In addition, a person who must leave his home town to take training will get up to $15 weekly to compensate for the extra expense. This is a total of $90 per week, or approximately $390 monthly.
e (8:10 p.m.)
We will seek provincial advice and agreement on the appropriate level of the allowance we use in each province. If a province wishes, we will be willing to use different scales in different parts of a province to better reflect variations in the level of earnings.
The bill provides that, starting on July 1, 1968, the allowance limits will be escalated each year in line with the increase in average hourly earnings in manufacturing. Over the last available five-year period this index has gone up by an average of 3J per cent each year. The scales used in each province and the amount for each dependant will be adjusted at the same time as the national limits.
An essential aspect of allowances for adults is prompt and regular payment. I should therefore mention one detail that is provided for in the regulations. Canada Manpower Centres will be able to advance $25 to those who need it to help tide them over during their first week of training. Most adult training courses will be provided by provincial or municipal authorities. Of course, we will deal only with the province, which will make its arrangements with the municipalities.
The bill means that, when we enrol a adult in a publicly operated training course,
April 24, 1967

we will pay the cost of putting on the course and we will pay an amount to compensate the province for the capital and interest charges on the buildings and equipment that are used. We will pay a fair share of the provincial overheads involved in providing general administration for the courses. We will have an interim payment system to ensure that the provinces get a steady flow of cash to meet their expenses. The financial settlement at the end of the year will be based on the actual costs of training.
The bill lays it down that we will purchase training from the province when it is available. But if the province agrees that it does not have the course a man needs near where he lives, we will be able to pay for training in a privately operated course. In this case we will negotiate a fee, not above the usual level, with a private training school.
The bill also provides for the purchase of training in industry. A man who is employed should not be forced to quit his job in order to get training. In most firms, workers accumulate seniority and pension rights. To sacrifice these rights to take training would frequently mean to abandon the only security a man has.
The training we will pay for in industry is the same kind that is available in public institutions. It would be easy to record a vast increase in training if we offered to pay for the kind of on-the-job training that new employees get in most firms. But that would not be an economic use of public funds.
What we will pay industry to do is the type of training that it now does all too infrequently. That is the classroom type of training that the provinces provide to people who are not employed. But in industry "classroom" becomes a rather elastic term. One of the great advantages of industry as a training ground is that it already has the modern equipment thar people must use in their jobs. A "classroom" in industry can be a part of a factory floor. It is the equivalence of the training given in public institutions that counts, not whether people sit at desks.
Although nearly all firms routinely provide on-the-job practice to new workers, only one manufacturer in four gives even one day's formal training to any of his workers. This is not because firms fail to recognize the need. It is because general training is often uneconomic for the individual firm. The workers who would benefit frequently leave for jobs with other firms, so that the company that does classroom training may help its competitors as much as itself.
Occupational Training
Accordingly the bill recognizes a public obligation to pay for classroom training in industry. We must see that training is good business for the individual firm as well as for the individual worker. But we will not pay all of the firm's costs of training. The company will derive real benefit from the trained workers who do stay with it. Therefore it is sufficient to pay for the direct costs a firm incurs in training its workers; the firm will need to contribute the use of its facilities and equipment.
The biggest of the direct costs is the wages the firm pays workers while they are in training. We will reimburse the firm for most of these wages. We will calculate the proportion of the normal working week that is devoted to training. That proportion will be applied to the maximum training allowance or to the normal weekly wage, whichever is the lower.
There is one situation in which the bill provides payment for training in industry of a kind that is not provided in public institutions. When a technological change is going to displace established long-term employees at the same time as the company needs new people to run the automated equipment, we will be able to pay for on-the-job training in order to encourage the firm to retrain its older employees for the new jobs rather than hire outsiders.
Not all the training by industry will be done in factories. Sometimes it is more efficient for workers to take time off to go to nearby provincial institutions, and the bill provides for payment in such cases. Training need not be full time.
Thus the bill makes it possible for training to be provided in various ways to meet different situations. The training can be in courses operated by provincial or municipal authorities, private training schools, or employers. The courses can be full time, part time, evening, correspondence, or even by T.V. We hope that the provinces, which are improving adult training methods, will continue their experimentation.
For the individual Canadian this bill means that federal services will be available to help him decide what training course will benefit him most, to pay for the course; and to pay him an allowance to maintain an income while training.
The vast majority of these adults will be referred to provincial courses by a Canada Manpower Centre. The manpower counsellor will help people to find out what they can best do. Many people already have solid and

April 24, 1967
Occupational Training
marketable skills, and the need is to find the right job lor them. Sometimes a man has an adequate skill but there is no market for it locally; if so, the counsellor will be able to offer a mobility grant for a permanent or exploratory move to another town where the skill can be utilized. Frequently, however, the need is for training. When this is what the man wants and needs, we will be able to pay for it.
A rather different arrangement will be made for apprenticeship training. Thousands of apprentices, engaged in three or four year programs, take a six or eight week provincial course every year. These apprentices are not in need of counselling; they are already in a program which will give them a solid trade. They will be able to proceed directly to training.
Similarly, we will not ask people being trained in industry to march en masse into a manpower centre. If they wish it we will, of course, provide individual counselling before or after training. But in the main our officers will determine simply that the prospective trainees are qualified and that there is a healthy market for the skills to be taught; there is no need for us to duplicate the work which is carried on by company personnel directors.
I am afraid that we must face the fact that there are today more adults who need training than the system can handle this year. We cannot expect to provide training immediately to all who could benefit from it. At first we will have to select the people who need the training most. Obviously an unemployed man should get priority if he is able to benefit. The general criteria will be the size of the income increase that the training will give the man, his ability to absorb the training, and his determination and ability to put it to use afterwards. In all cases we must look to see that there will be a long run demand for the skills; there is no point to training a man for unemployment.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I do not mean that every trainee will always get a job right away after training. We must face the fact that training helps to fill demands for skilled people; it does not itself create that demand. Training can shift people from occupations generally in low demand to occupations generally in high demand, but it does not create a particular job.
In recent years all our labour markets have grown tighter. I am confident that properly managed policies can keep the economy run-
ning at a high pace. But even if there is a temporary decline in demand, our training efforts should not falter; they are the way to save the individual from being a permanent victim of recession.
There are a few other features of the bill that I should mention at this stage. When we pay for provincial courses, we will be including an amount to cover the costs of capital and interest involved. The bill recognizes that not all provinces can readily borrow the money they need to construct training facilities. We will be able to make loans to construct and equip adult training centres. Interest on these loans will be only fractionally above the long term interest rate that the federal government must pay, and it will be below the rate at which the provinces could normally borrow on the market. Our fees to the provinces for training adults will be the source of interest and capital payments on these loans.
Also, of course, the phase-out of the old T.V.T. capital payments may be used by the provinces for increasing their capacity to train adults.
Approximately $550 millions in grants will be available to cover 50 per cent or 75 per cent of the costs of construction of many projects, and a province can borrow the rest of the money for an adult centre from us if it wishes.
Another need is teachers. Indeed, one of the skills which is most in demand today is the skill possessed by an experienced tradesman or technician who has also learned how to teach adults. So long as technical and vocational teachers continue to be in short supply, our counsellors will be able to refer men and women who possess the necessary technical skills to courses which will train them in the art of passing on those skills. Thus the program will pay to train the trainers.
If the provinces are to experiment with new ways of teaching adults, and if we are to develop better ways of matching training with our emerging manpower needs, we must have research.
We propose therefore to co-operate with the provinces in paying for research which is concerned with developing new ways to teach adults and with designing courses to fit adult needs. The research which is done to better the training of adults will also contribute toward improving the training provided in secondary and post-secondary schools.
I might add that we have already taken some highly significant steps to foster development of more suitable methods for adult
April 24, 1967

training. Our pilot adult training projects will shortly be getting under way. These projects are frankly experimental. They are 100 per cent financed by the federal government but they will be run by independent boards appointed jointly with the provinces. The boards will be given complete freedom, within their budgets, to experiment in the development of advanced and accelerated methods of adult training.
Hon. members will recall previously when there was some discussion that they asked for an indication of the magnitude of the expenditures which we anticipate and the number of adults we expect in training. It is very difficult to estimate our expenditures this year, partly because of the transitional arrangements with the provinces. Capital phase-out payments will probably be about $120 millions. We expect that training costs, including other transitional payments, will come to about $110 million.
Future expansion must depend on the needs and on the resources available. At present there are 288 publicly operated centres which train adults. The adult enrolment at the beginning of the year was 65,716. We expect that in this fiscal year a total of about 120,000 people will receive adult occupational training in public institutions. The number will increase considerably in subsequent years. Until we have had more experience, I would not wish to predict the pace of the increase. But I would expect that in the foreseeable future the number of people trained in a year should rise to about 5 per cent of the labour force-which at present would mean over 350,000 persons.
I believe that we are moving into economic circumstances that make adult training on this large scale essential. It is the way to make our economy fully productive. It is the way to make the door to the affluent society open for the individual Canadian.
This bill creates the machinery to respond to the urgency of the need for adult training. I believe that the benefits, to our economy and to our people, will be very great indeed.
This bill has been waiting for some time to be considered; it has been waiting while hon. members discussed the unification bill. In order that the government should not be deprived of the opportunity to provide training, it has been necessary, since April 1, to supplement the program by regulations under the authority of interim supply.
During this period certain criticism has been made in press reports which may be
Occupational Training
causing some confusion as to the facts. I would like, therefore, to end by repeating this statement on the essential facts that the minister made yesterday:
Many more Canadians now have the opportunity for retraining for a better job. This is the effect of the program. It means that every person in Canada who has been out of school for more than a year can benefit from retraining. The federal government will pay the whole cost of occupational training for anyone who will be able as a result to do a better job. This includes immigrants equally with long-term residents and citizens.
The new program replaces previous arrangements under which retraining was available only to workers who were unemployed or who fitted various special categories.
In order to take training most adults must be provided with an income while training. This is fully covered in the federal program by means of training allowances. These allowances are a minimum of $35 a week and considerably more, up to $90 a week, for workers with dependants to support.
The only restriction on these allowances is that they are not to be used to compete with the school system. They are designed for retraining, not to make training a substitute for school. Therefore, to qualify for allowances as well as free training, a trainee must either have dependants or have been working or seeking work for the past three years.
These facts were made public in October at the last federal-provincial conference. It was made clear that there was nothing to prevent any province from offering allowances to younger people without dependants, if it so wishes.
From the start, the new program will train at least as many workers as the former program did. The federal government is providing larger funds, and as the provinces provide more facilities, an increasing number of people will benefit.
I believe I have nothing further to add at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before the parliamentary secretary sits down may I ask him a question about the regulations to which he referred once or twice in the body of his speech, and to which he made a more lengthy reference at the end. As the bill before us provides in clause 12 for regulations to be passed after the bill has been enacted, under what authority have the regulations been enacted prior to the passage of the bill?
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


John Carr Munro: My information, and I believe it is accurate, is that the details embodied in this legislation were sufficiently set out in the main estimates in such detail as to give the government authority to embody its program in regulations, in order that we might get it under way.

April 24, 1967
Occupational Training


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary a further question. Is he referring to vote No. 5 of the estimates of the Department of Manpower and Immigration for the current year? If he is, does he think there is any kind of detail there which would give authority for these regulations?


John Carr Munro: I believe that is what I am referring to. The point has been checked and we have been advised that there is sufficient authority for the regulations we have made. However, I will be happy to check this further.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It looks slippery to me.


Mr.   R.-E. Regimbal@Argenteuil-Deux-Mon-tagnes: May I say at the outset that we endorse what the parliamentary secretary has said as to the importance and urgency of this bill. As a matter of fact I think the record of the last two or three weeks will show that on several occasions we in the opposition tried in vain to get this item moved to the head of the order of business because we felt it was certainly much more urgent than the question of unification.
As we move into a new area of business, in the light of past experience with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Mar-chand) who has shown he can accept suggestions and advice even from the opposition benches, I am sure we can proceed with much more efficiency and make much better progress than was evident in connection with the unification bill.

Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) introduced the resolution preceding this Bill No. C-278 on March 3 last, I had the opportunity to congratulate him and the government on this step forward.
On behalf of my colleagues, I have no hesitation in renewing my encouragement and I trust that the minister will take into due consideration our few remarks during this debate.
Any discussion concerning the occupational training of adults affords us the welcome opportunity to look fully into this problem of prime importance for the development and progress of society with regard to future opportunities, challenges and needs.


In the course of his remarks on March 3, the minister stated:
This new program is an integral part of a national manpower policy whose basic purpose is to bring economic opportunity within the reach of Canadian workers.
This all sounds very good. It seems to imply that the government is ahead of the game and reaching forward with benevolent policies. I believe, though, that we must consider this as being the government's side of the story only. It was surely not the good heartedness of the government, its deep concern for the well-being of Canadian workers, which inspired the minister of manpower to prepare and introduce this bill. I believe that hon. gentlemen on the front benches opposite, as the government, and we, as members of parliament, are forced to consider this action as a matter of cold, economic necessity.
Our best economists and social scientists have long been urging all institutions responsible for this country's social development as well as for its educational policies to face the fact that as Canada emerges as a modern industrial society our old occupational structures must change, and change fast, if we are to remain competitive in the international market and retain the benefits of an affluent society.
Mr. Speaker, a technological society cannot come into its own or even develop satisfactorily unless opportunities are provided for all segments of the society to obtain higher and modern education. I will not attempt, for the time being, to invade the sacred area of formal education-I should like to remain in politics for a little while longer-but I am concerned by a forecast made by one scientist that in a highly industrialized society, one constantly in an atmosphere of progress and change, a man must anticipate four or five occupational changes in the course of a lifetime. Four or five such changes implies as many periods of readjustment or retraining.
It is difficult to deny or to ignore such a forecast, and this makes our responsibility as a parliament for finding forceful answers to these questions even greater than it would normally be. That is why we are anxious to see the present measure come forth for consideration in spite of weaknesses which it contains, weaknesses which can possibly be ironed out later.
In his introductory speech of March 3, the minister referred to the training allowances
April 24. 1967

act which provided greatly needed opportunities for training unemployed workers, together with a measure of financial assistance. This was, and remains a progressive piece of legislation and parliament had no hesitation in seeing it through, because it was timely. However, this should not prevent our calling attention to certain weaknesses which have shown up since its inception-weaknesses which might be avoided in the present case. I refer specifically to the fact that approximately one third of the budgeted amounts were not used. The people for whom the bill was enacted did not respond. Why?
I believe the simple answer is that the government and the department of manpower just did not bother to do the necessary research and prepare the groundwork so as to make sure that the measures they brought forward were those best suited to answer the needs. The same considerations apply to the measures proposed in Bill C-278. I believe no program of this magnitude and consequence should be put forward for enactment unless it has been preceded by an extensive and expert research program. No act which will affect millions of people in the days ahead and which will cost millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money can be accepted by this house unless the minister can explain on a basis of facts-dry facts and figures-that an effective adult education program is under way. The public must be made aware of its advantages. The interest of the people involved must be awakened so that they appreciate the value and necessity of further education, as well as the economic advantages of retraining to meet the requirements of an industrialized society.
When I mention the need for a research program I do not mean political research to find out what sounds best for the purpose of catching votes, but scientific research into ways and means of accomplishing specific ends.
Nowhere in his introductory remarks did the minister indicate, much less prove, that such a research program into adult education had been carried out. Yet without it we are heading for possibly failure. We have been given no indication that the minister or his department have done their homework before sitting the exam. The example is appropriate at this time of the year when our children are preparing for the year-end tests. We constantly remind them that if they do not do their homework they cannot expect promotion. By the same token, if we do not tell our children just how important a good education is, the
Occupational Training
number of drop-outs will inevitably increase. How can we expect to build a great society or, in the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), "a good society", on the basis of an increasing number of drop-outs or, in the present case, of adults who do not respond to these training opportunities. The government must have learned from its experience in connection with the training allowance act that human desires and needs cannot be met, nor human interest be awakened, by money or financial assistance alone. Yet most of the parliamentary secretary's remarks tonight centred around the idea of paying and paying for services.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
We will influence and interest people if we first convince them of the values and needs of education and training, through proper methods of communication between those who direct the economy, the planners, and those who execute, the workers. We know for instance that quite a number of federal departments are involved and have spent millions of dollars on research programs on social development. Just to mention a few, they are the Department of Forestry and the ARDA program, the Department of Industry, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and presumably, at least I hope so, the Department of Manpower and Immigration.
Has there been any co-ordination between these various programs? Have they gone their separate ways? Has one department relayed its information to the other? Has manpower sought out relevant information from the other departments? Have interested groups been consulted systematically to investigate real employment opportunities? Is there a followup program already prepared to shore up possible weaknesses or shortcomings if something goes wrong or if, once again, there is no public response?
I think, Mr. Speaker, we all agree that we must have the answers to these questions before we can be expected to support the bill. More questions come to mind. How many jobs must be filled? Some figures were given tonight. How were they arrived at? Are they guesswork, or scientific in their content? How many candidates are expected in the first, second and third years? Where are the jobs located? Are they concentrated in urban areas, or will people be directed to new areas where new opportunities are needed? Are the

April 24. 1967
Occupational Training
people involved willing to go where the opportunities are before they undertake retraining? Have these people said so, or is the department guessing again?
Have the provinces shown any response to the federal government's offer to lend money over a period of 30 years for building training facilities? What happens to those loans if facilities are put to other use after five or ten years? What is meant by the phrase "private training facilities" contained in the minister's speech of March 3? It is hoped, indeed it is essential that this information be given to members of the house before we are asked to approve Bill 278.
We know, Mr. Speaker, that the minister is particularly concerned with any form of discrimination, no matter where or how it is expressed. I would sincerely hope that training opportunities as implemented or developed through the Canada manpower centres will not be taxed with or accused of such discrimination because of poorly defined policies.
Another consideration which must occupy our minds in studying this bill is the very evident misunderstanding which already seems to exist between the provincial and federal governments as to the effects of discontinuing existing programs in favour of the present provisions in this bill. The case has been very clearly spelled out in an editorial feature in the Globe and Mail of Saturday, April 22, under the title "The Retraining Row," with appropriate subtitles such as, "Queens Park Points a Finger at Ottawa," and "Ottawa Points a Finger Right Back." I imagine, Mr. Speaker, other hon. members will draw your attention to this article so I shall not put it into the record, although it would be well worth the while and the time.
Basically, the problem that this controversy underlines is the fact that the manpower department could easily lose sight of the fact that, independently of this or that argument, the basic concerns here are manpower, the national economy and the industrial society. All of these are federal concerns which must be met. No exchange of letters will settle that, and I urge the minister to get into these discussions, personally and immediately, with the provincial authorities. Let his successful experiences of the past as a hard but sensible negotiator come to the rescue, because one thing is certain: If this plan does not work, whatever the reason, he will have to answer for it not only to himself and to his government but also to the population as a whole.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Listening to the parliamentary secretary this evening I was dismayed that I could detect no consideration on the part of the government for the objections to the basic principles contained in this bill which were enumerated when the bill was debated last March. I was one of the members of the joint committee dealing with the white paper on immigration which heard representations about the shortcomings in the white paper, pointed out by individual members in the committee and by organizations from one end of Canada to the other in hearings which lasted for many weeks. Members of the committee were happy, and complimented the minister on the fact that he was broadminded enough to listen to the representations that were made and to study them. Many of those representations pointed out defects in the white paper, and last week the minister came to the committee with a statement which in effect rewrote major provisions in the white paper, substituting for them much more sensible and humane provisions.
I too complimented the minister. That is why I find it hard to understand why he, who was able to be realistic and specific in reassessing the principles he had enunciated in the white paper, and who was able to change his mind and, in effect, propose a modified policy, should now tonight, through the parliamentary secretary, make a speech in which not one principle enunciated by him last March 3 has been changed, and in which not one of the detailed objections have been met. More important, Mr. Speaker, I find it hard to understand why none of the objections by the various provincial governments, which have had a great deal of experience with manpower training programs, has been dealt with by the parliamentary secretary. It is as though nothing has happened in the last few months; as though none of the objections had any weight. It is as though nobody knows anything but the minister and a few of his top officials and, as a result, the suggestion is that we are to go ahead and accept all the provisions of this bill whether we like them or not, or whether the provinces and the educators like them or not. Apparently the minister and a few other key officials have all the answers.
I want to reiterate what we said on March 3, that in our opinion this division which the government makes between education, as the government calls it, and manpower training, is a completely fictitious one. It is a division which will lead to untold and incalculable difficulties. I can only assume, Mr. Speaker,
April 24, 1967

that what we have here is the working out to the Nth degree of the principle which seems to have been adopted by the government, I suppose at the suggestion of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau), that Ottawa must not infringe on fields which are the responsibility of the provinces; and if one province objects, then Ottawa cannot make any arrangements with the other provinces.
This is a completely fallacious position and one which will lead from one difficulty to another. After all, Mr. Speaker, if the provinces are in the field of technical and vocational training today-and I think it is good that they are-it is because the former Conservative government brought in a technical vocational training act in 1961 under which more than $600 million was given in capital grants to the provinces by the federal government.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
As a result of this program there are in virtually every province in Canada effective technical and vocational training programs. Having co-operated with the federal government in a program which was urged on them by the federal government it is not surprising that the provinces not only have gone into these programs but have made plans to expand and continue them. The fact is, and I do not think there can be any question about it, that the provinces were met at the last federal-provincial conference by a unilateral decision on the part of the federal government to get out of the technical vocational program field. I should like to read a few lines from the statement at that conference by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand), where he said:
We are determined to get out of shared cost programs in education ... For us to be involved in the school system in the name of technical and vocational training inevitably introduces distortions ... Increasingly your decisions-
Meaning the decisions of the provinces.
-as to what to do are influenced by a natural desire to get as much as possible out of the programs of which we will pay 50 per cent.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the federal government which encouraged the provinces to get into the technical vocational training field should be criticized for having framed that program. Indeed the federal government should be commended for this, because I think it is a very great advance in educating the young people of this country in
Occupational Training
ways which they will find useful. Later in the same statement the minister said:
So, unless you are prepared to argue that we should have the permanent influence on your programs that shared-cost arrangements give us, I suggest that you must accept the principle of our withdrawal.
On March 3 I said, and I now say again, that this withdrawal is a disaster for the people of Canada, for the young people who wish to leave school, and for those who will need to be retrained. I believe that rather than get out of the shared program in the field of technical and vocational training the federal government should expand its role. We have this unilateral decision to get out and as a result of that we have the draft of a program, the regulations for which most of us until recently and some of us until today have not had an opportunity to look at. I am informed that it is true not only in respect of the province of Ontario but also the province of Manitoba that the entire decision to get out-not only the principle, but the details of the program which is now before us and which will be carried on as a result of the implementation of this bill-was worked out unilaterally by the federal government and by the department of manpower. I am informed there were no consultations with the provinces. Because of the fact that the province of Ontario is the largest and most industrially oriented province, and I am quite sure has the most successful technical and vocational training program in the country, it is not surprising, as reported in the Toronto Globe and Mail, that the minister of education of the province of Ontario asked to see the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to discuss the new program, the details in respect of it, and some of the problems which will arise and which are arising as a result of the change in the program.
The Minister of Manpower and Immigration, however, could not find the time to meet with the minister of education of the province of Ontario. Well, I do not suppose it is my function to tell the minister what his job is, but I think that had he spoken at a few less Liberal party meetings and had met with the minister, we might have been a little further ahead. I understand that the Canadian Association for Adult Education asked the minister for a meeting so that they could discuss this matter with him. I believe they have a technical and vocational committee which is interested. They could not arrange a meeting with him. He was too busy.

April 24, 1967
Occupational Training
The result of this is that in every province questions are being asked. Rather than expose us to the dry, dull dreary statement which the parliamentary secretary gave us tonight, it would have been better had the minister dealt with the suggestions which are listed in an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail of Saturday, which was referred to by the previous speaker from the official opposition. It may be that those objections are not correct, but the article in the Globe and Mail of last Saturday and its article of last Thursday quoted officials of the federal department, who are supposed to implement the program, as saying completely contradictory things in respect of how this program will work.
I should like to quote from the Globe and Mail of April 20:
L.F.D. Coulson, Ontario assistant director, Canada Department of Manpower and Immigration, admitted the regulations were a "semi-fait accompli" and that there was confusion over them.
He said the manpower department would give an extremely broad interpretation to what constituted three years continuous work experience.
He said it would include a housewife of three years.
In other words, a woman who had not worked but who had been a housewife for three years, in the opinion of Mr. Coulson, would be able to participate in the retraining grant. The article goes on to say, however:
An Ottawa spokesman for the department said a housewife's duties would not likely be considered labour force experience.
If the officials in the department do not know what the program is and how the regulations will be implemented, is it any wonder that there is consternation, and indeed that there is a panic among the provincial authorities who have been operating the manpower training programs since 1961. What are some of the difficulties? I shall deal with a few of the many difficulties which I am sure will face us when we are dealing with the bill clause by clause, and even more so when we study the regulations which have been implemented and which, as stated by my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), were brought about in a pretty slippery way.
What do we find in the new regulations? The key point is that they exclude from the allowances any person under age 17 and any single person over 17 with fewer than three years working experience. I suggest that this is complete nonsense. We might take the example of a person who leaves high school. I am not too concerned about whether he
[Mr. Orlikow.J
finishes high school and receives a diploma, whether the existing curriculum in the high school does not fit his needs, or that he leaves for reasons of his own. Surely it does not make sense that we should say to such a youngster who is 17, 18 or 19 years of age that he cannot attend one of these manpower retraining centres now, that he cannot receive a living allowance now, and that he must go out and find work such as sweeping floors, or do anything-even be unemployed.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
According to the provisions of this bill one must be unemployed for a substantial period of time before being eligible. During this time of unemployment these young individuals may become married and start to raise families. At that time, when they are living on their own with their families, we then all of a sudden become happy to allow them to attend our retraining centres. Then we must not only pay for the retraining, we must pay a living allowance. What earthly sense can there be in that kind of artificial approach?
Surely what we must do is encourage everyone who wants to increase his ability to perform a job which requires a skill to do so as quickly as possible. By imposing this kind of penalty we are being unfair to the young people concerned. As a result of this attitude yve will suffer a great economic loss in this country.
This bill is discriminatory against women. The present government has appointed a royal commission to study the status of women. Many women who married early have children and have not been part of the working force for many years. At the age of 35 or 40 their children have become more or less independent and they may wish to go back to work. Under the provisions of this bill women who have not been in the working force will not qualify for admission to our retraining centres. That is not only a disadvantage to the country, because of a waste of potentially productive capacity, it is discriminatory against those individuals.
When we reach our clause by clause study of this bill we must consider carefully that portion relating to training programs in industry. I do not criticize industrial training programs, indeed I suggest they are not now numerous enough. Industry should be encouraged to participate in those schemes which will upgrade their employees' skills. Nothing in these provisions spells out the type of program in respect of which grants will be made by the federal government, nor do they
April 24, 1967

indicate the amount of money envisaged by the government to be allocated toward the cost of these industrial programs. It is conceivable that several large companies, and I think specifically of the railway companies, Air Canada and Bell Telephone, may devise programs which could use up the total amount of federal government money allocated under the provisions of this bill for the coming year. I am not suggesting that would be wrong in principle, but nothing is set out in the bill, and nothing has been said by the parliamentary secretary, which would indicate the relationship between the amount of money available and the number of programs involved for this type of program, and the total for all programs.
I was surprised that the parliamentary secretary, who represents a constituency in the city of Hamilton, with a large number of immigrants did not deal with the subject matter of concern expressed by the province of Ontario, the city of Toronto and other provinces. This matter was referred to by the Toronto chairman of the metropolitan board of education in an article which appeared in today's Toronto Globe and Mail. He took very strong exception to what he considers to be a clear indication in this bill, that the immigrants that have come to Canada in large numbers, and who will be coming to Canada during the next year or two, will be very sharply curtailed so far as their right to attend these training centres is concerned. This is true because of the requirement that individuals must have been available for employment for a period of three years prior to their qualification for inclusion in this program.
The board of education in Toronto is spending $1,500,000 this year to teach immigrant adults and children to speak English. In light of that effort by the city of Toronto and similar efforts on the part of cities such as Winnipeg, which I happen to represent, it seems very strange that the federal government should embark on a program which will not be available to those individuals who require training. Obviously that is the case, unless there are regulations in respect of this bill which members of this house and officials of the provinces have not seen or understood.


John Carr Munro: Would the hon. member permit a question in respect of the article which appeared in the paper this morning? Did he also read the minister's statement in the same issue, in which it was stated that it has been 23033-965
Occupational Training
known for months that the provision regarding three years in the working force would not be prejudicial to immigrants, in that the years they had worked prior to coming here would also count?


David Orlikow: I wonder why the parliamentary secretary finds it necessary to get up at 10 minutes after 9 p.m. on Monday, April 24, to tell a backbencher from the city of Winnipeg that this has been known for months, in light of the fact that provincial officials have been trying for some time to discuss this matter with the federal Minister of Manpower and Immigration. If this fact has been known for months, why is it that the Ontario provincial minister of education has not known about it? Why is it that the chairman of the Toronto metropolitan board of education has not known about it, and why did the minister have to issue a press statement yesterday apprising interested parties of this fact? Why were these things not discussed in detail with provincial officials?
Some people have suggested that the New Democratic party developed the expression "co-operative federalism". In any event the government has adopted this phrase as an expression of its policy. In spite of that fact this federal government states that this is what it intends to do and the provinces must accept it or leave it. To my way of thinking co-operative federalism in this field suggests that the federal government should say that this is what it thinks ought to be done, and then ask the provinces to discuss the situation. Surely this is true when we are dealing with a program such as this initiated by the federal government.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
It is not surprising to me that provincial governments are looking with a good deal of scepticism and a good deal of concern at shared cost programs, because it is pretty easy for the federal government to say to the provinces: We are prepared to pay half of the costs if you will come into this with us. Very often the provinces think it is a good idea, particularly when the federal government is going to help pay for the costs. However, if at some time in the future, one, two or five years later, the federal government decides suddenly and on its own that it is going to get out and let the provinces carry the burden, a burden which may well run into hundreds of millions of dollars, it is not surprising to me that some provincial governments might say: Under the circumstances and in the light

April 24, 1967
Occupational Training
of past experience we are not going to go ahead with this. At present this does not seem likely but it would not surprise me very much if in view of the way this problem has been handled the provinces said to the federal government: We are afraid to go into the medicare plan because although you might agree now to pay 50 per cent of the costs, three or five years from now you might say that health is a provincial matter and leave it to us to handle on our own. I am not saying the federal government has done this, and I for one would certainly have been sorry if they had done it. I am glad that nearly every province has indicated it is going into the medicare plan. However, as regards this decision on technical-vocational training made, as I said and I know I am right, without any consultation with the provinces, both with regard to the principle and to the details, it is not surprising that, to say the least, the provinces are very unhappy with the present situation. I urge the Minister of Manpower and Immigration-who is not here today, and I will not be too critical because I know that none of us expected this debate to begin tonight-to follow the example he set in the white paper on immigration. It is not too late. I do not think anyone will quarrel with the expansion of the program, although as I said earlier I think the division between education and manpower training is an artificial one which does not really exist.
Nevertheless, it is not too late for the federal government and for the department to sit down with the provinces, to go over the objections which they might have, to try to meet these objections, and to work out a program which will not only be accepted by the provinces, because they have no choice -after all the provinces are interested in getting as much financial assistance from the federal government as they can in this program as in every other program-but to work out a program which will meet the legitimate doubts, fears and objections of the provinces because, with all due respect to the officials in the federal department-and I know there are some very competent people there-they are not the ones who have had the experience in the field of educating young people or retraining older people for jobs. Who has had the most experience in this field? It is the provincial departments of education, the boards of education and the schoolboards in larger cities such as Toronto, Hamilton, Vancouver, Winnipeg, Calgary and Edmonton.
[Mr. Orlikow.l
It seems to me that the experience of these agencies and bodies, their know-how regarding what mistakes we should not and need not make, has been completely ignored, according to information which I have. Not only has it been ignored but apparently it has been rejected by the federal department.
I will say again in closing that it is not too late for the minister and for his department to take the time to discuss the details of the program and how it is to work with the provinces and with the people who are working in the field. Right here in Ottawa there are people who have had a great deal of experience in adult retraining. They have not been consulted. The same is true in Toronto and other places. I suggest to the minister, before we get much further with the bill, that he and his officials take the time to sit down with the interested agencies and get advice from them, so that the program can be improved.


John Carr Munro: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question before he concludes his speech. I do not think he would want to leave a misleading impression. I think he indicated the bill discriminates against women. It certainly does not; they are treated the same way as Canadian men. If they are over 17, they can get training. Of course they have no income while they are training if they are supported by their husbands, but if they have dependent children, they get allowances. This applies to immigrants. All of them are treated exactly alike under the bill. I think this should be made clear.


David Orlikow: I do not think this was a question, but I will not make another speech. If these things which the parliamentary secretary mentioned are true, then I say what I said a little earlier, that it is amazing that the provinces and the cities which have worked in this field simply do not know it is so. Women who have not been working and are thinking about working are concerned about whether they will qualify.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: I think the parliamentary secretary should act in accordance with the rules of procedure. He has not asked a question. I think any further observations on the bill should be made in the committee.
April 24, 1967



[DOT] (9.20 p.m.)


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on Bill No. C-278, although I have not yet had time to read it and our leader would have been far more able than I to comment on it generally. Still, it is obvious at first glance, that this bill will certainly give rise to several questions, will lead to discussions, not only while under study but even more so when it is implemented.
A while ago, I heard the previous speaker who, naturally enough, spoke as a socialist. He probably would have like the federal government to take over the whole field and manage it as it sees fit. But we, who are not of that opinion at all, and who are here first of all to protect the interests of the provinces in their fields of jurisdiction, ask whether the minister first consulted the provinces when he considered introducing this bill. I wonder whether this bill is not again the work of federal bureaucracy coming to the provinces and telling them: Here is a bill we have drafted; you may either accept it or reject it. If you accept it, you will derive some benefits; if you reject it, you will get nothing at all.
I believe that if the minister had been consistent before bringing in such a bill, he would have invited the representatives of the different provinces, during federal-provincial conferences, to give serious consideration to the legislation, in view of the fact that this is another one of those shared costs fields, in which provinces are as much interested as, if not more so, than the federal government. It seems to me that it would have been highly logical for the minister to consult the provincial representatives before starting out to draft such a bill.
Personally, we are wondering if Quebec will accept once again the conditions laid down by the federal government under this bill.
As usual, though, the federal government comes in through the back door. It reminds me somewhat of that man who under the pretext of bringing a box of matches to the woman of the house who needs them, puts the whole house on Are once inside.
I feel that if the federal government truly recognizes that education comes under provincial jurisdiction, it should leave it to the provinces. It should give back to them the means to administer those fields; it should 23033-9651
Occupational Training
first of all withdraw from their taxation field because it is another excuse for levying another tax. It should withdraw from provincial taxation fields and give back to the provinces in all fairness what belongs to them. Then, Mr. Speaker, it will be seen that the provinces are just as able as the federal government to give the required and appropriate education to their people.
Here, it is said that the provinces will be consulted in due course on such projects; but when the government for instance, is dealing with the employers on their relations with their employees, I wonder whether the provinces will have a word to say or whether the federal government will deal directly with the employers, with the large companies anxious to have their manpower trained in certain skills.
In this regard, if during consideration of this clause, we realize that the provincial governments will not be consulted when the question dealing with the employers arises, we shall certainly be opposed. We will not be in a position to accept such a clause and we will object to the federal government dealing directly with an employer, whatever his importance may be.
As far as assistance is concerned, it seems to me that, according to the bill, this will consist in paying for the training. But there all kinds of additional expenses, for instance, rental of premises, school construction, as mentioned further in the bill, purchase of equipment, etc.
I wonder whether, after all, the provinces will not be contributing the lion's share once again. And the federal government will say: Well, we have given you such and such a thing. But the provinces and their citizens will be paying three times the value of what they will have received. We find that the federal government is willing to grant or rather to guarantee the loans made to provinces to enable them to build facilities and schools, give those courses and buy equipment, but it will still be the provinces, since the federal government is no longer able to borrow money, which will borrow for a period of 20, 25 or 30 years and will once again be burdened with those debts from which, the federal government will perhaps have taken 50 per cent of its funds, while saying: We are the ones who have paid for those buildings.
A bill such as this, Mr. Speaker, always; seems to bring on new taxes. That is the reason why we are asking so many questions^

April 24, 1967
Occupational Training
We are well aware, looking at the history of the various governments which succeeded one another here, that when a government wants to help the people, it promises them two dollars but extorts five from them.
These are the points which we wished to call to the attention of the minister. We will keep our eyes open in order to see what advantages the Canadian people will reap from this. I am one hundred per cent in favour of training, but if the country does not benefit from this training, we shall have to think twice about it. I say that because precisely I received letters, four or five letters from young people and adults in my riding who after having attended refresher courses last winter or two years ago, have been unable to get a job. They cannot find a job, even with their competency card. It is very well to have 90 per cent of the population educated but it is better to have 100 per cent of the people employed.
Everyone knows that despite all our efforts in the field of education, our young people are deserting the province of Quebec which pays for their instruction, their education. In fact, one thousand, fifteen hundred and even two thousand technicians are leaving every year for our neighbour country to earn their living, after we have defrayed 100 per cent of the cost of their education and training.
In addition to this proposed training, which is good by the way, as long as we remain within the limits of delegated powers, my contention is that the government should also take into account those who are going to graduate, in order to provide them with a job on the day after they obtain their certificate.
Mr. Speaker, we will certainly have further comments to make, as we examine this bill clause by clause, but I simply want to warn the government that it should not act like in the past, in short this should not be another opportunity to intrude a little further in matters of provincial jurisdiction.


Howard Earl Johnston: One becomes a bit pessimistic of these opening statements on second readings of bills, Mr. Speaker, that are presented with considerable flourish and skill, along with promises of a new world beginning with the passing of legislation in whatever area may be the subject matter of the bill. When one examines this bill, it becomes clear why the premier of British Columbia objected to the

dropping of the shared cost programs following the last federal-provincial fiscal conference. There is one thing about a shared cost program; it becomes a little difficult to sort out who pays for what. I suppose that in some ways it is more desirable for the federal government to announce that they are going directly into the field of adult education, because it does become more apparent how large or how small is their contribution in that particular area.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
We know that the premier of British Columbia is not alone in his concern about the changeover from shared cost programs to this type of program. For we are told that eight out of the ten provinces involved have already told the federal government that there will be serious difficulty with the bill that is before us this evening. Why should we be optimistic about the bill, Mr. Speaker, in view of the gaps that developed in the implementation of the Canada Assistance Plan? Why should we be optimistic about what is going to happen with adult education in view of some of the gaps that are developing in the implementation of the guaranteed annual income program in so far as it ties in, or rather fails to tie in, with the Canada Assistance Plan? For example, some of the funds for this program are being borrowed from the War Veterans Allowance Act, instead of being provided under the guaranteed annual income program.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern about this legislation that has been brought to my attention in a letter from the secretary-treasurer of the board of trustees for school district No. 22 at Vernon, British Columbia. In a letter addressed to Hon. L,. R. Peterson, the minister of education at Victoria, they express very great concern over the problems created at the local level by the passing of Bill No. C-278. They go on to say:
With the withdrawal of grants in aid for vocational and upgrading courses it is practically impossible to provide courses of this nature at a fee that the general public can afford to pay.
We would therefore urge the provincial government to continue the system of grants for vocational courses being offered through our adult education department as has been done in the past.
At the moment, Mr. Speaker, neither the minister in British Columbia nor the minister in any other province can answer this letter because the bill has not been passed. However, I am sure that after we do pass it provincial ministers will still have great
April 24, 1967

difficulty in answering any similar letter to this, as they await the implementation of the various clauses in this bill. Again I see very little cause for optimism, that the transition from the previous vocational training subsidies paid by the federal government to the payments provided under this legislation will be smooth.
I feel that the provisions in this legislation dealing with the classification and ages of adults show a serious lack of concern for, or knowledge of, the school rhythm as pupils move through from the system. It is common practice across this country to set the age of 15 as that at which compulsory education ends. The age may be raised to 16 in some provinces, though by no means in every province in Canada.
Anyone who has worked in a school, Mr. Speaker, knows that a great many who become eligible for this kind of program are just waiting for the day when they can leave school. This is not necessarily a criticism of the school system; it is in a way a fact of life. They wait for this day, and by the time they are 15, many of them have been waiting nine years until the day they could leave, at 15. It is not going to mean anything to these people when you tell them; "Perhaps you had better not leave yet, because if you leave now you will not be considered an adult by the federal government; you will have to wait three years. Therefore you had better stay in the school system for another three years".
Despite the hopes of the department of manpower in presenting this bill, I am aware that this sort of admonition to the teenager who has waited seven, eight or nine years to leave school will not be sufficient to retain him in the ordinary school system for a further three years, and he will leave regardless.
One of the previous speakers referred to the only road that opens up to early admission into the program. The teenagers of this country will need neither the previous speaker nor myself to tell them that they can quickly find a way out; that if they happen to have someone wholly or substantially dependant upon them for support they will then be able to qualify.
Although I think it is very much the role of the federal government to concern itself with adult education and with vocational training, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is the role of the federal government openly to encourage early marriage, as this bill does. I think all of the family planners, juvenile courts and
Occupational Training
school counsellors across this country are united in their efforts to postpone early marriage for any of these people. Yet we have in this bill a policy which these people will be very quick to see enables them to qualify for the program two years and three months sooner than they would otherwise have qualified for retraining assistance.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, these teenagers would not even need to move away from home. We already know that many of these early marriages are supported in part by the parents of the young people involved. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, there is built into the bill the incentive to marry early in this country.
We might also ask why the legislation does not spell out a little more clearly that private training courses will be used fully as well as the public school system. This is an area of education which private enterprise began to develop very early in Canada, and developed to a very great extent. There are many occupational groups which are served entirely, or virtually entirely, by private training schools. I think of hairdressing as one example, and there is of course the business field. There is tremendous involvement on the part of private enterprise there.
The Association of Canadian Commercial Colleges is not satisfied with the provisions of this bill as they have been announced. They would like some emendation so as to include the idea that it is highly desirable to employ the resources of the private sector of the economy of Canada in all such efforts to further the policy of this bill. In spite of the reassurances given by the parliamentary secretary this evening, I think it would be of interest to this group and to the members of this house to have these reassurances spelt out a little more clearly.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Again, Mr. Speaker, why should we be optimistic about this government's concern for private enterprise in view of the problems which will be created with the proposed future implementation of the medicare scheme? Why should we be optimistic when we know that this government's attitude to private enterprise has been that private enterprise is either an unmitigated evil, or at best a necessary evil? Why should these schools find any reassurance in the bill presently before us?
Another area of legislation concerns me very much. It is that part to be found in clause 13 of the bill which reads:
Where a person has received a training allowance to which he is not entitled or a training

April 24, 1967
Occupational Training
allowance in an amount in excess of the training allowance to which he is entitled, the amount thereof or the excess amount, as the case may be, may be recovered at any time as a debt due to Her Majesty or may be retained, in whole or in part, out of any subsequent amount payable to that person as a training allowance.
Why should we be optimistic about what will happen once this bill is implemented, considering what happened under the old age security legislation and the War Veterans Allowance Act. This government has persistently gone after people who through no fault of their own have received overpayments. What criteria will be used to recover repayments made under retraining courses? Will a person be charged with having accepted an overpayment if, through no fault of his own, he is forced to drop out?
Worse than that, will the government inveigle people to come back and finish their courses, that the overpayment paid to them may in some mysterious way be recovered? Will the strange system of bookkeeping be used by which the government imagines that by providing courses and withholding part of its allowances it will in some strange way recover overpayments?
It would be better if in the future we could introduce in this country a system of primary education that, beginning with kindergarten levels, will make sure that the education given to people is effective education. We ought to find ways and means to encourage the right people to take up teaching; we ought to have great numbers of the right sorts of teachers, that our young people beginning .school may not be frustrated, may not be short changed, but may receive a sound foundation in education. By doing that we should reduce the need for the type of retraining programs that affect people later in life.


Mr, J. Chester MacRae (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I enter this debate to discuss the important measure before us. As my colleague, the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Regimbal) said a little earlier in the debate, the government might be criticized on the ground that seven weeks have passed since Bill C-278 was introduced. This is one of the most important measures to have come before this house for a good many years because it deals with the lives of so many of our citizens.
Before proceeding with my remarks I wish to commend the former minister of labour, the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr), for the very fine and constructive measure he

introduced when he was minister, the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act. In doing my homework for this speech I read the minister's speeches on this subject, and I thought they were excellent.
It is easy to understand why this measure is before us. The effects of technological change are being felt more and more every year. Recently, when somebody commented on the year that has just passed, 1966, he said that it would be known in years to come as the year of the strikes. We had many crippling strikes in this country last year. Some of those were for higher wages, some were caused by union rivalry but it seems to me that in no small measure many strikes were caused by something not so evident, that is, unrest and the fear of working men who see that their skills are no longer in demand. It is tragic to see men who for many years have worked well with their hands being told one day that they are not wanted. Many of those men have families.
When I was home during this past week end I saw a delegation of railwaymen who were deeply concerned because two trains were being taken off the Canadian National Railway. It was the old story: More can be done with the big diesels than ever could be done in the days of steam. One man told me that he had worked on the railway for 26 years, had six children, and had been laid off. He would not be able to find steady work. This sort of thing causes a feeling of unrest among our workingmen, and that in turn causes some strikes.
Let me talk of automation. I was born on a farm, and as a young man I can well remember how lumbering was carried on. Of course the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming) one of the most proficient lumbermen in eastern Canada is more competent to speak on lumbering than I am. In my boyhood it took two men with a cross-cut saw to cut down a tree. A few years later came the chain saw enabling one man to do three or four or five times the work that a man with the cross-cut saw had done. Tractors replaced horses; and so it went. Men who were in demand on the railroad and lumbering industries are being told that there are no more jobs for them.
We in the House of Commons are on the mailing list for every publication, probably, in the country. In a recent issue of the Ontario Logger magazine, an article said that one man operating a logging machine which had taken ten years to develop and which cost a third of a million of dollars could do as
April 24, 1967

much work as scores of men had done previously.
All that the operator, who is enclosed in an air conditioned cab-and that is a far cry from the old conditions-has to do is to select the trees. The machine will remove the bark, limb the tree, cut it into eight foot lengths and stack them along the road. One man with one of these machines can do in one hour what it would have taken more than 20 hours to do with a chain saw. There we have an example of what has happened in a basic industry.
I am interested in this measure because I am a teacher in the field of technical and vocational training, and this bill deals with that subject. A few years ago I took part in an interesting experiment in the retraining of workers. In my constituency there is a cotton milling town named Marysville. Some 12 or 15 years ago, due I believe to financial difficulties encountered by the parent company, the mill was closed and many workers were thrown out of employment. This mill had been in operation for almost 100 years and generations had worked in it. When their employment ceased they had no skills except those of cotton workers.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
The minister of labour at that time was Hon. Milton Gregg, V.C. who represented my constituency. Later he became a political opponent, although we have always remained the closest of friends. He arranged with private industry and the department of education of the province of New Brunswick to retrain these people who had lost their jobs in the mill. I personally took some 30 or 40-I forget the exact number-and retrained them in office skills. The scheme worked very well. Unfortunately, a few of them did not have the necessary basic education, and this was the only reason they did not succeed. The rest worked hard at their courses and the great majority of them are still working, using the skills in which they were trained at that time.
It is impressed upon us every time the subject of education arises that education is a provincial matter under the terms of the British North America Act. The province from which the minister comes, the province of Quebec, which is also the province of my birth, is more conscious of this particular right than any of the others, and guards it more jealously. But I have reached the conclusion with the passing of the years that when we rewrite our constitution, as eventually we shall have to do, this is a situation which we
Occupational Training
shall have to change to some extent. In 1867 when this nation was formed people travelled very little. They grew up, married and died, not more than a few miles from the village in which they had been born. Now we travel back and forth across this continent in a few hours. A few years ago I taught a student, a soldier's daughter, who in the course of 12 years had gone to 15 different schools. It is surprising that this child had done so well in her studies. If we are to have ten systems of education it will be necessary to find some way of co-ordinating education in this country of ours.
I wish now to make a plea on behalf of a very special group of educators who are interested in this measure. The hon. member who spoke before me, the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. Johnston) raised this matter and I should like to elaborate on it. When he was presenting the minister's statement this evening the parliamentary secretary told us that the facilities offered by private educators would be used in connection with this measure. The hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke drew attention to the fact that there is in this country a very special group of private educators, the private business school people. Several hundred of them are meeting here in May and bringing distinguished educators from Britain and from the United States to their convention. I want to put the following facts on record for the benefit of the minister, his parliamentary secretary and those who are doing the work of the department.
The private business colleges of this country can do, and have been doing for more than a hundred years, a completely efficient job in the field of adult training and retraining. Many members of this House of Commons in the course of achieving an education have gone to private business schools to learn the business skills. Business colleges are established throughout this country and are grouped in an association known as the Association of Canadian Commercial Colleges. They are very much aware of the problems involved in adult education and are able to adjust quickly to solving them. Many of them are already participating in program five training, that is, the training of the unemployed. The minister told us the federal government will pay the cost of training all adults in occupational training courses not operated by the province or an employer. This is the point in which I am very interested and in which the private business schools are interested. These colleges have the plant

April 24, 1967
Occupational Training
and equipment available, and they also have the staff capable of undertaking these services.
Most of them are small, and this makes for flexibility; they can meet the needs of the students more effectively. They are open 12 months of the -year. They hold both day and evening classes in addition to summer schools and Saturday morning classes. Business colleges can do a more effective job in this field than public schools can, because their overhead costs are lower. I say this with some authority because I have worked both in public schools and in private business schools in my own province.
I feel strongly that the government should use existing facilities of these private schools in the development of its program under this act. The admission of the private sector could affect the very existence of the private schools. It is true that education is a provincial matter, but the federal government is not intruding upon the education field as far as the young are concerned; it is adults who are to be trained. Again, the federal government is paying the cost and it seems to me only reasonable that in these circumstances it should be able and willing to direct.
There is nothing wrong about the government purchasing the services of private enterprise in connection with any endeavour upon which it has embarked. As a believer in free enterprise I am of the opinion that the more we use free enterprise, the better it is for this nation. I should like to suggest to the minister that in the regulations related to this measure he should incorporate the following principles. First, it is the sense of this legislation that it is highly desirable to employ the resources of the private sector of the economy of Canada in all efforts to further the policy expressed in this bill. Second, that in this respect the participation of private enterprise may be procured. Third, that the director and the heads of any federal departments or agencies to which the conduct of programs described in this act have been delegated shall take such steps as may be desirable and appropriate to ensure that the resources of private enterprise are employed to the maximum feasible extent in the programs described in this bill.
I am serving notice to the parliamentary secretary that in committee of the whole I will introduce an amendment to one of the clauses along these lines.
We realize that in the private school field there are some schools which are not doing a
[Mr. MacRae.l
good job. But there are many hundreds of these schools which are doing very well indeed. I could name many of them in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario-indeed, in every province. But naming one or two would be unfair to the others. The minister will have heard of them and I am sure other members of the house know about them because they have spoken to me with regard to them on many occasions.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
I would refer again to the question of accreditation. For the most part private schools operate under the jurisdiction of the trade schools acts in the various provinces. I know this is the case in my own province of New Brunswick. In the case of Ontario and many other provinces exactly the same situation exists. Where schools operate under a trade schools act they must be accredited and they are thoroughly supervised by the province. I see, Mr. Speaker, my time is up for today. I would hope to continue when we return to this particular measure and I advise the parliamentary secretary that I will be introducing an amendment at the appropriate stage.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if the house leader would inform us about the business for tomorrow?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we would start with the third reading of Bill C-243 and, if that is concluded, we would continue the discussion of Bill C-278. Then we have the interim supply bill and the rules, in that order. There are one or two other items on the order paper that members should be ready for on very short notice.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, since the time allotted to us under the rules at this point is very limited I shall deal with this question as quickly as possible. On April 3 I addressed the following question to the Minister of
April 24, 1967

Veterans Affairs (Mr. Teillet), as recorded at page 14421 of Hansard:
Is the hon. gentleman aware of the charges and accusations that have been made that legitimate, pensionable veterans have been refused bed space in the Camp Hill Hospital while merchant seamen from Canada and other countries are occupying beds? Will he investigate this matter?
The minister replied:
I have certainly not heard of this. I will look into it but I very much doubt the accuracy of that report.
I followed this up with a question to the acting minister on April 5, which he took as notice. On April 10 I again brought it to the attention of the Minister of Veterans Affairs and he very kindly stated that he was having an investigation carried out regarding a particular case. At that point I brought to his attention the fact that the hospital director, Dr. C. J. MacDonald, according to a report in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of Wednesday, April 5, even before the minister had a chance to report to the house, had given this statement to the press:
"Veterans have always had priority of admission *-and always will have," he said. "In fact, we have never found it necessary to refuse admission to anybody. While we have been short of beds, we have never been without them."
So apparently all these complaints I have received mean only one thing, that everybody is out of step but Charlie. Again the minister very kindly on April 19 gave a somewhat similar reply, and at that time I indicated I would like to deal with the question at the adjournment of the house, under the rules, which I am now doing.
This problem was first brought to my attention by a veteran in the town of Sydney Mines, and I would like to put his letter on record. I might say that he is a 100 per cent pensioner. His letter reads:
Having been a pensioner for a number of years, and going back and forth to Camp Hill up until 1960, and receiving good treatment, on March 7th of this year I had need to go to Camp Hill hospital for treatment. But on word from the D.V.A. doctor in Sydney, Dr. Ross, that there were no beds for me in Camp Hill, I finally told him I had to go. He then told me to go and when I reached there, the same story would be related to me of no beds.
After a lot of discussion and dickering, I finally received a bed.
When I was able to move about, I found out that if you are not a veteran you will receive a bed more promptly than a veteran.
In one room there were three Russians, Turks, Spaniards, and to top it all, Chinese doctors that were almost impossible to understand. I don't think this is one bit fair to a veteran. The country 23033-966
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
doesn't owe us everything but at least we should be provided with a place to die in peace.
We were, at one time, proud of our hospital until we were sold down the river by someone.
Will you please let me know if we have any right to a bed in what used to be our hospital, or not, and what priority we have.
Enos Ashe,
136 Fraser Avenue, Sydney Mines, N.S.
Incidentally that gentleman is a member of the town council of Sydney Mines and is quite prepared to appear before the minister, or any inquiry at any place, at any time, to support his statements.
Following this I received a letter from Wilbert Hupman of R. R. 1, Port Mouton, Queens County, Nova Scotia. It is as follows:
Dear Sir, I am writing you re your statement in the Commons concerning veterans in Camp Hill. This is 100 per cent true in some cases as it happened to me also. I do not believe in unnecessarily complaining, but this is carrying things very recklessly and if	it	keeps	up	where can aveteran turn for help.	I	was more	than pleasedthat someone brought	this to	the	attention ofthose responsible and	I	have	also	written the
veterans minister. In closing I wish to thank you for bringing this to light.
Then I should like to quote this portion of a letter from a person named Lawrence Walker of Summerville, Hants County, Nova Scotia:
I am a veteran of two wars. I thought Camp Hill was established for us, but I find it half full of fishermen.
Further on in the letter he says:
What to my mind is needed is a board of inquiry where we can testify to what is going on.
I also note this letter to the editor, from one Bernard O'Neil of Digby:
Sir: Having just arrived home from Camp Hill Hospital I should like to make some comments about the hospital as I observed it while I was there for about a week.
First of all, I feel that veterans who served their country in time of war are not getting a fair shake at Camp Hill.
While it may be true that veterans are not refused, they certainly get deferred, sometimes for a month.
In my own case an attempt was made to defer me, but my local doctor pressed the matter and I was admitted.
When I arrived in Camp Hill I found that there were a number of beds empty. Also I discovered that there were a number of compensation cases who were not veterans, who were patients in the hospital.
I was also told that beds were being occupied by marine insurance cases, also non-veterans.
As far as treatment and care are concerned, I feel that there is insufficient staff, particularly medical staff, at Camp Hill. The doctors are definitely overworked and sometimes cannot get

April 24, 1967
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion to examine or treat the patient until he has been in hospital tor several days.
In my own case, I was at Camp Hill for four days before I was examined. My bed went unmade for two days even though I asked to have it made.
Although I am a D-Day veteran and served overseas until V-E Day and am also a pensioner, I was advised I would have to pay a fee for doctors' services while at Camp Hill. I understand this fee is based on patient earnings and is a custom which has only recently been instituted.
I do want to say in defence of Camp Hill that the food was very good while I was there and the staff was most friendly and kind, even though badly overworked.
Here again everybody is out of step but Charlie.
I have here a clipping from the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of April 8, 1967. The heading is "DVA Is Criticized at Legion Zone Meeting" and it is as follows:
The Department of Veterans Affairs was criticized at a meeting of Zone 12, Canadian Legion, in Clark's Harbour, presided over by zone commander John Freeman, of Sable River.
With delegates in attendance from Yarmouth to Lockeport, Comrade Freeman was critical of Camp Hill DVA for not sending a representative to this important meeting, which was concerned with obtaining information on pensions and treatment.
Then further on:
Several veterans told of being released from Camp Hill Hospital without, what they claimed to be, proper justice.
In conclusion Mr. Brown urged branches to send delegates to the Sydney Convention.
Mr. Speaker, all I ask the minister, who has been very courteous, is whether he would refer this matter to the standing committee on veterans affairs, and then if everything is in order, as suggested by the minister and the doctor in charge of the hospital, no one has anything to worry about. I would suggest that this would be the way to clear up the matter once and for all.


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veierans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I accept unreservedly the attitude of the hon. member; that is, he is interested in the welfare of our veterans of Canada and the presentation he is making this evening is simply in an effort to help us provide the kind of service which we all believe the veterans of Canada should have. My answer to him will be in the spirit of that idea.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
I fully appreciate that our people are overworked and understaffed, and that we have difficulty in finding the professional staff to

man our hospitals. The hon. member has underlined the quality and the spirit of our hospitals. While these people are overworked they do go out of their way to serve the veterans of Canada.
Let me place a few facts on the record. There is always a bed available for the admission of a veteran for treatment of a pensionable disability, and such veterans have first priority if prompt admission is medically indicated. After the treatment of pensionable disabilities, the next priority is in respect of persons whose treatment is the responsibility of other departments of the federal government. We have a responsibility in this regard. The next priority is the treatment of various categories of veterans for non-pensionable disabilities, and eligibility usually involves their type of service and financial circumstances.
It is the responsibility of the department and doctors to determine whether treatment in a departmental hospital is required, whether it is for a pensionable or non-pensionable disability, and whether the admission is urgent or elective.
For part of last winter Camp Hill hospital was operated at almost full capacity. Indeed additional beds had to be set up to accommodate all admissions. However, at no time was admission for treatment of a pensionable disability, which was required immediately, delayed or denied. This can also be said in respect of treatment for non-pensionable disabilities.
For a short period during this winter, admissions which were not urgent were postponed briefly to a more appropriate time, in the interests of best treatment. The complaints received make it appear that these decisions on the basis of the opinion of departmental medical officers were sometimes in conflict with the wishes of the veterans, who desired immediate admission, even though they were not immediately medically necessary.
I conclude by thanking my hon. friend for giving me this opportunity to put these facts on the record in order to clear up any misunderstanding which may have occurred.



WATER RESOURCES-PARTICIPATION BY CANADA IN &quot;WATER FOR PEACE&quot; CONFERENCE

Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I appreciate the presence of the minister here this evening. I congratulate him for the work he has done in
April 24, 19G7

his department in connection with this very important question of a national water policy, and I congratulate him for his part in organizing the conference held a few months ago on pollution in our environment. The speeches he has made throughout the country indicate his concern about this whole question, and I congratulate him for his work in reorganizing certain administrative features to deal with this whole problem more efficiently and effectively in years ahead.
Let me say that the minister and I have a sort of mutual disability. We both suffer from water on the brain. This very important question of water pollution is one of concern to many Canadians at this time. Water is priceless, and it is becoming of more importance every day.
One can exaggerate the value of many things, but not the value of water. Not one plant, animal, or even a beautiful woman can exist without it. We cannot maintain or improve our living standards without an ample supply of pure water. Without any doubt our health and our recreational facilities for generations to come will depend on action by the federal, provincial and municipal governments in the very near future.
This matter was again brought to my attention quite recently by an article which appeared in the April 22 issue of the Financial Post written by Mr. Clive Baxter, and entitled "Water, water everywhere

and Ottawa knows why". It reads as follows:
Canada will be represented in force at the big Water for Peace Conference in Washington May 23-31-but the lack of enthusiasm could show through.
It is no secret the Canadian government was miffed when President Johnson announced the 60-nation conference two years ago-without bothering to consult the other governments. It forced everyone's hand and Ottawa was annoyed.
Until Ottawa and the provinces can agree on a long-term water-export policy, federal officials have been sidestepping suggestions from any source that a U.S.-Canada water conference might be useful. When the Water for Peace meeting was scheduled, there suddenly appeared the dangerous prospect of "talks within talks" that could put the Canadian delegation in the position of having to take a stand on transborder water sales.
When it was learned the conference organizers were planning a North American regional session, the danger suddenly appeared acute. Ottawa immediately objected and managed to get that part of the agenda changed.
It now appears likely that embarrassing confrontations can be avoided. The agenda is suitably broad to make bilateral water discussions inappropriate if not impossible.
Canada's delegation will comprise federal and provincial government representatives. Energy, Mines and Resources Minister Jean-Luc Pepin told
15279
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion FP they will go to Washington with an agreed Canadian position on the need to co-operate on the whole question of water use, hoping to set a good example to other federal states in battling pollution and water waste.
Then the article goes on to deal with other aspects of this conference. I trust that when our delegation goes to Washington it will be united in agreement, because without a doubt they will find the United States delegation united and determined in their actions with respect to the years ahead.
I just want to quote from a very interesting book which was recently published, entitled "Water, The Vital Essence". It indicates how important it is at the present time that our delegation goes in agreement and stands united. I will quote this from page 209 of the book.
An official in the United States, who shall otherwise be unidentified, was once heard to suggest that the ultimate solution to the water supply problems of the northeastern United States would be to divert large amounts from lakes in the Province of Ontario-and that if Canada should object, then the United States would simply have to take it over.
I have the transcript of that address and the name of the person who stated that. It goes on to read:
Canadians are perfectly aware of the interest of the United States in their water. In spite of strong political opposition, Prime Minister Pearson has been willing to discuss the matter. "The United States," he said in a televised address, "is finding that water is one of its most valuable, and becoming one of its scarcest, resources, and we have- well, we have lots of water." "Exporting water", he said, "can be as important as exporting wheat or oil. This can be one of the most important developments in our history." An official inventory is being taken in Canada, which has one-sixth of the world's fresh water supply, to see how much could be spared from its two great northflowing river systems, the Mackenzie and Nelson, or from the province of Ontario, where one acre out of every ten is under water.
I am quite sure that since the present minister has taken office the Prime Minister would not make a statement similar to the one he made on television during that election. However, it is because of this concern that I asked the minister the following question on April 21:
I wish to address a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
At that time the minister was absent on official business.
Can the minister inform the house the number of federal and provincial government representatives who will be attending the Water for Peace Conference in Washington from May 23 to May 31 this year, and can the minister inform the house whether these delegates will have an agreed
1S280	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Canadian position on water policy, water pollution and water waste?
[DOT] (10:20 p.ra.)
It was at that point, Mr. Speaker, that you shot me down and forced me to stay late this evening in order to get an answer to my question. Let me say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that Canada expects every member of the Canadian delegation to this conference to do his duty on this occasion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to shoot the hon. member down a second time.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I cannot help but thank the hon. member for his very watery compliments, Mr. Speaker. Even I might bloom under such care. His first question had to do with the number of people who are going to attend this conference called "Water for Peace" in Washington in May. I cannot provide a definite, final figure as yet, but a figure of 60 delegates, federal and provincial, will give a good indication of what it will be. There will be an about equal division of federal and provincial representatives. Some of these people will be full fledged "representatives", others will be "ministers accompanying the Canadian delegation" and others will be "experts" and "advisers". I might indicate that there will be also a category known as "observers". They will not be members of the Canadian delegation; these will be individuals from Canadian universities and from engineering firms who have asked to be invited by the secretariat in Washington. They will be attending on an individual basis. This gives an indication of the composition of the Canadian delegation. Every member of that delegation, be he a federal or provincial appointee, will speak as a member of the Canadian delegation and not as a provincial or federal spokesman.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Good.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The second part of the question has to do with the policy we are going to uphold during that meeting. May I underline that the "Water for Peace" conference is not an intergovernmental negotiating or policy making meeting. As a matter of fact, Canada would not have accepted an invitation to that kind of meeting. This will be a rather informal gathering at ministerial and technical levels for the purpose of exchanging information and ideas, and of fostering co-operation between different countries and different parts of the world. Consequently, there is no

DEBATES	April 24, 1967
need for absolute unanimity or uniformity of views as between the members of the Canadian delegation.
There will be, however, a "country position paper". It will be a review of the Canadian situation with regard to water. This Canadian paper has been prepared by a national committee made up of representatives of the federal and provincial governments. To speak very frankly, the paper will be a descriptive paper of what exists in Canada and is not a policy making paper. It is more descriptive than anything else.
I might add we are going to have, in a few days, here in Ottawa, a meeting of all or most of the Canadian delegates to Washington in preparation for this conference, in order to co-ordinate our views as much as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister's time has expired.



AGRICULTURE-ARDA-APPLICATION IN LOWER ST. LAWRENCE-GASPE AREA

René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, on orders of the day, I put a question to the hon. Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Sauv6) because last weekend an extremely important event took place on the lower St. Lawrence.
A meeting was held at Cabano of representatives from three counties comprising the nine ridings which make up the pilot area of the lower St. Lawrence, Gaspe peninsula and Magdelene Islands. It was decided, by a majority vote, that a council would be organized but that this council would remain independent from the rest of the area in order to pursue the specific objectives of the three counties, namely Kamouraska, Riviere-du-Loup and Temiscouata.
The reason why I raised this question is that it fits into the framework of the general plan of the lower St. Lawrence and Gasp6 Peninsula Development Board.
As we know, the federal government, through the ARDA act, administered by the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development contributed 50 per cent of the cost of those studies. The cost of such studies was considerable at $4 million and the 50 per cent federal contribution, under ARDA, will amount to something like $2 million.
Therefore, it is very much in our interest that this project as put forward by the Eastern Quebec Development Board should
April 24, 1967	COMMONS
be implemented. But before discussing that particular problem of bringing the structures of the plan into being, I would like to recall the six objectives mentioned in the development plan. I quote:
1.	Modernize traditional basic fields (fanning, fishing and partly forestry) in which is found the concern for redevelopment, the utilization of resources contained in the second alternative;
That is the alternative where all the resources of the territory would be fully used.
2.	Create new dynamic activities (tourism, industry and mining) which imply that considerable efforts will be made in those fields to keep the territory's population at a minimum of 325,000 people where it is economically realistic to supply them with the urban services they want;
3.	Increase the value of manpower seeking to establish the geographical and vocational mobility required by the contemplated development and use of resources, the promotion of proposed new undertakings and the accepted rate of emigration.
4.	Establish a planning and participating institutional framework likely to provide an institutional basis for the planned regional development in cooperation with the population;
5.	Build up a regional awareness which will result in a popular sharing in the objectives and the method of proposed development and, finally;
6.	Rationalize the regional area to provide at a practical cost the regional population with the urban services they hope for and which will create the basic conditions essential to the development of certain sectors, particularly tourism and industry.
The fourth objective, the establishment of a local body to implement the plan is precisely the subject of discussions between the various sectors of the region.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)
I wish to point out that the decision made by the Grand-Portage area with regard to the three counties of Kamouraska, Riviere-du-Loup and Temiscouata, may not meet the legitimate wishes of the people of the area, but that such a stand should perhaps not be considered as jeopardizing the implementation of the program in the whole territory. That is the point I want the minister to answer.
Mr. Speaker, this very costly plan has also given rise within the population to great aspirations towards improved economic conditions, and the people should not be deprived of advantages they normally expect because of the partial implementation of that program.
It may also be necessary to somewhat restrict the scope of the original plan, so that we, from other sections of the area, from Matapedia-Matane, may be able to contribute to the achievement of those aims. I know
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion that the federal government has not only helped to finance these studies but already begun talks with the authorities of the province of Quebec concerning the implementation of this program.
Therefore I would ask the hon. minister to shed some light on his talks with the provincial authorities, so that we may see how soon the inhabitants of that region may expect to see realized the aims of the program which I have just enumerated.
Because we are very far from the great urban centres, because the people in our region, unlike those of many other areas in the country, have not benefited from natural and other advantages, I believe they may legistimately aspire to receive through ARDA, both from the authorities of the province of Quebec and the federal government, the help they need.
In concluding my observations, I should like to thank the minister for his unfailing concern in the implementation of this development program, although I would like his answer to my question to give reassurance to the people of this area.


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Tremblay) for having brought this matter to the attention of the house, because I believe it is most important for the people of that area.
Hon. members will remember that in July the authorities of the Eastern Quebec Development Board submitted to the provincial government and federal authorities a report, in six volumes, which they had taken three years to prepare.
Since then, the provincial and federal authorities, at the level of each department involved, have studied these recommendations. Several meetings have taken place between provincial and federal officials. Meetings have even been held at the governmental level.
I am pleased to say that the implementation of that development program, which will require a special agreement between the Quebec-government and the government of Canada, according to the terms of the existing federal-provincial agreement, will be undertaken, l hope, between now and September or October..
On May 28, at Chandler, will be held ai meeting of all the representatives of the
15282	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion corporate bodies which were mentioned at tCabano, and I then think that the provincial and federal authorities will be in a position to announce the decisions confirming the intention of both governments to proceed with the program.
Large amounts of money will be involved and federal authorities have already organized a contest to recruit personnel for the area.
Let it suffice for me to say that the problems involved in setting up the organization come under the exclusive authority of the province and that discussions which may have taken place in the area and which were referred to by the newspapers, reveal the social interest of the area which was sought by the Eastern Quebec Development Board, has produced most interesting results.
DEBATES	April 24, 1967
Just because certain sections coming under the Eastern Quebec Development Board believe different organizations should be set up does not mean that the development program is endangered. On the contrary, it indicates a particular interest by the population, and I should like to reassure my colleague on the implementation of the plan.
I have no hesitation in stating that in the present circumstances, if the federal and provincial authorities continue to co-operate as they have been doing so far, it will be our pleasure before the fall, to sign an agreement which will be a feather in the cap of both the provincial and the federal governments involved.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.35 p.m.

Tuesday, April 25, 1967