1967-04-25

THE LATE KONRAD ADENAUER


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I on behalf of all hon. members pay tribute at this time to a great statesman of modern Germany, former Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, whose memory was honoured today at a state funeral in Cologne cathedral attended by dignitaries of many nations and at which Canada was represented by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin).
In many places throughout the world people will be paying homage today to a life long and rich in accomplishment. The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), on behalf of Canada, has already conveyed to Chancellor Kiesinger the assurance that we in Canada will remember Dr. Adenauer as a firm and resolute ally of the west who led his country to reconstruction and rebirth, as a friend who led Germany to membership in the Atlantic alliance and to a prominent place in the European movement. Today the constructive role that the Federal Republic of Germany plays in world affairs is the legacy that Dr. Adenauer has left this century in a few short years.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
These are his accomplishments, and they will have earned him a special place in the history of our country. We extend our sympathy to our German friends at a time of national loss, and particularly to our parliamentary colleagues in the federal German Bundestag.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is understood that on Thursday it is proposed that the house shall not sit, that members of the House of Commons and the other place may go to the opening of Expo. I have been asked by the Canadian National Railways, because
of the difficulty of obtaining accommodation, to say that it would be appreciated if members and senators wishing to travel by rail to Montreal for the official opening of Expo would telephone the local reservations desk today and book their reservations. The C.N.R. will make every effort to provide a sufficient number of rail cars to meet the requirements of members, senators and their wives, but it will facilitate matters greatly if it is known in advance what is likely to be the number of members so travelling.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the conclusion of consideration of the committee stage of Bill C-243, to amend the National Defence Act and other acts in consequence thereof, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre raised a question as to whether this bill affects the prerogatives of the crown and therefore requires the consent of His Excellency the Governor General before it is given third reading in the House of Commons.
I referred this question to the law officers of the crown, and I have been advised that such consent is not required. The term "prerogative", according to Todd, "On Parliamentary Government in England", volume I, page 383, may be defined as expressing those political powers which are inherent in the crown and that have not been conferred by act of parliament, and which accordingly continue within the competency of the Sovereign except in so far as they have been modified or restrained by positive legislation.
The parliament of Canada has for many years legislated with respect to the organization and administration of the armed forces of Canada so that, in my view the crown's prerogative in this respect has "been modified or restrained by positive legislation" and therefore no longer exists in these areas, which are the areas affected by Bill C-243.
While the letters patent constituting the office of governor general provide that the Governor General is commander in chief of

April 25. 1967
Canada, Bill C-243 does not affect his position. Any responsibilities or prerogatives respecting the organization and management of the armed forces that may at one time have been in the commander in chief have, as I have said, been removed by successive acts of the parliament of Canada legislating on these matters.
As I said at the outset, Mr. Speaker, there is no requirement to obtain the consent of His Excellency the Governor General in respect to the introduction of this bill. May I say, however, that as a matter of courtesy His Excellency was apprised of the tenor of the biU.



TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that we return to the presenting of reports, that the hon. member for Hamilton West may present a committee report?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Joseph Macaluso (Hamilton West):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have the honour to present the sixteenth and seventeenth reports of the standing committee on transport and communications, in English and French.



REPORT ON FIRST MEETING OF ANGLO-CANADIAN MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: On Wednesday and Thursday of last week a Canadian delegation led by the under secretary of state for external affairs and including the Ministers of Trade and Commerce, Industry and Defence Production, Energy, Mines and Resources, Agriculture and myself, participated in the first meeting in London of the Anglo-Canadian ministerial committee on trade and economic affairs. In the absence of both the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Trade and Commerce I should like, with the leave of the house, to table the official communique issued at the conclusion of the London meeting.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave the table these documents?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mitchell William Sharp: As hon. members will recall, the establishment of this Anglo-Canadian ministerial committee was agreed upon by the two

governments last year. While there are many occasions for British and Canadian ministers to meet, at Commonwealth gatherings at the United Nations and in a variety of other international bodies, it was felt that a joint ministerial committee could usefully supplement existing channels of communication and provide a most valuable means of consultation between the two governments. In this time of rapid change in Europe and the world at large it seemed to us that a committee of this kind with Britain, our second largest trading partner, would be especially useful and timely. As hon. members are aware, we have similar joint committees with the United States and with Japan.
Our experience has been that periodic ministerial meetings of this kind provide a unique opportunity for frank and intimate exchanges of views on a wide range of international and bilateral matters of common concern, and contribute to a better understanding of respective policies and problems.
I believe my colleagues on the delegation would agree that the new Anglo-Canadian ministerial committee got off to a good start, and that the very frank and cordial character of the discussion amply fulfilled our expectations. As indicated in the communique, British and Canadian ministers reviewed major current international issues including Viet Nam and the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons at the opening session at 10 Downing street under the chairmanship of Prime Minister Wilson. On that occasion there was also an exchange of views on the present situation with regard to Britain's possible approach to the European economic community and the important implications of this issue for Britain and Europe, for the world trading community as a whole and for trade between Canada and Britain. It was agreed that consultations on this subject would continue.
At its subsequent sessions in Marlborough House the committee discussed international and bilateral trade and economic matters including prospects for the economies of both countries; international liquidity; developments in the Kennedy round of trade and tariff negotiations including discussions of a multilateral cereals agreement; trade and aid for developing countries, including food aid, the prospects for a second United Nations conference on trade and development and development assistance in the Commonwealth, notably in the Caribbean area; and a variety of bilateral trade matters.
It was agreed that the committee would hold its second meeting in Canada at a date to be determined later.
April 25, 1967



IMMIGRATION ACT


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Immigration Act to increase from twelve million dollars to twenty million dollars the present limit on the total amount of outstanding advances at any one time that may be made to enable the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to make loans to immigrants to assist them with the expenses of their transportation to Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I wish
to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In the light of his speech last night in which he recognized the need for a new look to be taken at Canada's constitution, will the right hon. gentleman seriously consider calling a conference on the constitution during the centennial year, as a centennial project to chart a new course for Canada for the next hundred years?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: What I said last night was that one day the constitution will have to be changed, and changes will be made to bring it more in accord with conditions in 1967 than those of 1867; but we should be careful not to rush into this procedure before all the preparatory work has been done. As far as the federal government is concerned, this preparatory work is going on and I think it would be unwise on our part to call a conference before it is completed. I can only hope it will be completed before the centennial year ends.


Michael Starr: The Prime Minister says this preparatory work is being carried on. Can he tell us who is engaged in this task?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, many officials; and we are now giving consideration to the appointment of a high ranking official in the Department of Justice who will be especially charged with this responsibility.


Michael Starr: As a further supplementary question, will they wait until the report of the
Inquiries of the Ministry B and B commission is submitted in order to take that into consideration?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not necessarily, Mr. Speaker; but the information I have received recently in the publication of certain preparatory work in other provinces-I am thinking of Ontario-confirms my own view that we should be very careful before calling a full fledged conference, to make sure the preliminary work is well done.


Michael Starr: In view of the answer given by the Prime Minister that they will not necessarily wait for the B and B commission report, will he consider asking this commission to make available its report on the studies it has already made in order to save the taxpayers some money?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be glad to look into that, Mr. Speaker.
[Later:}


Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the right hon. Prime Minister's remarks last night on the constitution and his report to the house today that federal officials are studying constitutional change, I would now ask the Minister of Justice is the government seriously considering a role that could be played by federal legislators, the elected representatives of the people, in obtaining constitutional modernization during centennial year?


Mr. Speaker:: The suggestion of the hon. member is very large in its import, and I do not think his question asked in this way should be asked at this time.


William Heward Grafftey: Well, I will reword my question and ask the Minister of Justice, in view of the Prime Minister's statement last night and his report to the house today, whether the government is now seriously considering setting up a parliamentary committee to study the constitution during centennial year.


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: As the hon. member knows, Mr. Speaker, the constitution of the country is not a matter exclusively for the federal legislators. It is a matter which concerns all the country, and the view of the federal government is that we should have the officials prepare the work and then the next stage will be met.


William Heward Grafftey: As a supplementary question, in view of the fact that officials are now working is not it only fitting that the elected representatives should get to work too?

April 25, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


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


William Heward Grafftey: Under the carpet; sweeping it under the table.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice following upon his answer to the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi. If I heard the minister correctly he said that when the present study was completed the next stage would follow. Perhaps the minister would be good enough to inform the house what next stage is contemplated by him or the government. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the minister was listening. Probably he had more important things to do.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope the hon. member does not propose to repeat his question.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to repeat it with your permission and I hope the minister will hear it and then answer it. Obviously he has not heard me before.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to be insistent on the question I asked. I waited to see that I was not taking up time that other hon. members wanted. Your Honour did not indicate, when you asked me not to repeat the question, whether you considered it out of order or whether it was because the minister simply did not answer. I noticed that the minister was otherwise occupied and did not hear me, and with your permission I should like to repeat the question.
I was asking the Minister of Justice a question following his reply to the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, in which he said the position of the government was that these studies by officers of various departments should be completed and then the next stage would follow.
Would the minister indicate what in his view and the government's view the next stage is to be after the completion of these studies, and would he also be good enough to indicate whether in the government's view the legislators either in parliament or the legislatures will have nothing to do with the next stage following completion of the study?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Having heard the question the second time I must say that it is out or order.
[Mr. Grafftey.3


David Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not often do this but may I recall to Your Honour's memory that my question follows directly from the answer given by the minister in which he said (a) that there would be a next stage and (b) that this was not a matter for legislators. I am following that answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. My suggestion is that we should not try to go through the whole alphabet.



CONSIDERATION BY JOINT COMMITTEE OF LEGISLATION RESPECTING LSD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare with regard to the government legislation which is now before the other place dealing with the problem of LSD. Since this legislation will probably have to be introduced in the new session I want to ask the minister if he will consider having the legislation referred to a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons in order that professionally competent persons may be available to give expert opinion on this very complicated matter?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, it would be my hope to deal with the legislation in this house before the end of this session. I do not know whether that will be possible, but in any event if necessary we could review the situation when the new session begins.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquelle (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the problems being faced by the provincial governments in their centennial project financing, has the government arrived at any decision with respect to provincial appeals for additional funds to assist in the completion of centennial projects?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, no decision has been reached on that matter.
April 25, 1S67



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Could he inform the house whether he has any knowledge of Canadian authorities actually assisting in the jail break of one Eric Knapp from a jail at Zweibriicken in Germany?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I doubt if this question is in order.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In the light of the serious implications of the previous question I put to the minister, which was not answered, would the minister inform the house if Mr. Eric Knapp was in fact employed by the Canadian government in eastern Europe?


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt very much that this question can be asked at the present time.


Eric Alfred Winkler: With all deference, Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely serious charge which hangs over the head of the government. It is possible that the minister can give an explanation on behalf of the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is another question which might easily be considered at ten o'clock.



ACTION BY DEPARTMENT TO PLACE IMMIGRANTS FROM FRANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
If, after being accepted by the Canadian immigration office in France, some French immigrants are unemployed for seven to eight months after arriving in Canada, does the department of the hon. minister find work for them?


Mr. Speaker:: The question of the hon. member is by far too general in nature and may not be asked at this time.


David Réal Caouette: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry



WINTER WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in his capacity as looking after the winter works program. Because of the adverse weather conditions which have existed on the prairies and elsewhere in Canada during the month of April, will the minister consider an extension of the cut-off date for the winter works program?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I answered a similar question a few days ago. I told the house at that time that the purpose of this program is to combat unemployment during the winter peak. To extend this program at this stage would defeat the purpose of the program itself.


Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which I will ask in French because there will probably be a better result.

Since the minister has received several resolutions from cities and municipalities of the lower St. Lawrence area calling upon him to amend section 2 of the winter works incentive program regulations, could he reconsider his decision of last week?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question two days ago-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think this same question has already been put in English.


James Russell Keays: Mr. Speaker, as I consider the decision may be unfair and damaging, I should like to discuss it at ten o'clock.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture.
In view of the growing protests from Quebec farmers and Canadian dairy producers, and seeing that thousands of them may march on Ottawa soon, does the hon. minister

April 25, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry intend to see very soon the representatives of these farmers unions in order to establish, through consultation, a true dairy policy based on the needs of these farmers?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking a question which was asked yesterday.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Joseph P. O'Keefe (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the urgent need to assist the unemployed of Bell Island to find alternative employment, would the Minister of Manpower and Immigration consider assigning Canada manpower personnel to Bell Island on a permanent basis so they will be able to counsel the residents of that island in respect of the training and mobility services which are available to his department?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, recently my department opened a temporary office on Bell Island to provide the necessary services on a full time basis to the workers of this community. It is staffed by one resident manpower counsellor and two itinerant officers. Additional personnel will be added to this task force as required.
This measure will make available immediately to the laid off workers of the island the full extent of the services provided by my department. As of today the district vocational school of the island is enrolling 175 adults in courses to prepare them for jobs at Churchill Falls. In addition the departmental officials, in co-operation with the provincial authorities, are examining the possibility of opening several classes for training in basic skills.



REQUEST FOR LATEST FIGURES ON UNEMPLOYMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey Norih):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Would the minister inform the house what are the most recent figures on unemployment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the hon. member is asking for statistical

information. An hon. member suggests it is an embarrassing question, but it is not being ruled out of order on that ground.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Koolenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address this question to the Minister of National Defence. I apologize for not sending him notice, but there is a measure of urgency because I have been asked to appear on a television program.
Is the minister correctly reported in Hansard as saying that the nuclear striking power of the R.C.A.F. in Germany at the present time is greater than all the bombs that fell on Hiroshima, equalling one million tons of t.n.t.?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon.
member might arrange for the ten o'clock proceedings to be televised.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport arising out of order No. 123994 dated April 5 of the Board of Transport Commissioners setting out all the factors to be included in computing railway costs. In view of the several positive assurances given in this house by the minister that public hearings would be held by the transport commission before these costing methods and techniques were established, would the minister inquire into this, perhaps with a view to having the order rescinded, so that interested parties may make representations respecting this whole matter?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should clear up a misunderstanding about this, particularly in view of assurances I did give in the house, and of course those assurances will be carried out. When the new transport commission is established one of its first duties will be to hold hearings on costing techniques. Meanwhile part V of the act has been brought into operation, and it cannot operate without an interim arrangement on costing techniques. If the hon. gentleman will look at the
April 25, 1967

order he will see that the present board is quite prepared to hear any representations concerning the interim costing arrangements, and as soon as it is possible to set up the commission a full and proper hearing will be held. In the meantime, if the law is to operate there must be some interim arrangement.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: As a supplementary question I wonder whether the minister could give us an assurance that hearings will be held on these costing methods and techniques without any initiative coming other than from the government or generated from within the commission itself.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is the intention, Mr. Speaker, that when the commission is set up no unnecessary time will be lost in holding these hearings, because they are central to the whole work of the commission.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since there is a grave danger that the session may end very soon, does the minister not feel that he should tell us what has happened to the new transport commission? Specifically, may I ask the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is hypothetical.



CANADA PENSION PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my question to the Minister of National Revenue. It arises from a great number of representations which I, and I am sure many other members of this house, have received with regard to overpayments by employers into the Canada Pension Plan. Has the minister devised a scheme or a system whereby these overpayments will be repaid to employers the same as they are to employees?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to the previous announcement I made in this regard in answer to questions, at which time I indicated that when the data was available we would study the matter further.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question, Mr Speaker. Could the minister advise the house when he proposes to give an answer stating these figures?


Edgar John Benson: In due course, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry lTranslation]



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapoinle):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration
Will the minister tell us whether he has noted the important statements by Mr. Pepin, president of C.N.T.U., on the Canada Labour Relations Board and the serious interference of the Canada Labour Relations Board with union freedom?
Is the minister in a position to say whether he intends to take the necessary measures against these attempts on union freedom made by the Canada Labour Relations Board?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I read the papers as the member for Lapointe does.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Could the minister state whether, apart from reading the paper, he is slightly concerned with his department and with the workers who have complaints against the Canada Labour Relations Board?



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean Berger (Monimagny-L'Islel):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Labour. Since he is not here however and since the matter is urgent, may I put my question to his parliamentary secretary, so as to get an answer as soon as possible?
I wanted to ask the minister, in view of the acuteness and importance of this problem for our area in particular and the fact that the minister met with the United States Employment Security Commission in Augusta, Maine, U.S.A., if he could give us some information on the possibility for Canadians working in the forests in the said state to obtain or claim from now on unemployment insurance benefits? This is most important for several counties in our area.

April 25, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Batile River-Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Is the minister aware that Charolais cattle, owned by United States interests, are quietly being imported into Canada from areas other than France without complying with the elaborate quarantine regulations at the station at Grosse Isle, Quebec, which is set up to receive Charolais cattle from France; and that the Canadian government is being used by United States Charolais breeders to circumvent United States laws banning French cattle from that country? I am referring to shipments of Charolais cattle from the Bahamas and St. Pierre.


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



REPORTED INTENTION TO REDUCE SHIPMENTS THROUGH CHURCHILL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but in his absence I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary. In view of the reports that grain shipments through the port of Churchill will be reduced this year, I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary could enlighten the house on the reason for this.


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this question as notice.



STATEMENT ON PROTEST AGAINST SLOW MOVEMENT FROM LAKEHEAD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Springfield with regard to negotiations between the shipping companies and the wheat board. I am advised that negotiations between the Canadian Wheat Board and the lake shipowners have resulted in a solution to the problem, and vessels are now loading grain freely at the lakehead for both the domestic and export markets.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works in his capacity as government house leader. In view of the fact that this session, which by tomorrow will be the longest in history, might soon end, will he speak to the chairman of the committee on the public service of Canada to make sure that that committee reports to the house before the end of the session on the question of increasing the pensions of retired civil servants?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to take up this matter with the chairman of the committee.



THE SENATE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. O. Bower (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. Since the province of Nova Scotia has been one member shy in the other place for a year and a half, creating a rising sense of dissatisfaction, particularly in western Nova Scotia, will the Prime Minister give an assurance that this deficiency will soon be corrected and that he will give maximum weight to the French Acadian fact in making the appointment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is hardly an urgent question.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. During his absence the hon. member for Edmonton West and I asked the acting minister when the regulations pertaining to deposit insurance might be referred to the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs. Can the minister answer this question now?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister of
April 25, 1967

National Revenue spoke to me about this inquiry. I would have been happy to recommend that it be referred at any time, since I had some hopes about the early end of this session. Now I doubt that it would be worth while. However, if this session goes on I shall make the recommendation tomorrow.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs but perhaps in his absence I might direct it to the Prime Minister. Has an agreement been made with a foreign government or governments that visitors to Expo from such countries will not be granted political asylum in Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, but I will be glad to look into it.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence which follows a question asked last Wednesday by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. May I ask the minister whether it is the intention of the government that those serving in the regular officers training plan in universities shall be required after graduation to serve in the forces for six years instead of three years?
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National
Defence): Mr. Speaker, last year we increased the length of service required for future graduates from three years to four years. As I announced in the house the other day, it is the intention, commencing this fall, to require students who take aircrew training to serve for a period of five years following graduation. I think that is the policy as it stands at the present time.


Howard Russell MacEwan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I take it from the minister's answer that this applies only to those who will take or are taking aircrew training; that is, that they will be required to serve for five years?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is correct, Mr. Speaker. The previous obligations will apply in respect of all others.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In what way will this policy apply to those who have signified their intention of taking aircrew training and have been in the R.O.T.C. for the last couple of years?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It does not apply to those who have begun their aircrew training. They will not be affected. It commences with the graduates of this year, those who will graduate in the month of May. If they elect to take aircrew training they will be required to serve the additional time; if they elect not to take aircrew training, the present provisions will apply.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. and learned Minister of Transport. Could I ask the minister whether he would give consideration to setting up a task force within his department to help him prepare an answer to my straightforward and precise question of January 13 regarding the ferry service between Prince Edward Island and the mainland, thus preventing said question from becoming the most ancient on the order paper?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think the task force has at last completed its work, and it is possible that if the session goes on until tomorrow this question might be answered.



FAMILY ALLOWANCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the Quebec government asked for federal co-operation in the administrative application of the new provincial family allowances act?
Hen. A. J. MacEachen (Minisier of National Health and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, we have had a request from the government of Quebec, conveyed through official channels, that

April 25, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry we make certain information available to assist in the administration of the new family allowance plan of that province, and we have complied with that request.


Mr, Choquetie:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Knowing the minister's liking for both languages, I shall put my second question in French. Has the provincial government announced to the federal authorities its intention to bring family allowances under its exclusive jurisdiction?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, no-


Stanley Howard Knowles: En frangais.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -communication has been received with respect to this point, to my knowledge, since the health ministers' conference of January, 1966.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. I should like to ask the minister whether he has any knowledge of a recent announcement by the minister of lands and forests of the province of British Columbia that a log drive is to take place on the Stel-lako river. Could the minister tell us, if in fact such an announcement has been made, what he and the government of Canada intend to do to protect this very important segment of our salmon spawning resource on the Pacific coast?


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the minister of lands, forests and water resources of the province of British Columbia made a statement some days ago to the effect that engineers of the British Columbia forest service have under way at the present time an economic and feasibility study of other means of moving logs from Frangois lake to the Stellako river. I understand, according to the minister's statement, that this report should be available by May 1, or some time next week. I am not in a position to make any *comment until the report is made available to us.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I apologize for not giving him notice, but he may take the question as notice if he cannot answer it today. In view of the fact that it is the end of the municipal taxation year and the municipalities are trying to strike their assessment rolls for the year, will the government entertain immediate consultation with officials of the Canadian Pacific Railway to remove the discrimination against the Atlantic provinces, under which the Canadian Pacific Railway property is exempt from municipal taxation, yet the same company agreed to waive this taxation in the western provinces in order to assist the transportation bill being passed by the house?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is referring to the Dominion Atlantic Railway, that is a matter of provincial legislation and his observation should be directed to the government of Nova Scotia.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport a supplementary question in view of the answer he gave me. I should like to ask the minister if he or his officials would exercise the same leadership in attempting to arrange some deal with Canadian Pacific officials, regardless of whether the D.A.R. or any other property in the maritime provinces is federal or provincial, such as was arranged in the west. All I am asking is whether he will consider holding consultations with Canadian Pacific officials to see if they will agree, not the provincial authorities but the Canadian Pacific officials-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the minister has noted the hon. member's additional representations.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: His answer was a red herring.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roberf McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of

April 25, 1967

Finance of which I have given the hon. gentleman notice. Now that the request for a federal contribution to the Cape Bonnie disaster fund has come to the federal government through proper provincial channels, would the minister give immediate consideration to it?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, when I see the request through proper provincial channels I shall give attention to it.



OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, responsible for reading the newspapers at the government's expense.
Could the minister tell us whether, while reading the newspapers, he took note of the speech delivered yesterday by his parliamentary secretary (Mr. Munro) while introducing the debate on Bill No. C-278, and can he tell us also whether he fully endorses all the statements then made?


Mr. Speaker:: The question is out of order.



NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National
Defence) moved the third reading of Bill No. C-243, to amend the National Defence Act and other acts in consequence thereof.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. Churchill:: Call the yeas and nays, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
Division


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Mr. Cadieux (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Calgary-North (Mr. Harkness). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. Beer:: I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I was paired with the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Had I voted I would have voted against the measure.


Mrs. Wadds:: I was paired with the hon. member for Niagara Falls. Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. McCuicheon:: I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.
Bill read the third time and passed.



OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, April 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien (for Mr. Marchand) for the second reading of Bill No. C-278, respecting the occupational training of adults.
Mr. J. Chester MacRae (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, when the time for debate expired last evening I had just finished putting on record the case for private industry and, more specifically, the case for the private schools of Canada so far as this measure is concerned. The subject of the present dispute between the department of education of Ontario and the government of Canada has been raised on several occasions. I am sure the minister will deal with it fully in the course of his remarks before second reading, and I invite him to do so.
In the course of doing my homework to be ready for this debate I took the time to read, among other publications, one entitled "Skill Acceleration", a 1967 publication of the Ontario Economic Council. This publication sets out five recommendations concerning policy in relation to long-term manpower problems and I should like to place them on record believing they are of sufficient importance to justify my doing so. The first deals with the need for additional research and reads as follows:
Additional and continued research is required to identify educational and training needs In the light of the over-all environmental factors affecting human resource development. As many of these problems are of a Canadian rather than a provincial nature, at least some of this research should be co-ordinated centrally but with sufficient regional representation to reflect regional differences. Responsibility for implementation should naturally lie with those levels of government most directly involved.
So the first point is that there is need for additional research into this whole broad field.
The recommendations continue:
One of the problems, and at the same time one of the differences between Europe and Canada, is the lack of social status associated with vocational jobs.
I remember very well as a boy in high school that those who took vocational and commercial courses were not considered to be the same level as those who took academic courses. It was as though students who took vocational training lacked the ability to do
April 25, 1967

the other. This has been a problem over the years. As is pointed out, it does not exist in Europe to the same extent. To continue:
It is not realistic to expect a young man to enter an apprenticeship program with the certain knowledge that his wages will be low for a long period of training and that when he becomes a skilled or highly skilled worker his income may not be much more than that of a man who took on a well-paying specialized job with short training periods.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Job security may be less in such specialized jobs, but this is irrelevant during a period of economic boom. Moreover, a feeling of inferiority may arise in the individual who is not able to achieve an accepted academic standing.
The attitudes of some high school counsellors and teachers tend to foster the feeling "either I'm a university graduate or I'm nothing."
Unless young people are encouraged to undertake work of a vocational nature, and unless the community accords the right status to such occupations, this problem will continue. Making vocational occupations attractive is, however, only one part of the challenge. Another is to create exit points in the educational system prior to grade 12.
Anyone who now leaves school prior to grade 12 is called a "high school drop-out," and there are too few provisions for a smooth transfer into other types of training situations.
As parents all of us have noticed that when a boy or girl does not complete high school it is considered a tragedy in the family because so many avenues are closed to the student who does not finish high school.
To provide for such exit points will require research into curriculum development and postschool programs of education and training.
One of the major hurdles facing Ontario's educational system is the shortage of vocational teachers.
Of course the shortage of teachers is a chronic situation in most provinces. There always seems to be a shortage of good academic teachers, but I know from practical experience that the shortage of vocational teachers is even more acute and more serious.
Such teaching positions at this time are still relatively unattractive, both from a status and financial point of view. Basic changes in both .monetary and social rewards are needed.
To summarize this particular point, vocational training should be upgraded. There should be more status afforded to vocational training teachers and there should be exit points provided in the high school curriculum. The third point, which I think is very well made by the Ontario Economic Council, is:
Apprenticeship and short-term on-the-job training are suffering from too great a degree of segregation. It should be possible to develop a comprehensive training program with logical exit points which would allow trainees to leave the total training system at such points.
Occupational Training
In other words, there should be a comprehensive training program but not all those undertaking it should be carried to the ultimate end of the program. That is understandable. There should be exit points along the way.
An analysis of present apprenticeship practices is indicated, with particular reference to shortening the training period. There are many practical examples where companies, particularly in Europe and the United States, are developing, in less than half the time, highly skilled employees of equal or better competence than those graduating from apprenticeship programs.
We are familiar, of course, with the old principle of British apprenticeship under which young lads went into the shipyards of the Clyde, Newcastle-on-Tyne and Aberdeen-at the last place I had the opportunity to see them at one time-at the ages of 12 or 13 and spent from five to seven years as apprentices. It was a long, thorough apprenticeship-I think perhaps too long because they were paid practically nothing. But the net result was that the shipbuilders who were developed on the Clyde and the Tyne were known all over the world. The Scottish marine engineer is one of the most highly skilled men at his trade anywhere in the world.
In effect the third point which is made is that we could very well do with shorter courses. I think the last two points are very important because they deal with the part which private industry and labour should play in this whole matter that we are discussing today.
Industry and commerce must assume a greater responsibility for the development of operating skills.
Of course the bill encourages this.
The costs of "raiding" could be alleviated, at least in part, by providing tax incentives or subsidies to companies for educational programs, including such activities as vestibule training or non-production on-the-premises training.
I am not quite certain what is meant by vestibule training, but non-production on-the-premises training is self-explanatory.
Such a policy would invalidate the oft-repeated argument that employees are only trained for other companies.
I know the minister is aware of this because in his remarks on the resolution this matter was raised.
Management and supervision could also be given more direct responsibility for training. There is a variety of sound, on-the-job training programs which utilize either supervisors or experienced employees for instructional purposes.

April 25, 1967'
Occupational Training
In other words, the fourth point in these recommendations is that industry should become much more involved than it has up to the present.
The final point deals with labour. Just today during the noon hour many of us met with Canadian shoe manufacturers who are facing a real problem because of low cost imports of shoes and boots. I could not help but he impressed, and I said so during the course of the discussion with the large group present, that labour was well represented. Representatives of the labour unions in the shoe industry attended. That is a good thing. They seemed to be deeply conscientious and aware of what was happening and were anxious to help the industry with this problem. The fifth point in the recommendations is:
A major challenge In vocational development falls upon organized labour. The welfare of the union member can no longer be related to shortterm contracts. Moreover restrictions applying to job transfers in contracts do not, in the long run, make economic sense for individual employees. Organized labour could make a genuine contribution through a re-evaluation of such points as they relate to:
(a)	the need for including education in job responsibilities;
(b)	the real needs to be served by apprenticeship programs;
(c)	the opportunities for employers and union members to benefit from individual educational efforts.
The article concludes.
Such re-evaluations have already resulted in unofficial changes in practices in many locals. This practical proof could well be recognized in terms of official policy.
It has been said, Mr. Speaker, that the machines that will do the world's work 25 years from now have not yet been invented. I believe that. It has also been said that a very large proportion of our working force today will not complete their working years at the skills in which they are now employed. That is true, and that is the whole purpose of what we are here for this afternoon.
I said at the beginning of my remarks that this measure is one of the most important to come before the house for many years because it deals with the lives and the livelihood not only of our people today but of those generations to come, and for that reason it is vitally important. I may disagree with some of the provisions included in the measure when we reach them. As the minister knows, I have an amendment to submit. I hope he will look upon it favourably. I understand the principles of government of course

but I would ask him to look at my amendment carefully. I wish him well on this measure, and I also wish the government well because in wishing the government well I am wishing the people of this country well, and' that is what we are here in this house to do.


James Russell Keays: Mr. Speaker, in his opening statement yesterday the parliamentary secretary endeavoured to make this bill controversial by insinuating that the opposition has delayed its passage by discussing, the unification bill and, I might also add, by discussing the medicare bill. We would have welcomed this bill's appearance on the order paper much earlier, and had the government given priority to it the other two bills I have mentioned could have been dealt with subsequently. I can only say that there has been poor government planning in this regard.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Because of the haste with which these adult training courses were initiated no definite regulations were established and no proper organization was set up to deal with this program. I believe that the 100 letters I have on file justify the statement on my part that no proper organization was set up before these adult training courses were established. Many people believe themselves to be discriminated against. A good deal of explaining will have to be done to justify the position which has been taken in respect of these people. The blame in this regard can only be attributed to the minister. No planning or study sessions were held with the provincial governments or with the educators and the managers of the manpower centres. Although I was informed that the selection committee in each region would be made up of the manpower centre manager, the chairman of the regional school board and the head of the local school board, this apparently has not been the case and the managers have had to carry on alone.
I have no right to speak about the qualifications of the managers. I do, however, ask myself whether the manager of a manpower centre who is placed in this position can take a decision with regard to whether or not a person can qualify for these courses. Had the program been properly organized with the school board authorities, either local or regional, I am sure that a more proper assessment could have been made of the eligibility of persons. In this way many of the criticisms which have been made and the impressions which people still have to live with could have been eliminated. These
April 25, 1967

procedures which were adopted in haste have caused an undue strain, serious emotional stress and financial loss to many people who are able to qualify.
As has been mentioned by the parliamentary secretary, this measure provides that the government will be the financial agent for the hundreds of thousands of Canadian workers whose future earnings are dependent on more training. He went on to say that this is not a form of relief. I would love to believe this. Many of these people do not even receive unemployment benefits because they cannot qualify for them. These people are the recipients of social allowances. They did not find sufficient employment during the year to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits and therefore found it necessary to apply to social agencies in order to obtain some of the money necessary to support their families.
The minute either a husband or wife qualifies for these courses the social allowances which have been paid to them are cut off. In many cases many of those who attend these courses are not available to the labour market. This can be proven in respect of many regions. Of course I speak mostly of the rural areas of the country. Those who did qualify received these payments which were agreed to by the provincial authorities. However, many who were unable to qualify for these courses have been deprived of an education which would have made it possible for them to obtain better employment.
I am all in favour of upgrading the training and education of these people. I am wondering, however, whether the practice which has been followed this past winter will solve the problems. We are moving ahead and entering into the courses when no firm regulations have been laid down. Most of the people who enter these schools are receiving social allowances rather than unemployment insurance. Therefore we are bringing to the schools people who possibly never will be available for the labour market. In this manner we are depriving those people who could get into the labour market of the opportunity to attend these courses and receive this assistance.
I understand that the agreement concerning where and how these courses will be given, as well as the amount of the allowances which may range from $35 a week to $90 a week, is made with the provincial authorities. The allowances are based on the average revenue in each district. I find it difficult to understand why the national government which is paying the shot should allow a province to determine exactly what amount of money should be
Occupational Training
paid. Is there any reason why a person who is living in an outlying district and attending these courses should be paid $35 a week while another person living in a different area is entitled to $50 or $60 a week? I believe this is very unfair to those who in order to upgrade themselves wish to attend these courses. There is discrimination at the national level which extends through the provincial level.
If we are to pay for these courses, then I believe the same rate of payment should be available to all Canadians whether they come from one part of the country or another. I cannot understand how there can be any justification for the fact that different rates are payable across the country. I believe there is discrimination because, as I said before, I do not believe the manager of a manpower training centre alone is qualified to decide who should attend these courses. I should like to quote from a brief submitted by C. H. Rush-ton, co-ordinator, Ontario manpower retraining program:
The Department of Manpower and Immigration, and the provincial department of education are having serious difficulties in co-operating due to the fact that Canada manpower centres are neither knowledgeable nor humane in respect to the educating and training of individuals. Is the minister aware of the fact that persons are being directed to training by placement officers who have no more than grade 10 education? The staffs in many local manpower centres are totally inadequate in so far as training and qualifications are concerned to determine whether or not a man has the academic qualifications to enrol in a skill training program. The minister himself would be hard pressed to determine, in a twenty or forty minute interview, whether or not an individual requiring skill training is functioning at a grade 10 level. Nevertheless, in their ignorance, local manpower placement officers are being instructed to make judgments of a nature which educationalists with years of training and experience would not dare to make without comprehensive testing and counselling.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
This is exactly what I have been referring to. I believe that those people who will occupy positions in the manpower centres across the country should be properly prepared and educated to enable them to interview and assess the value of those applying for the right to attend these courses, whether they are courses in adult education or vocational training.
I should like to quote now from a speech made by the minister in Ottawa on February 21, 1966. He said:

In spite of the prosperity experienced by Canada, there is still poverty in many localities; in several areas the standard of living is inferior

April 25, 1967
Occupational Training
to the national average and too many people lead sterile and degrading lives either because of their age, their lack of education, physical handicaps, or because they are unable to find decent and remunerative employment. Our ideal of justice and equality demands that we give every citizen the means to lead an honourable life, not for some altruistic reason or other, but due to the obligation we have of using to the maximum all the energies at our disposal.

I believe no one can disagree with those words. I believe also that the minister is very-sincere in lacing up to the problems of unemployment and preparing our people, especially our youth, by means of an education which will permit them to enter into many spheres of industrial operations. However, I do not know how we are going to solve this problem in the rural areas of our country, and I am not certain the minister knows. Not many of our legislators come from the urban areas of our country and are competent to deal with the problems there. How many of those who work with the minister or with the heads of the departments are familiar with the problems which exist in the rural areas of the country? I am speaking now of all the rural areas because that is where we most often find chronic unemployment, with people having been unemployed for years and having no hope of finding a job anywhere in this country. As I said, I do not know what the solution to this problem will be, but one thing is definitely clear to me, that we should concern ourselves with helping these people to find employment and preparing them for it.
There are many pockets of unemployment across the country where people look to the future with dismay and a lack of hope of ever being able to do what others seem to be able to do. This is a very distressing situation. Above all, we must think of those who are chronically unemployed because they must not be allowed to face the future knowing they will have to depend on welfare benefits for the rest of their lives.
I am not speaking strictly of this government but of governments in general. I believe there is a lack of co-ordination not only among ministers but among their departments. It seems that the right hand of government knows not what the left hand is doing. There is a duplication of efforts.
At this point I should like to suggest a few of the areas where duplication exists. We know that at present there is a housing problem in this country. It is a problem that faces Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation which is answerable to parliament through
[Mr. Keays.l
the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson). At the same time the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Laing) is preoccupied with the problem of housing in the national parks, and the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Sauve) is dealing with housing under the ARDA program. It seems to me that we are leaving the main street and entering many side streets from which there is no return. We are not concentrating our efforts in one direction. If we wish to solve the housing problem the efforts of all the departments concerned should be directed toward that objective.
Again I am reminded of the time last year when the government, in co-operation with private industry, announced that a heavy water plant was going to be built in Nova Scotia. I have no objection to that but I do object to a second heavy water plant being built in the same province when other areas of Canada with the highest rate of unemployment in the country, areas which could offer the same natural resources and all the labour needed to operate a heavy water plant, have been overlooked. I think it was the government's responsibility to establish the second heavy water plant in an area of chronic unemployment. This is where the government has fallen down. The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, for example, does not seem to be aware of the problems facing the Department of Labour and the Department of Manpower and Immigration. If the efforts of all the departments had been directed toward solving this problem the second heavy water plant might have been established in the Gaspe.
Another matter that comes to my mind concerns the most natural harbour in the world which is to be found in the Gaspe and today is being wasted because we cannot find any use for it. First of all, we should try to establish industries in these areas so that those people whom we are helping to prepare themselves for employment will know that they will be able to find it when they complete their training. At present they are preparing themselves to return to school for another year without the hope of finding employment later. This is a sad situation.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I am in favour of adult education and vocational training and I agree we must prepare our people for future employment. However,
I cannot understand why only one out of four factories in this country provides any training whatsoever. It has been said that employers
April 25, 1967

feel they will be training people for their competitors. Those who operate factories and large corporations are supposedly intelligent people and they must know that they have a part to play in the whole problem of employment. They should be told that they must also train people whether or not they lose some of their trainees, because the end result of this program will be increased productivity in our country. This will improve our position in the economic field where for the last ten years we have ranked as the fourteenth nation in terms of real productivity.
There is an obligation on government and employers in this respect. They must realize that we will not remain competitive if we take a lackadaisical attitude toward productivity. Increased productivity will be attained by increased education. We must tell corporations and employers that they have a part to play, and they must know that a program of this type is also for their own good. All the blame should not be placed on the employers. On two occasions recently I have spoken to union leaders and told them that they should not concern themselves only with getting members for their unions, that they should not spend their time fighting each other but should undertake a program of education for their members and show them that increased salaries will only be brought about and justified by increased productivity. This is not a one-way street. It is quite important that both parties play their part and give to this country a better competitive position than we have today.
I do not intend to speak any longer on this subject. I endorse this legislation in part but hope that in view of the developments of the past winter the government will learn a lesson and never introduce or put new legislation into effect unless preparatory work has been carried out so that justice may be done to all those who are eligible for employment.


Mr. R. W. Priitie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make some remarks on this bill in the context of the new government policy in regard to education and training and then I shall make some comments about the specific provisions of the bill. The bill arises from decisions taken by the federal government after the federal-provincial conference of last fall. Apparently the main decisions were taken by the federal government on its own. They consulted the provinces but it seems to me that the major decisions were handed to the provinces by the federal government. In place of the former policy of
Occupational Training
co-operative federalism we have had what might be called unilateral federalism.
What were these main decisions concerning education and retraining that were taken at the conference last fall? First of all there was the decision of the federal government to withdraw from what they call the field of education and concern themselves only with what they call training. They made a distinction between education and training. It was an arbitrary decision, and had to be. People who have worked for years in the field of education have not been able to make this distinction, but it has been made in this instance.
Apparently education is a process which takes place in the elementary and secondary schools and colleges and universities, and is to be paid for in the future by the provincial governments. The federal government, of course, is transferring certain percentage points of taxes to the provinces to assist them in what is called education. Training is something which takes place not in the schools but is for adults, people who have been out of school for at least three years, if they are single, or for a lesser period of time if they have dependants. So we have this distinction between education and training. I think it is a rather false distinction and a very hard one to make. Hence it had to be a quite arbitrary decision.
It was an arbitrary decision and it was not in the spirit of the co-operative federalism we have heard about in Ottawa for the past several years. This is not an easy term to define. I have a whole file of speeches made by Mr. Favreau, Mr. Lamontagne and the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Pepin) who have been going around the country explaining co-operative federalism. I would think that among other things it certainly means co-operating with the provinces on joint programs. However, I shall refer to some of the definitions used and relate them to this subject. I shall first quote from a speech made by Mr. Favreau on October 20, 1964, to the Chamber of Commerce of Montreal. H<* had this to say:
For we believe that the indispensable counterpart of provincial autonomy is a permanent interdependence of the provincial and federal governments. This interdependence grows first from the participation of all these governments in a common monetary and trading system; but it is necessary also because many of the fields of jurisdiction that our constitution has distributed to Ottawa and the provinces are complementary or concurrent. One need only study any aspect of our federal foreign policy-immigration, defence, cultural relations, trade-to catch the reflection

April 25, 1967
Occupational Training
of problems which preoccupy, in the first instance, the provinces; unemployment, industrialization, education and productivity.
I would point out that he used the word "education". Then he said:
And of course, the influence of provincial policies on those of Ottawa is at least as powerful. By the very complexity of our federalism, the provincial and federal states are called upon to recognize their deep and inevitable solidarity.
But, one may ask, how can you express this solidarity without threatening the fruitful autonomy of each level of government? We reply: by permanent consultation and co-ordination in all questions that invite Ottawa and the provinces to take joint action. It matters little whether this action arises from officially concurrent fields of jurisdiction-
I suppose such as agriculture and immigration.
[DOT]-or whether It is inspired by a newly discovered overlapping of interests; the essential aim is to develop within the federation a stable and flexible method permitting the federal and provincial governments to act together, when they so wish, and for the common good. Obviously, this cooperation must be agreed to freely; for co-operative federalism affords no place to coercion.
I cite that particularly because as far as we can determine this new training plan was handed to the provinces as the result of an arbitrary decision, not one reached after cooperation between the federal government and the provincial governments. With reference to the federal system and how the governments which make up the federal system should work to solve our problems and arrive at workable solutions to the problems which face the country, I wish to quote again from one of the many speeches on co-operative federalism made by Mr. Favreau. This speech was made on May 4, 1964, to the Canadian Club, Montreal.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond but I am trying to decide how he can relate his remarks to the subject matter of the bill, which is an act respecting the occupational training of adults. He can make general observations about the policy that has been put forward by certain ministers respecting co-operative federalism. However, we have a specific bill before us with respect to the occupational training of adults. I know that the hon. member can make references to opinions which have been expressed by certain members of the government, but to indulge in a lengthy consideration of these opinions is, I believe, outside the scope of the bill now before the house.

[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Robert William Prittie: I do not have any difficulty in relating these remarks to the bill. When speakers from the various parties were making their comments on the bill last night they mentioned several times the arbitrary fashion in which the decision was taken by the federal government to withdraw from direct financial support of education and to scrap the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act. I believe my remarks are related to the bill because I am complaining about the fact that the decision to undertake this program was a unilateral one and not in keeping with the policy which has been expressed so frequently in the past by various spokesmen for the government. I should like to hear from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources before this debate is completed to ascertain if he can make any sense out of the many things he has been saying over the years about co-operation with the provinces. How can he accept the type of action which we have before us?
This measure, Mr. Speaker, does involve the provinces. The measure it is replacing, the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act, involved the provinces. I am talking about methods which the two levels of government in Canada should use to bring about the best type of co-operation in order to evolve workable plans for the implementation of particular policies. I believe, therefore, that to this extent these remarks are relevant.
However, the point is that what the government is embarking upon now represents a very sharp change from the policy of the past few years of co-operating with the provinces in joint schemes. If a province did not want to have the federal government in a particular field, provision was made for that province to opt out. It seems to me that was not a bad policy in a complex country such as Canada where we have to make all sorts of compromises. Now, however, we have gone back to what hon. Mr. Favreau called the classical way of operating a federal system. The federal government says, you look after your affairs and we will look after ours; we will keep them separate as much as possible. It seems to me that in 1967 we cannot operate in this way. Certainly we cannot operate in this way in the fields of education and manpower because people are mobile. They move from one province to another, so this type of action goes against our whole industrial structure.
April 25, 1967

The decision has been made by the government not to be involved in education as they define education. They are going to be involved in retraining. The bill contains some points which I think are good. The level of payments to be made is certainly better than the level of payments made to those receiving unemployment insurance benefits. It would certainly pay a person to undergo retraining rather than to be unemployed. While I am on that subject, I believe that the unemployment insurance benefits have been in need of revision for some time. No one will get rich under this scheme but at least he will be better off than he was in the past.
In addition, I like the provision that a person does not have to be unemployed in order to qualify for retraining under this new measure. A person could be employed at a low level job which did not suit him and if he had the ability he could be referred for retraining and receive an allowance for his expenses. This is a good feature.
There are a number of weaknesses in the bill. I believe that many of them result from the fact that the kind of consultation to which I was referring a few minutes ago did not take place or was limited to consultation with provincial authorities. I have made it my business to talk with people who are involved in retraining and adult education in the major metropolitan centres of Canada. These people have not been consulted. These are the people who are daily working in the field. They know what the problems are, how you organize a course, who should be admitted to the course, how many instructors are available to teach these courses. As far as I can determine the bill was drawn up by people in Ottawa, undoubtedly very well qualified and well educated, who have had no actual experience in the field of retraining and adult education. I can say this with certainty because I have been speaking to the people concerned in the major cities of Canada and they were not consulted. It seems to me if they had been consulted many of the questions and problems which are being raised now could have been avoided. I am going to raise some of these problems later.
I am going to pose some questions, and I imagine the minister will be answering later so his staff may wish to take note of them. The first one is, what is the role of the universities? Are they able to contract directly with the federal department to provide training? I mention this because it is important. Universities are more and more becoming 23033-967
Occupational Training
creatures of the provincial governments. This position flows from the decisions taken last fall. If they can only provide training contracted with the provincial government's approval, this further reduces their capabilities for independent educational action.
The second question is, what is the intention of the manpower department with respect to holding clients who are eligible for training and allowances but for whom a particular course may not start for two weeks, a month or possibly six weeks? What happens to them during the interval? The local authorities, whether they be provincial or municipal, who provide some courses will have to have time to organize the courses and find teachers. What do they do with these people during that period? Are they on allowances or unemployment insurance benefits during that interval?
Since many people would find part time training better suited to their needs, why has provision not been made for the cost of part time training, including part time allowances? In one city I know that more than half of the people entering the adult education program were people who were taking night school training. They were not asking to leave their jobs to go on full time allowances, but they were taking this form of training to improve their standing. The people who attend evening classes are not concerned about the question of allowances, but will the bill permit their tuition fees to be paid?
There are other possibilities that could be considered here. It might be that some people could work half a day and attend courses for half a day. Is there any provision in the bill for allowances to be paid on a pro rata basis in that type of situation? In the large cities such as Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Winnipeg, you will find a large number of people in this category. In order to function at all well, a local manpower office operating under this new measure will have to have access to the most up to date and comprehensive information about training and upgrading throughout the country. What provision is being made to accumulate and continuously process this kind of information since at present it is not available anywhere in Canada?
The task of accumulating this information, it seems to me, will be tremendous. Undoubtedly some of it is available at certain levels in the adult education departments but it will take quite some time for the departments themselves to gather the necessary

April 25, 1967
Occupational Training
background information. The provision of an adequate information service to support the manpower training program will cost a great deal. The estimates of the manpower department do not appear to include any such major items. Are we then to conclude that the manpower department is expected to function without the provinces or adequate information services? In so far as the budget is concerned, Mr. Speaker, I really do not know how the department is going to operate this rather ambitious program next year with the amount of money shown in the estimates at the present time.
Why does the bill specify that research costs must be shareable with the provinces? Should there not be substantial sums available for contracting research directly from various agencies in addition to such research as naturally involves provincial governments, departments of education and so on?
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Another question is: Is it not true that the implication of this bill is that the least qualified people in society will be turned on to the labour market for a one to three year period? I am thinking particularly of the youngster who leaves school at the age of 16 or 17, the type previously referred to as a drop-out. At the present time he can enrol at a vocational school and receive training right away.
I realize that the answer has already been suggested by somebody, namely, that the province can pay for that. But I do not think that this is a good way to operate. If this same person gets married after one year and then has a dependant, he immediately becomes eligible for training under this bill. Therefore it seems to me that there are certain discriminations and inconsistencies here which really do not hold up very well.
Another question which comes to mind is whether there has been any consultation between the department of manpower and officials of ARDA. ARDA is concerning itself with education in certain depressed regions of the country. I rather like the ARDA approach; they are concerned with the social aspects as well as the economic. I have the feeling that the attitude of the department of manpower is a direct result of the report of the Economic Council and is perhaps too much economics-oriented without taking into account social aspects.
However, I should like to ask what co-operation or discussion has taken place with ARDA officials, who as I say are involving themselves in education and retraining in certain

areas of Canada. The previous speaker, the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Keays), mentioned that there are too many cases where one department of government does not know what another department is doing.
I have said that there are some good aspects to this new bill. I have also made certain criticisms of it. However, I think it is a great shame that the government is taking an altogether different approach from that taken under the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act. That act did not meet with very much opposition from the provinces of Canada. Certainly there was a federal involvement in the field of education or technical and vocational training, or whatever you want to call it, but there was no great objection to that and the act worked quite well. There were certain faults. People had to be unemployed to qualify under that act. However, it seems to me that if that act had been retained and amended to bring in some of the good features in this bill we would have been much farther ahead.
It seems to me that this bill has been designed to meet particular doctrines or policies that the government has adopted. Very often in the past we in this party have been accused of being doctrinaire. It seems to me that this may be said of the government at the present time. They have said that they will have nothing to do with education as they define it, which seems to me a very doctrinaire approach, certainly not the kind of approach that will solve the problems of a modern industrial society with a mobile population.
The majority of the provinces of Canada had no objection to the type of operation that we had in the past to give federal assistance to education. There were some objections from the province of Quebec, and this sort of thing was handled by opting out provisions and by making money grants available. I do not know why we cannot continue in that way. To me this bill is a move in the wrong direction.
I should now like to say a few words about the staffing of the department, I know that the intention is to make it a prestige department, to recruit university graduates, bright, able people, and to give the department a good salary level. At one time the government was talking about trying to make the department a prestige department like finance or external affairs. That is fine. I think the stigma which attached to the unemployment insurance offices in the past was undesirable,
April 25, 1967

and anything we can do to raise the prestige of the manpower department is all to the good.
An active recruiting campaign is now on to attract able people to the department to be the counsellors. However, the job of counselling is a very important one and it seems to me it can only be done well by people who have lived for some time and have gained some experience. The person who is newly out of university or who has very few years of experience is not going to be an effective counsellor for quite some time. True, you should hire them and use them in subordinate jobs. But the type of people who should do the counselling of the people who need retraining should be mature adults with a number of years of experience and living behind them.
It occurs to me that this type of person does exist in many of our cities across the country. I think, for example, of people employed by school boards and boards of education. I hope some method can be worked out among local manpower centres whereby the staffs of the manpower centres, many of whom will be new and inexperienced, can rely on the experience which has been gained by these other people I have just mentioned.
There is one other point in connection with counselling that I wonder about, and again I raise it in the form of a question. I believe there are to be five regional directors across the country who will have very great powers. They will have a great deal of discretion in decision making. They are to decide who should take re-training and who should not. One would therefore hope that different criteria do not apply in different parts of the country but that a plan will be worked out so that some common denominator applies. I say this because people could be admitted for training in one part of the country because of the attitude of the particular regional director and his staff but the same people would not be admitted in other parts of the country because other centres operated under different criteria and arrived at different decisions.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have noted that other speakers in this debate have, like myself, raised a great many questions, and rightly so. This is a most important measure and I hope that the staff have been taking note of these questions. I would inform the minister that we will want to hear answers to these questions either before second reading or in committee before this measure finally goes through.
Occupational Training


Mr. Steven Otto (York East);: Mr. Speaker, it is very unfortunate that this very important bill follows so closely on the heels of the unification bill which has just been passed this afternoon because long after the arguments which have been presented during the last two or three weeks have been forgotten the effect of the bill will be with us. The beneficial results of this bill, if properly applied, will mark the minister as one of our great ministers and, as you know, I do not say that lightly.
This is a bill which deals with individuals, not with groups. It deals with the individual's rights, his apprehensions and fears, and indeed with whether or not the individual Canadian is going to be able to make a living. As time progresses and these awesome changes in technology take place from day to day, it is all very well to say to a welder, for example: "We have just developed a brand new machine and instead of you standing over a piece of steel for days on end you will just have to put it into this machine and it will weld it for you". That is fine. The great benefits of automation are not realized by workmen who think their jobs are in jeopardy. The workman fears the new technology and fears the way it will disrupt his life. He resists change. This bill attempts to alleviate his fears by saying: "Look, you need not worry. You will survive and enter new employment fields. We have stafE and research facilities behind us and we shall make sure that your training will benefit you and the nation."
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
That there will be many difficulties connected with this measure is true. I submit that its success depends on those clauses of the bill having to do with research. I am amazed sometimes at how slow educators, technicians and tutors are to accept the realities of the moment. Let me give an example. I have had 18 to 20 years experience in the construction field. Under a program similar to this one vocational schools are training plasterers although plastering as a trade is dying. In other words, when the student has finished his course there will not be a job for him. The same might apply to carpenters, plumbers, and electricians.
In the construction field we need installers and assemblers, but difficulties are created because one group of tradesmen instals windows, another group instals kitchen cabinets, another instals plumbing, another instals

April 25, 1967
Occupational Training
doors, and so on. A great change is contemplated in clause 10 of the bill which will provide for real research in the field of technology. If the government assembles a competent research staff I am sure that adults taking the courses will benefit greatly.
It must be remembered, nevertheless, that we are dealing with human beings. It is all very well for counsellors to say, "You ought to be retrained because your trade is vanishing", but the applicant's feelings as a human being must be considered. In this regard the government ought to co-operate with management which, contrary to popular assumption, is willing to co-operate in this field.
It must be remembered too that when a man retrains for a job his living standard drops by about 25 per cent. Tradesmen retraining are willing to put up with hardships. Nevertheless it is difficult, having qualified for a trade and worked at it for 10 or 15 years, to be told that the old skills must be forgotten and that new skills must be learned.
Nothing is as valuable to management as an old, experienced employee. Such employees are loyal, they know the work and they are a very real asset. I am an employer and I should be only too happy to pay tradesmen seeking retraining $10, $15 or $20 to keep their services. One man has been with me for a long time and I should like to keep him. I should like to see the government co-operating with management much more than it has in the past. In fact, I think that management will co-operate more readily than will the provinces.
That brings me to my second point. During his remarks the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) said that we have lost sight of co-operative federalism. I say, of course, that nothing will be more conducive to co-operation than this measure. It is senseless arguing that education is of local or provincial jurisdiction. On a man's education depends his standard of living. On the education of the labour force will depend such things as national unemployment or employment, the increase or decrease of production, the fall or rise of our balance of payments and whether the national economy prospers or falters. The provinces jealously guard their jurisdiction in the field of education. Their jurisdiction is concerned with individuals. Do the provinces say when unemployment strikes: "Fine, we will look after the unemployed in our provinces?" I submit they do not. Unemployment remains a federal responsibility and it ought not to be argued
{Mr. Otto.]
that education, especially adult education, should not be a federal responsibility.
The British North America Act, one of the loosest constitutions in existence can be interpreted in almost any way one wishes. I suggest that the British North America Act applies best to the government that is quickest to take the initiative. I doubt that the people of Canada would support the argument of the provinces that education ought to be within provincial jurisdiction. Indeed, I am quite sure that all Canadians would be willing to have education under federal jurisdiction. This bill will only succeed in its aims if the minister insists that its subject matter comes within federal jurisdiction, with the senior level of government assuming the responsibility for payment as well as responsibility for administering the legislation.
It is incorrect to think that the Canadian people will not support the idea that adult education should come under federal jurisdiction completely. Some imagine that in this country we have two groups of taxpayers, one supporting provincial governments and the other supporting the federal government. That is not so. The same taxpayers support the federal and provincial governments and pay taxes to both levels. The tax revenue of the country still comes from the country's taxpayers. If we recognize that matters such as the economy, unemployment and productivity are of national concern we should recognize that education, especially adult education, ought to be within the national jurisdiction.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
A further point I should like to raise concerns unemployment insurance. I realize this is touched on briefly in the bill before us and I am in support of the clause which deals with it. At the same time it must be remembered that if we are to expect Canadians to take advantage of facilities for adult education it will be necessary to convince them that they will not suffer undue financial hardship as a result. It is not likely that Canadians will be willing to lower their standard of living to an appreciable extent merely because through no fault of their own their jobs have disappeared. So we must arrange these payments in such a way that a man will receive not less than 75 per cent of his former earnings while he is retraining.
This a matter which ought to be taken out of the municipal field because the municipalities are governed largely by a group elected
April 25, 1967

by the establishment. Similarly, the provincial governments are in effect representative of the establishment. On the other hand, we in this house represent the disestablished, and it is the disestablished who must take advantage of this bill.
The minister should pursue the course he has set himself with strength and vigour. I am sure the consequences of this measure will be rewarding if its terms are put into effect stringently, vigorously and with some thought for the future.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Royal: Mr. Speaker, the deafening applause when you called on me makes it difficult for me to collect my thoughts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Fairweaiher:: I wanted to say that I feel this bill would have received more meaningful consideration by parliament had it gone before one of the committees of parliament before this debate began. No matter what one may think of the unification bill, the transport bill or the Bank Act, each of these measures is in its own way the better because the opportunity was taken to examine it carefully in a committee of parliament.
I myself feel in some need of adult retraining in this very sphere. I recognize that the minister and the government are captives of the parliamentary timetable. Because of the demands of this timetable they may be in danger of asking parliament to enact legislation which has not received sufficiently thorough examination by members of parliament or by the provincial governments.
I do not intend to speak for very long. I am sympathetic toward the basic objectives of this legislation. But if I were ever to ask the Canada Council to give me a grant I think I would ask that I be allowed to conduct a study in the use of what I call irony, a study of the use made by governments, by ministers, by all of us, of what might be called ironical defences of what we propose to do. I think that the subject of manpower retraining would be a good place to start. If I wanted somebody to come to my defence-because on a number of occasions I tend to be open-minded-I would choose as a supporter of my views none other than the distinguished chancellor of Queen's University who has had some interesting things to say about the constitutional position vis-a-vis education.
I was interested, as I suppose all of us should be, in the government's about-face last
Occupational Training
October, its retreat from concern with assistance to higher education. At the time of that retreat it made an advance in a related field, and this legislation is obviously part of that advance. The irony on which I like to reflect is that we can find a neat constitutional excuse for enacting this bill at the very time we are finding a constitutional excuse for withdrawing from a field which I feel is of equal importance and concern to the government of Canada, that is, the field of higher education. Perhaps my council grant would run out if this were the only evidence I could bring to bear on the use of irony. But why can we not be frank with the people of Canada once in a while?
I also wish to express regret that I have had no opportunity to study the letters from various provincial jurisdictions expressing the concern they feel about the working out of the formula for manpower retraining. This is despite the fact that the minister kindly promised to table them. I have had to rely on newspaper accounts which are not the best evidence, I admit. Apparently the reporters are able to see mail which members of parliament up to now at any rate have not had the opportunity to study. As I say, the minister did agree to the tabling of these letters subject to the consent of the provinces concerned. I make no charge, no criticism. I presume that some at least of the provinces have not yet agreed to the tabling of the correspondence. Apparently, though the province of Ontario has done so, because in the Globe and Mail of April 22 there is a fairly extensive article entitled "Queens' Park Points A Finger At Ottawa". The subheading reads: "The Retraining Row". Far be it from me to feel under any obligation to present a case for the province of Ontario, but it is my impression-the minister may correct me if I am mistaken-that there is a very genuine concern felt about this legislation, not just a timid reaction but a genuine concern among all the provinces save two. This arises, if my information is correct, from a feeling there has been insufficient consideration of the regulations and of the effect of this new concept.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I share several of the views expressed by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) as to the working of the ARDA program. I have been following the developments in northeastern New Brunswick with a great deal of interest. Of course anybody who represents any part of that province knows of

April 25, 1967
Occupational Training
the drastic need for an ARDA program, in fact for adult education and a thorough-going upgrading of the economic and social life in that part of New Brunswick. But I hope, as did the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond, that the manpower retraining program will be dovetailed with the ARDA program and that the human and social needs of the people will be the prime consideration.
I have an idea that the minister has a very genuine feeling for human problems. This has been demonstrated in other areas of his departmental concern, particularly in the very much improved immigration procedures that he announced. By the way, Mr. Speaker, I think that announcement shows the benefit of a parliamentary committee's thoughtful consideration of a program, and had a parliamentary committee had the opportunity to examine this bill I think it would have been so much the better for it.
I also hope there will be a close tie-in of this program with the developing facilities for educational television. That also needs thorough research and examination by parliament. We shall have other opportunities to speak on this aspect, but may I just say I hope ARDA will be tied in with manpower retraining and that those who are administering this bill when it has been passed by parliament will not forget the advantages of educational television.
To return for a second to my feeling about the use of the word irony, may I quote a comment made by Dr. Corry in what I think was a very important speech which he made On October 26, 1966, to the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. As hon. members will recall, the government staked out the federal role in cultural matters, manpower training and research in its public announcement about the same time last October, or in early November. Dr. Corry had some comments to make that I think are relevant to this bill and to a consideration of what I might with great respect say was the over-simplified view of the constitutional aspects of education given to us by the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto). If it were as simple as the hon. member suggested I am sure the minister, as spokesman for the province of Quebec in the federal cabinet, would feel that a good many of his worries were over.
Dr. Corry said:
In a number of quarters we are being warned that the very existence of our country depends on vastly more Canadians becoming bilingual- *in essence, acquiring some facility in French as
[Mr. Fairweather.l
well as English. Without judging this contention but allowing that it may well be so, could we count on nine English speaking provinces grasping this urgency and making the necessary educational provision? Would the sum of these efforts add up to enough? Is it not clear that there may well be the need for emphasis, support, and direction being provided by the government of Canada?
This is the key question that Dr. Corry asked:
Is it not strange that numbers of those who warn us of the critical nature of bilingual needs should in almost the same breath be saying that the government of Canada has no role to play in education?
But, it will be asked, does not section 93 of the British North America Act give exclusive power over education to the provinces? This is correct, subject to a limitation that is likely to become more portentous as time goes on. Literally, the words of section 93 are "In and for each province, the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education."
If there are national needs and objectives that require concerted educational policy in two, several, or all provinces, no provincial legislature is by itself competent in the matter, and judicial interpretation on other comparable aspects of the distribution of powers under the British North America Act makes it clear that parliament is competent, under "the peace order and good government" clause.
It must be on this ground that Prime Minister Pearson, in his proposal to the federal-provincial conference now meeting-*
This speech, of course, was made, as I have said, last October 26.
-asserted federal jurisdiction in the training and retraining of adults for participation in the labour force. It is to be hoped that a reading of this particular assertion along with other general disclaimers in the text of his proposal about federal authority in education will not give rise to inferences that the federal government has neither status nor lively concern in the education of highly skilled and highly educated manpower in the universities.
May I interpolate here that this is the point I want to make in my few remarks on this stage of the bill. Fine, go ahead with the manpower retraining program with basic enthusiasm for its objectives, but do not in the same policy announcement, so to speak, and in the same area of vital national concern ignore the need for highly educated specialists coming from the universities. To return to the speech made by Dr. Corry.
It would be incongruous to be asserting federal authority over training for run-of-the-mill jobs in the labour force and abandoning it totally for all professional, scientific, and technical personnel educated by the universities. It is the latter who will be critical for national objectives in the future.
. .. The federal government is attempting to make clear it has a constitutional responsibility for adult
April 25, 1967

retraining programs, research, and cultural development, and that these are not, constitutionally speaking, educational matters falling within the jurisdieiton of the provinces, from which the federal authority is excluded.
I hope I have an opportunity before very long, perhaps arising out of the speech from the throne in the next session, if there is any next session for those of us who have been waiting for it for a little while, to be able to support enthusiastically a vigorous program Of financial help for the very areas of highly skilled people in another aspect of Canadian need that has been so clearly set out by Dr. Corry.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, I feel that this bill would have been better had we had the opportunity to examine it in a committee. I had hoped to have an opportunity to study or take into consideration the serious doubts about the mechanics of this legislation as carried out by the provinces. Unfortunately that is not to be. May I also re-echo the plea made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond that this new program not be isolated from those projects envisaged by the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act. Lastly, I hope that the as yet untapped area, untapped in Canada but used to a particular effect in Italy, of educational television will not be neglected when the minister goes about establishing this new policy.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take part in the debate on the occupational training of adults, and also assure the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) that it is not merely to seek publicity in the newspapers that I do so. I wish the minister would be kinder with me and be willing to believe that I am taking part in the debate in the interest of my fellow-citizens.
It may be that the minister would rather see someone else take the floor, a Tory, a Grit or anyone else, instead of "little Gregoire" as he calls me, but at any rate someone who would not say a word. Then the minsiter might have some peace and might be able to read the newspapers, his favourite hobby. If no member rose to speak, the minister could read his newspapers undisturbed.
But you must not always be quiet when you are a legislator. He may compare me with the fly on the wheel, but a fly is often of
Occupational Training
great help to get an old horse moving, particularly when it stings the old horse at the right time.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would apologize to the minister, if I must apologize for taking part in this debate, for disturbing his peace, for disturbing him in his newspaper reading. Unfortunately, we cannot all be yes-men. Parliament cannot include only men who are always in their seats, and the minister must get used to that.
The minister says that I want to look like a great man although I am only a midget. Mr. Speaker, I will tell the minister that it is true. I admit that I am not a great man but I will tell the minister that the first thing one must learn is that one does not know anything and I would ask him to apply it to himself.
After those preliminary remarks, Mr. Speaker, I should like to go directly to the heart of the matter.


Jean Marchand: That is good.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, it did not take me half a day, like the minister, to set the record straight. It took him half a day to make charges such as those I have just mentioned, whereas it took me barely two minutes to make a correction.
Once again, I apologize to the minister for disturbing him while he is reading the newspapers but, you know how it is, Mr. Speaker, I have electors to represent here and I will do it to the best of my ability.
I, therefore, come back to the bill dealing with occupational training as I understand it.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation as introduced in Bill No. C-278 is one that enables everybody to evade their responsibilities.
As far as providing our people with the means and the opportunity to secure a more advanced occupational and technical training, I am all for it. But I am not so sure about the means that are being suggested. To support this, let me refer to the answers the minister himself gave to certain questions we put to him when we asked: How is it that so many Quebec people cannot follow the occupational training courses? And the federal Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) replied: It is because the province of Quebec lacks the necessary facilities to enable the unemployed to follow these training courses.
So, if all our citizens who need them do not follow the occupational training courses this year, next year or two years from now, the

April 25, 1967
Occupational Training
minister will simply rise and say: It is not our fault if the provinces lack the facilities. We are ready to pay the provinces if they provide the facilities. Yes, we will pay the provinces, but if they lack the facilities, that is not our fault. And the minister can quietly sit down and say: I have done my duty; I have introduced legislation that does not apply to everyone because the provinces lack the required facilities. And he can blame the provinces and the minister can continue to read his newspapers in peace.
But if people vote as they are doing now against legislation that is not implemented as it should be, the minister will call them young punks, and to those who feel that things are not going fast enough, the minister will say, as he is wont to say in his rigmarole, that they are irresponsible. The minister will also say: If we only had members who would stay put and keep quiet! He will go to their constituencies and say: Elect a Conservative, a Liberal, or a "caille". As far as he is concerned, it is all the same thing provided they stay put. That is the first requirement. And the minister will say:	I put legislation
through. It is not my fault if other governments cannot do any better. It is never the fault of any given government, but always somebody else's fault.
It is the way the minister has been answering. When he is asked: How is it that our labourers who need retraining cannot take this training because they are refused in the manpower centres in our ridings? The minister says: It is not our fault, it is the fault of the provinces that are lacking in facilities. This bill enables all concerned to evade their responsibilities or to pass the buck. Then he can sit down saying: I put legislation through. Some people talk too much while it was being considered, but it was finally passed. If it does not operate as it should, well, it is not our fault, it is somebody else's fault.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation, as drafted now in Bill No. C-278 cannot have any other effects. It is the system which is wrong. When there is an objective to achieve, when we want to assist some groups of people, we always have to involve two governments in the deal, and two governments which interfere with each other, two governments which have administrative expenses, whose functions overlap and where no effort is being made on one side or the other to make the legislation operative, because when things do not operate as they should, or successfully,

one just has to fold one's arms and say: It is the other government's fault.
That is what this legislation has again in store for us. I would not want the minister to think that I am opposed to adult occupational training. The minister cannot detect in anything which I say now the slightest opposition to adult occupational training or to retraining of those who have been displaced on account of automation or modern production technology. No, that is not the case.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
On the contrary, I would like to see an act like this one-there are good things in it-to be really applicable, without loopholes, one that does not allow the blame to be put on someone else, one that assigns responsibilities in such a way that, if it fails to operate, we can point a finger at one government, and not two, and say: You are to blame if things are not working out; and do not try to put the blame on another government.
Mr. Speaker, once again, even if the matter is as vital, important, and necessary as the training of adults, because many individuals are still being displaced by automation and modern techniques, implementation of the act is entrusted to two different governments, two different organizations, two bureaucracies, and consequently causes double expense.
It is the individual displaced by automation, for instance, or the man employed in an industry where technical changes are expected to take place who will want to take those occupational training courses and he will apply first to the manpower centre, a federal institution.
You will note the intricacies of this administrative process. This federal manpower centre will have to turn to provincial organizations and administrations to know about the opportunities and facilities for receiving such or such individual; and then, that will fall back into the hands of the provincial authority.
The provincial authority will report on such opportunities to the federal manpower centre and this centre will return the individual involved, like a football thrown from hand to hand, to the provincial occupational training institutions. When the time comes to pay for the courses, the federal centre will pay the provincial centre, and when the time comes to pay the living allowances, again the federal government will pay the individual. And there will always be overlapping. That individual will be sent for retraining-he will practically be sent on a bicycle-from the
April 25, 1967

federal to the provincial government so that the individual will always be caught between two governments, two administration centres.
We will have to pay taxes to cover the administration costs of the federal manpower centre, we will have to pay more taxes to the provincial government to support the administration and pay the cost of the paperwork and the provincial bureaucrats who will look after this individual, and there will always be duplication in administrative and bureaucratic expenditures.
The poor Quebeckers will have to deal with two ministers, two deputy ministers, federal and provincial bureaucrats and auditors; they will have to foot two expense accounts and will also have to pay taxes twice to cover administrative expenses, once to the federal government and again to the provincial government.
This is absolutely abnormal, Mr. Chairman. This is another proof that our system is basically wrong, since each time we want to pass legislation in the interest of an individual, of a group of individuals, or of a class of people, two governments must deal with it instead of one.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that this Bill No. C-278, is another intrusion by the federal government into a field which is not its own, the educational field. And this is not the first intrusion by the federal government into the field of education.
I can well remember that my hon. colleague, the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), has written a little booklet that everybody should read, giving a detailed account of all the intrusions by the federal government. But we are concerned here with the retraining of manpower, and even if the present intrusion by the federal government, into the occupational training field will not prevent directly the provincial government from setting up an over-all plan for the retraining and training of citizens, whether they are students, teenagers or adults, it will nevertheless prevent the establishment of an over-all program controlled by a single authority in the educational field, so as to provide a link between the training of young people and their further training, once they have become adults, in order to cope with the never-ending technological changes.
There will be no overall plan, but two separate programs, one for secondary education and one for adult education. As a result, it will be impossible to establish an overall system which would co-ordinate education in 23033-968
Occupational Training
Canada at all levels, enabling people continually to adjust to evolution, modern technology and automation.
Let us take another example concerning refresher courses under the Adult Occupational Training Act. Let us take the case of a grade 10 school teacher who has a diploma from a teachers' college. Would not modern progress require, Mr. Speaker, that after some five years' teaching experience this man take a one-year sabbatical leave to see how grade 10 is taught in other schools, or else, return to other specialized schools, to learn new pedagogical developments and new teaching methods for grade 10 teachers.
I see that the minister nods his head. It is precisely there that the federal government takes charge of this grade 10 teacher who wants to improve his education for one year. This, in my opinion, has two serious shortcomings; first, a teacher is taken away from a provincial system of education to be placed for one year under the authority of the federal Department of Manpower and Immigration. And then, is this not also intended to prevent a single authority in matters of education, that is the provincial authority, from looking after the further training of such a teacher who, after teaching for five years, seeks to improve himself?
Such a measure will, in effect, make a clean break, because it will bewilder such a teacher seeking occupational training as an adult, after having taught for five years. To improve himself, he will have to come under the federal Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
In view of what the minister has told us, he will probably be given newspapers, in order to teach him to read the papers. That is the way our school teachers will be trained.
Mr. Speaker, this is a clear case of intrusion by the federal government. I have only referred to two points, because the time available will not permit me to explain further, but I shall have the opportunity to refer to this again.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I shall have an opportunity to come back to them but, first of all and to sum up, they prevent the establishment of a general plan to co-ordinate the whole training of the citizen, whether it be during his technical, secondary or university studies, relating all these elements to his occupational training as an adult; the intrusion of the federal government makes here a clear break in the whole scheme that could be built around the Quebec citizen or the Canadian citizen.

April 25, 1367
Occupational Training
It also prevents the formulation of a general plan for refresher courses, as I mentioned a moment ago, taking as an example school teachers who could, every five years, refresh or improve their knowledge either by seeing what is being done elsewhere, or by learning more modern teaching methods, for these also change every year.
Mr. Speaker, as far as work itself is concerned, this is also an intrusion by the federal government, since it prevents those who are empowered to act and who are responsible in this field, that is the provincial authorities, from setting up a comprehensive program so as to provide for a reduction of working hours, which is in keeping with the times. In the Express magazine, a French periodical, an article was published on April 22, I believe, saying that an American company, after a study based upon modern processing methods and computer operations, had established that in 30 years from now, the average working week would be about 24 hours.
Well, the authorities could draw up a comprehensive plan combining a reduction of the worker's time on the job and an increase in the time he must spend to complete an adult occupational training course in step with automation and modern production techniques.
This also, Mr. Speaker, comes under the provincial authority, but the program set forth today will prevent the development of such comprehensive plan by the authorities who have the jurisdiction in that field, to wit: the provincial authorities.
Mr. Speaker, I am not against-and I wish to point it out once more-a legislation concerning the occupational training of adults. I think that the legislation has very good points and I should not like it to be dropped merely on account of the basic matters which I have listed. Moreover, I do not want the citizens of Quebec to be deprived thereof, because a minister has deemed it advisable to bring down mixed legislation based on federal and provincial authorities, enabling each authority to back out of their responsibilities while holding the other responsible if the legislation does not operate successfully.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, instead of taking direct objection to this bill, I would rather move an amendment, because although in my opinion the bill, as drafted, could be greatly useful, I believe that the amendment I intend to move now, on second reading can be of greater service still.

My amendment is as follows:
I move, seconded by my good friend the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), to whom I am thankful because he shares these opinions as he is not a "caille", as the Minister of Manpower and Immigration says, but one of those who prefer to speak up even if it should prevent the minister from reading his papers, that all the words after the world "that" be deleted and replaced by the following:
This house, while of the opinion that all necessary steps must be taken to ensure that proper occupational training is available to every adult Canadian citizen who needs it, also believes nonetheless that no legislation providing occupational training for adults would be sufficient unless it provided also a system of fiscal compensation for any province wanting to set up its own program of occupational training for adults.
Mr. Speaker, I could let you read the
amendment to the house and continue my remarks afterwards.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member wish to continue?


Gilles Grégoire: Now, Mr. Speaker, I will go on with my remarks so as to enable you to examine the amendment.
The amendment is very simple. I do not want the disappearance of a piece of legislation on the occupational training for adults, far from it. On the contrary, I want to improve it. The provinces that will want to entrust the federal authority with-


Jean Marchand: Just a minute.

Mr. Speaker, may we know what is happening with the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Lapointe?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will read the amendment in a few moments.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: En anglais, en frangais? [Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: I wish to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that if you have any doubts about this amendment, whether it is in order or legal, I could give you the reasons in favour thereof.
The purpose of the amendment is to improve this piece of legislation. You may note that I am not saying this is a bad bill; in the contrary, I think that any piece of
April 25, 1967

legislation which is intended to improve the occupational training of adults should be considered seriously and that we should try to legislate to that effect.
Now, my amendment will enable the provinces wishing to do so to entrust the federal government with the occupational training of adults.
Nothing will prevent Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland or even Quebec from waiving their authority in favour of the federal government. Nothing will prevent them from doing so, under that amendment.
On the other hand, those provinces that will wish to legislate in that field, to have their own legislation regarding the occupational training of adults will be able to do so, under the amendment.
Those provinces wishing to take advantage of that amendment will be wholly responsible for the occupational training of adults. Then, not one member from Quebec will be justified in rising and asking what the minister is doing? As a matter of fact, he could say since the province insisted on being solely responsible, it must therefore assume its responsibilities.
Then, if a member rises in the provincial legislature and asks what the minister is doing, it will not be possible for that provincial minister to reply: It is the fault of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration who reads newspapers. He could say: It is my fault, since I am wholly responsible in the field of occupational training of adults.
The minister will find that, by the same token, if some provinces take advantage of that amendment, he will no longer have to say: It is not my fault, it is the provinces' fault. And he will be able to keep on reading his papers.
Mr. Speaker, such is the purpose of the amendment: to ensure that provincial jurisdiction is not infringed and that the provinces may establish their own occupational training program for adults; to see that, with this adult occupational training program, other larger over-all plans may be generated within those provinces such as, for instance the co-ordination and education of young people with that of adults. That is the improvement wished by those who not only have to face modern technology or automation but who wish to improve in other fields such as, for instance, in the teaching profession.
Occupational Training
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
The provinces will be allowed to operate other over-all plans if they take advantage of the amendment. They could, for instance, combine the reductions in working hours and the increase in hours devoted to adult training.
Mr. Speaker, I move this amendment in the hope that everyone will realize that it is an improvement over the legislation before us at this time. Without taking anything away from the legislation, it represents an improvement which I hope the minister will accept, because it will not take anything away from it.
The amendment means simply that the provinces wishing and feeling able to do so could initiate their own occupational training plan. Then, the provinces will benefit from tax equalization, which means that the federal government will give back to them, in the form of tax equalization, what it would cost to implement that system in a given province.
For instance, should the plan be applied in Quebec, the federal government would cease to collect an equal amount in taxes and the Quebec government could thus benefit from that amount which the federal government would refrain from collecting, that is an amount equal to the cost to the federal government of implementation of the plan. *
Mr. Speaker, under those circumstances the province collecting the taxes would implement its own plan according to the specific aims of the province. That would spare double administrative costs, and that is very important. In fact, we would no longer need to pay officials in Ottawa and Quebec city to implement the same bill. One single group of examiners, inspectors and bureaucrats would be enough. Instead of paying officials twice, we would pay them only once. Instead of paying a federal and a provincial inspector to check whether a building designed for occupational training of adults has actually been built according to standards, only one would be paid, and thus money would be saved.
Instead of paying two architects, one provincial and one federal, to supervise the works, only one would be paid. Instead of two accounting systems to ascertain whether an adult taking occupational training has received his school allowance or his moving expenses, we would have only one control system, and thus significant savings could be realized.
23033-968J

April 25. 1967
Occupational Training
On the other hand, the provincial authorities could provide the adults with a much better occupational training system than the one suggested by the minister, on account of the savings effected in the administrative field, for there would be only one single authority to operate and administer.
That causes delays and involves halfmeasures. The federal government may say: We want this to be done in such a way, while the provincial authorities will say: We want it this way. Finally, nothing will be done.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I believe the amendment I move today will improve the bill and enable the provinces to exercise their jurisdiction and their authority as far as education and labour legislation are concerned, since tax equalization will provide them with amounts of money equal to the expenditures brought about by the adult occupational training program.
Mr. Speaker, may I say that if you have any doubts as to whether or not this amendment is in order, I am prepared to put forward arguments to show that it is in order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: While consideration is being given to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lapointe perhaps the hon. member for Simcoe East would like to proceed with his remarks. Before he does so, however, I should like to read the questions for the adjournment debate this evening.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)

Air Transport-request for ban on use of highly inflammable fuel; the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Keays)-Winter Works-extension of period; the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard)-Food and Drugs-suggestion that directions be written in French and in English.



OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien (for Mr. Marchand)
[Mr. Gregoire.l
for the second reading of Bill No. C-278, respecting the occupational training of adults.
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: I should like to make some comments on this bill, Mr. Speaker, and to compliment the minister for bringing in a bill which certainly seems to have concern for the people as its major objective. This measure, of course, eliminates the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act which was introduced in 1960 by the then minister of labour in the Conservative government, the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr). The need for education and re-education is something which nobody in this house denies today. We are in a world that from 1700 to 1900 amassed twice the knowledge it had previously, from 1900 to 1950 doubled that knowledge, and from 1950 to 1960 doubled it again. This is an amazing feat. Knowledge seems to spread. From 1960 to 1965 we doubled our knowledge again. I bring this point to your attention, Mr. Speaker, because it indicates that we have arrived at the stage of automation.
We find that a man who may have been fully trained in a skill or trade in 1960 is today looking for a new skill or trade. The job that he had may have been obliterated; it has gone into oblivion. We find that this situation applies to all of our courses of training. It is an axiom today that we train people to know more and more about less and less. When the need for a particular skill no longer exists we find that these people cannot turn to something else. They have to have retraining; they have to go back to school. This is one of the problems facing us today.
I feel we should take a good look at some of the things that have actually happened in Canada. In the year 1900 about 70 per cent of the people in Canada were engaged in farming. Today we find that less than 10 per cent of the people are engaged in this occupation. It is interesting to note that in those days the village blacksmith and the woodworker were the skilled mechanics, along with the man who ran the gristmill which turned the wheat into flour for making bread. These were the essential things in those days. Everyone was a skilled mechanic and was skilled in all the different phases of an operation whether it was making a wagon or whatever it might be.
Today we find that workmen play only a small part in the production of a machine. In other words, as I have said before, these skilled men know more and more about less and less. In the field of agriculture to which I
April 25, 1967

have referred, production efficiency has increased by over 50 per cent in the last ten years and is still increasing very rapidly as a result of the machines that have been produced. Last year, in fact, we were able to sell over a billion dollars worth of wheat to other countries. This situation was related to the mechanization and automation that have taken place over a period of years. Certainly this is increasing today by leaps and bounds. It is a fact of life that the training given today may be obsolete tomorrow. Therefore we need a training plan tailored to meet the problems created by automation.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
Although many people will qualify for retraining, some will not have the required academic education, and I am wondering what the minister plans for these people. In addition, what about those who are too old for training? Every week end I meet someone in this category. We have to exercise a little care and caution in the changing world of today. I met one fellow who was trained in one skill but had to be trained in another skill simply because his original skill was no longer required. Does the minister intend to keep offering retraining courses? In this event we will find ourselves on a merry-go-round.
I now want to talk about technical and vocational training schools. The Conservative government passed the former Technical and vocational training act in 1960 under the guidance of the minister of labour of that day, the hon. member for Ontario. Over $300 million was spent in a very short time on building schools. The Conservative government put up 75 per cent of the cost of construction and equipment. We are now going to move in another direction, and I should like to know where the money is coming from to construct the schools that will be required. We are going to have manpower centres but unless we have training schools it seems to me this bill is a backward step.
We also have those people who were trained in Salvation Army homes and institutions. These people have been doing a good job. I think all of us would agree that places like Concord have done a wonderful job. Young men from that institution have taken employment and have been very successful in their work. Are these people now to be cut off? I should like the minister to inform us on this.
Let us take the case of a boy of 17 going to high school who is either on any academic course or a vocational course. In the province
Occupational Training
of Ontario it is difficult to take any further course. Are these students to be cut off too? Why are they discriminated against? I see the minister shakes his head, but according to press reports this is exactly what has been happening. A report in the Globe and Mail for Saturday last had this to say:
Few of the 21,000 adults on job retraining in 54 communities in Ontario can afford to support themselves while attending full time classes.
Why are so many training-hungry adults facing the loss of educational opportunities at a time when Canada is so short of skilled manpower?
Part of the reason lies in good intentions on the part of new look federal cabinet minister Jean Marchand.
I would be the last to deny that the minister has good intentions. The article continues:
He wants to upgrade the nation's work force fast. But Ottawa is inexperienced at the education game and has been unwilling to listen to advice from the provinces.
In this regard I am wondering whether Premier Stanfield of Nova Scotia, Premier Robarts of Ontario and Premier Roblin of Manitoba were sufficiently consulted. I think it would be interesting to see the correspondence in this regard. It seems to me there is an allegation here that the minister has not looked into the question or consulted the provinces sufficiently. The article continues:
Another part lies in a liberal dose of what is described as bureaucratic arrogance by Ottawa, misunderstandings and some legislative bad luck.
I think the writer of the article is being very kind in his use of that last phrase. I bring this article to the attention of the minister as an indication that his public relations in this regard have not been very good. As I say, Mr. Speaker, I should like to see the correspondence that has been exchanged with respect to this plan. I do not think you can simply draw a line between the two as the minister has. I do not think there can be a black and a white in this regard.
When a student has completed an academic course of four years he does not want to loaf. He wants to go to work. He should come under the manpower training plan so he can finish his education in this field. In my opinion he has just as much right to manpower training as anybody else. I do not say this unkindly, but I submit that there are about 7,000 young people of Ontario who should not be placed in this position. Therefore I ask the minister to take another look at this question to see whether he can get together with the other provinces as well as my own province. Something must be done to ensure that these

April 25, 1967
Occupational Training
young fellows du not become forgotten legions.
* I now want to dwell for a moment on what the minister proposes to do with the business 'colleges and trade schools. I would remind the minister, though he probably knows this better than I, that in high school two courses 'can be taken to grade 10 before going to business college. On the other hand, you can complete four years to grade 12 at high school and then go to business college. Usually these positions are taken by girls, though there are some men who attend. According to the figures I have before me, 44,641 people were trained in business schools.
: What is the position of the minister vis-avis the business colleges which are doing an excellent job? 1 was talking last night to some business colleagues who expressed the view that business colleges perform a very necessary function. They provide a finished training to equip people to go into business after a nine-month or six-month course following upon four years at high school.
Another point which I do not think has been sufficiently covered concerns trade 'schools. Last Saturday I was talking to a man who had employed a fellow who was trained at a trade school in Toronto, and he said that this boy was a dandy, that he does his job well and has other experience. Is the minister going to assist these people? I realize these schools are private concerns, but surely to goodness the minister does not think that good comes only from public enterprise. It has been proven over and over again that a complete education has great benefits. Over the years we have hired many stenographers and those who completed their education in the business schools have always been proficient and seemed to have a know-how to start with. I hope the minister will make certain that these people are trained and given allowances. If trainees come under program 5 there should be no discrimination because, after all, they are taxpayers of this country and are entitled to take private training if it is efficient.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
I have grave doubts about the minister's bill with respect to its interfering with provincial affairs. I do not wish to say that the minister has been at fault; I think he is a nice fellow. But I do say that relations with the provincial premiers and ministers of education ought to have been better. Surely this whole matter could have been worked out before the introduction of the bill. There have
[Mr. Rynard.l
been arguments; at least, that is the impression left in my mind. Whether it is correct I do not know but I should be interested to read the correspondence to see whether my assumption is correct. Perhaps the provinces may be hard to get along with, but the minister knows how to deal with them. He is a smiling, diplomatic sort of fellow who has handled himself well in the house. Surely he could have done a better job in straightening out the many difficulties in which he finds himself.
I hope the minister will answer some questions on this important matter. As I have said before, the plan is a good one provided it works and provided the minister is willing to iron out problems with the provinces. In the over-all picture, with the rapidity of modern transport whereby people can move readily from Quebec to Ontario or Ontario to Quebec, from Quebec to British Columbia or to the maritimes, there ought to be national direction with respect to education. Under the British North America Act education is a provincial matter. It is easier to go from the maritimes to Vancouver by modern transportation facilities than it was to go from one village to another 100 years ago. With people able to move so easily from one province to another we ought to have some agreed national direction in education so that students will not lose time or become confused by reason of different textbooks and differently constituted classes.
I support the principle of the bill though I have many doubts about the minister's ability to carry through its intention. I wish the minister well and I hope he will provide some answers before we finish considering the bill.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin by saying that I feel Canadians almost everywhere appreciate the concept behind this bill. Many Canadians felt when the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) was appointed that this country was pioneering in certain respects. With automation spreading most Canadians thought that automation was indivisible and that the labour force would be indivisible. They felt that provincial boundaries meant nothing when mobility of labour and conditions of labour were taken into account. People from coast to coast felt that with the technical changes of automation provincial boundaries ought not to be a bar to technical training and mobility. Many of us feel that the minister has espoused much of this concept. Some of us
April 25, 1967

admire the way he has refused to permit questions of manpower and training to be pushed into provincial compartments entirely. The minister knows that these matters cannot be fenced off by provincial boundaries.
Some of us think of making this land into a single country one day with room for all our diversities, our two major cultures and languages, and so on. We hope that ways will constantly be developed whereby it will be possible for ideas of one sort or another to flow across provincial boundaries, in that way bringing about true unity within this country. One day we hope to see that unity. We do not go along with the nineteenth century idea of chopping this nation into ten divisions and saying that each division shall run everything as it sees fit.


Mr. Cowan:: That is right.


Winona Grace MacInnis: That sort of thinking will not turn us into one country and it is time that some of us said so. We want to make room for the diversities of this country and we want to give special status where special status is needed. We certainly do not accept the unrealistic concept of fencing everything off behind provincial boundaries. That can be done, but if it is done we shall not have a country.
I do not think that the hon. member on the other side who echoed this sentiment really agrees with what I am saying. I feel that his efforts do not make it easy for all Canadians to accept the diversity of our two major cultures. Let me say that I believe in diversity. I do not want to see everything reduced to a monolithic culture.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Winona Grace MacInnis: We
shall be completely unrealistic if we fail to face the facts of the twentieth century.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: You are on both sides of the fence.


Winona Grace MacInnis: No
I am not on both sides of the fence. Because one or two provinces will not accept the facts of modern life is no reason for the other provinces to be held back by nineteenth century thinking when they need to be thinking in twentieth century terms.
I do not think there has been close enough co-operation between the federal government and the provinces in matters of manpower and manpower training. I know there have been difficulties for the minister and that he
Occupational Training
has been discouraged by certain actions. Nevertheless the minister must persevere and attempt to obtain a greater degree of co-operation than has been accorded him in the past.
In my hand I have a copy of the adult occupational training regulations, and I shall read regulation No. 14 under the heading of "General Regulations":
14. The minister may, at the request of the government of a province, join with that government in the establishment of a joint committee to assess manpower needs in that province.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
I realize that the minister has been cautious in case a province might not want him there to help assess manpower needs. But there is a halfway house. I do not see why in the world the minister should not approach a province in order to find out whether or not they would like his help in assessing manpower needs. That would be entirely different from sitting in Ottawa and saying: If you come to me maybe I will help you.
I assure the minister there are provinces which would welcome far closer co-operation than has been the case in the past. I know from past history that once they see programs going well in other provinces there are provincial governments which, even though they may have been backward in the initial stages, would be anxious to go along belatedly and say "Me, too".
The concept behind this bill is a good one and the measure itself contains many good features. However there are other features which are not so satisfactory, and it is because I am accepting and welcoming the principle of the bill that I wish to mention some of its shortcomings and deal with them briefly.
I believe this bill falls short in its treatment of the young people. At a time like the present in which formal schooling is being found wanting in so many ways and when there is great fluidity in our approach to this field, many young people are dropping out of school. Unfortunately many of them also drop out of society; a great many of them get lost. I was impressed by a phrase used earlier by one of the members of the official opposition. He said we needed more exit points in the educational system. This manpower training program ought to be providing some of these exit points. I do not wish the Minister to become involved in formal schooling or to infringe upon provincial rights, but when the provincial education systems have been unsuccessful in holding our young people, this training scheme should be there, ready and

April 25, 1967
Occupational Training
waiting to take them in without keeping them waiting until they are one year older than the school leaving age.
In the Globe and Mail this morning I read that in the province of Ontario a great many North American Indians are leaving the schools long before they reach school leaving age. I have no doubt this applies to other provinces too. I am sure a program of training in manual and technical skills would be of great benefit to these young people. Very often those who are suited for academic training do not recognize that young people are thinking increasingly in terms of vocational and technical training-in terms of the skills necessary to look after the machines which are so important today. The minister of manpower should be prepared to step in when the school system cannot help these young people or provide them with the particular skills they need.
An hon. member who sits on my left said there was a real danger that this manpower training bill might encourage teen age marriages to a far greater extent than is desirable, since candidates have to be at least a year older than school leaving age and looking for work on the labour market.
Teen age marriages are undesirable in cases where there is no proper economic foundation for them. Under these proposals young people can qualify for training if they have a family to support. Otherwise they cannot. This is a situation which should be looked into.
I turn now to the shortcomings in which women are involved. As far as I understand this legislation, I see no provision with respect to childless widows. There are a great many childless widows in this country, women who have been left without support and who need training in order that they may earn a living. Many of them have no skill which would bring in a private income. A childless widow can be just as badly in need of a job as a widow with children. I should like to hear the minister explain how this gap in the legislation can be filled. It may be that his attention has not been drawn to this aspect. I know a great many people who belong in this category and who need a chance to retrain.
Again, if I read the regulations correctly, housewives are not considered to be members of the labour force-this is presumably when they are living at home-and therefore they are not considered eligible for training. I would point out that housework is certainly

labour, though unpaid labour. We never object very much in this country to women working; what we object to is women being paid. Housewives should have the right to train. They certainly have the right to go out and work now, because they are out in great numbers indeed. According to statistics published by the Department of Labour some time ago it is estimated that by 1970 half the married women of Canada will be gainfully employed outside their homes in the labour market. I believe that at present about one third of the labour force is composed of women. If they have the right to go out to work, they should have the right to retraining under these proposals.
I turn now to a more contentious subject. When we talk about assessing manpower needs it should not escape the attention of the government that one of the most pressing needs facing us at the present time is an assessment of the place of women in the labour market and the training of women for the work force. I am thinking now in terms of the women who can qualify for training under this legislation-women with dependants such as children of school age. We do not know how many of these there are across Canada.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
In 1965 there were 2 million women in Canada working outside their homes for pay, and 60 per cent of them had children under 16 years of age. When I brought up this subject earlier it was not during debate on this bill. It was on another bill which I admit was a bit off the mark, but the minister at that time was kind enough to tell me this was an important problem which would have to be debated some time. I think this is the time to do that, and today I want at least to broach the subject.
It stands to reason that since 1965 the numbers of such women have increased. The cost of living has forced more and more women into the labour market, and there are many more women employed today who have preschool children. I have two specific recommendations I would like to urge with respect to this problem in connection with the manpower training program.
These are not my ideas only. I have discussed the problems with people in a good many walks of life and people in many capacities, including the manpower training capacity. I urge that wherever women are taking manpower courses there should be established, as part of the manpower training
April 25. 1967

centre, a child care centre. This should be done in order to make it possible for women with pre-school children to attend training classes free in the knowledge that their homes and children will not be neglected.
I use the name child care centre. It could be called a creche, a nursery school or a day care centre, but I believe the name child care centre combines all the elements of these others and is a more flexible way of putting the best of these three ideas together. I suggest that this be done in order to protect the children involved.
In this connection I am going to give a few examples from this capital city in which we live because it is typical of Canadian cities. Ottawa is by no means our largest city, nor is it the smallest. Of course it is the capital. Quite recently its welfare council produced an excellent report on day care needs.
A mother in Ottawa who is going to take manpower training, if she wants to place a child under ordinary care, will have to pay $40 to $60 a month to have the child looked after during the daytime, or $10 to $15 a week. It will cost her $100 a month to have two children looked after. If she wants a housekeeper it will cost her $125 to $150 a month for a housekeeper to look after two or more children. Obviously therefore, with the proposed manpower training allowance of $35 to $90 a week she is not going to be able to afford proper care for her children. In such a case what happens to the children?
I wish to quote from a report in the Ottawa Journal of April 23, 1966, just a year ago, to tell the story:
Recently in an address delivered to the Ottawa Day Nursery annual meeting, J. A. Messner ot the Children's Aid Society, pointed out that Ottawa's six day nurseries care for no more than 260 children. As many as 160 children are being left more or less unattended while parents work. Another 1,500 children are probably being left in less than ideal substitute care.
According to Mr. Messner's reckoning, 13 per cent of children are being cared for by their mothers while at work; only 2 per cent are placed in day care centres or after school centres; while the care of the remaining 85 per cent remains unknown.
I am suggesting that one of our manpower training needs is to see to it that the children of mothers who are taking manpower training are looked after adequately in child care centres attached to the manpower training centres. This is necessary for the well-being of the children, and it is necessary to have the mothers safeguarded as students, because no mother worthy of her name as a mother can
Occupational Training
settle down to do manpower training, or work of any kind, if she does not know where her children are and how they are being protected.
As a second measure, I would urge the establishment of manpower training courses for nursery school helpers. In this connection I do not want to raise any problems about supervisors with the Nursery School Association. The supervisors In nursery schools and child care centres have to be properly trained people, preferably with a university degree. Such courses are provided in Carleton University and in other universities in various parts of the country. I do not quarrel with that. It is something which is essential for nursery school supervisors, but I do not believe it is essential for nursery school helpers.
Nursery school helpers should be comprised of two kinds of people. I believe that women with children, or children who have grown up, older women, who are badly short of income and who need a job, should take courses in being nursery school helpers, and then take jobs as nursery school helpers. Women who have married and who have raised their own families successfully would be very suitable to become nursery school helpers, and such jobs would provide them with an income. They would make up one group.
Then there are the girls who have found that high school does not hold their interest and who drop out after grade 10. I know some people might argue that they would not make good nursery school helpers. But a couple of years ago the United States had a national conference on day care centres, and a number of people occupied in the field of nursery care believed courses in child care should be offered to high school drop-outs, and graduates, in order to increase the supply of child care workers. If, with all the experience that the United States has in this field, it can urge such a step, I think we should experiment with it here in Canada.
There is another excellent reason for urging such a step. We in Canada talk about the need for safeguarding the home. We say the home is being subjected to all kinds of pressures, not the least of which are insufficiently trained young folk who get married without having experience of proper home care. I can think of no better help for young mothers and young families than for the mothers before marriage to become trained as nursery school

April 25, 1967
Occupational Training
assistants under our manpower training program, and to have practical experience in a nursery school.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
I believe this would be an excellent idea. I think it would be met with favour by women in all parts of this country. I see no reason why it could not be done. After all, these are the people who will be seeking employment and who will be the future mothers and heads of the many families which are supported by one parent. I should like to suggest that in this country we are a long way from achieving the progress which has been achieved in a number of other countries in this regard. I could mention what is being done in Australia, Switzerland, Sweden, Great Britain and in other countries. They have explored these courses in day care training. I believe this is something which could be done under our manpower training. There is a great shortage in this field.
I should like to return to the Ottawa Welfare Council report. This report refers to three sources of information-the International Labour Office, Public Health Papers, and the World Health Organization. The report quotes as follows:
Today, for a variety of reasons, the need for child care facilities and services is greater throughout the world than it has ever been in the past. It is increasingly appreciated that such facilities and services are essential not only from the standpoint of child welfare and development but also from that of economic and social development in general.
Then further on we find the following in regard to Ottawa:
A survey made in 1965 through 17 primary schools' health services (Public and Separate Schools) revealed 1,098 children characterized as having day care needs, and only one child having had the benefit of a day nursery. There were 288 of pre-school age. On both counts the centre of town had the largest concentration of both school age and pre-school age.
It is all very well to ask why we should not put these mothers back into the homes so that they would be able to look after their children. These mothers are away from the homes in order to earn the money which is absolutely necessary for their livelihood. In some cases they are earning the money which is necessary to supplement the family income in the face of rising prices and living costs. It is not a question of whether these mothers shall be placed back in the home or left out. The choice is whether when they are out of their homes the homes will be neglected or whether we will provide the kind of child

care training which is necessary if their children are to be provided for. Here is another quotation:
Statistics for Ottawa produced in 1961 by D.B.S. showed 7,016 working mothers from husband-wife families had 13,325 children 15 and under at home. The D.B.S. estimates that half of these mothers had pre-school age children. Therefore at least 3,500 mothers in Ottawa, working outside their homes, have pre-school children.
If anyone should suggest that a case cannot be made for such woman power training, I should like to say that I do not know where training is more necessary. This training should be an essential part of our manpower training courses at this time. I could go on. Here is another quotation:
In the metropolitan area in 1961 there were 1,477 children aged 0-5 in one-parent families headed by women. Of these 1,283 children were from the city of Ottawa. There were also 3,889 children between 6 and 14, of whom 2,846 were in Ottawa. It is assumed that whether or not these mothers were working many of them might have needed day care services.
Social agencies doing family counselling recognize the value of day care as a strengthening measure for family life. The facilities are not available no matter how acute the need. As a result families are broken and children suffer unnecessarily.
I should like to appeal to the minister. I believe he has a heart; perhaps it is because, since he has not been on the government bench too long, he has not yet lost it. In any event we in this party believe he has shown in many ways that he has a heart. He has shown this by his views about people being able to enter this country without discrimination and by his views concerning training. It is true that he has fallen down on some things; but who does not fall down occasionally?
I believe a terrific need exists. Half the people of this country are women. Their needs are tremendous because a large percentage of them ultimately have the double burden of having to worry about the family income as well as the well-being of their children. Women should not have to be torn apart through attempting to do two jobs at the same time when they know they are not doing justice to either. No woman can perform both functions adequately without help.
For these reasons and because there is time to bring about changes in respect of the flexibility of the courses since the program is still not law, I would urge the minister to visit my province so that he may learn how the people feel. If he is afraid of the premier, then he could find some place in the province where
April 25, 1967

he would have an opportunity to speak to the people. He would find a warm reception to the idea of training courses being made available for nursery school personnel, for the older women, and for those young girls who are fresh out of school and who need training in a very real and effective way so that they will be able to perform one of the most important occupations of their lives.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Prince.


Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the time, I wonder whether I might be permitted to call it seven o'clock rather than get launched into my oratory at this point.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SITTING SUSPENDED


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

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, may I say before we continue with the discussion of the bill before the house, that I believe I am expressing the wishes of the other house leaders when I ask that we continue to sit after ten o'clock tonight and that we meet tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock and sit continuously so that we may conclude this part of the business of the session tomorrow night.
I should also like to add that at some point after ten o'clock we will ask to revert to private bills for the purpose of passing those to which there is no objection.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that the house sit beyond ten o'clock tonight and that some time after that hour consideration be given to private bills, and that the house sit tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock and carry on continuously during the day?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I make just two comments. Surely the arrangements for tomorrow should not prejudice some agreement to take time off to eat once or twice during the day? Might it not also be appropriate to let hon. members know of the hope that by doing this we might conclude the present session's business some time tomorrow night?
Occupational Training


George James McIlraith: If the house wishes me to do so I will be very glad to indicate that tomorrow we will try to deal with the adjournments for meals, depending on what progress we are making and on what agreement there is, and that the purpose of asking for the extension of hours is that we could complete the consideration of item 134 on the order paper, interim supply, the motion for concurrence in the adoption of the provisional rules, item 140 on the order paper, and the consideration of several private bills.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there agreement to that?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, are we to understand that the only matter we will discuss after ten o'clock will be private bills?


George James McIlraith: Yes, unless we finish the bill that is now before the house. I do not think we should preclude discussion of it for a short time if we are going to finish it.


Gilles Grégoire: Until what time does the house leader suggest we sit tonight?


George James McIlraith: I would hope we would adjourn some time before twelve o'clock, depending on the progress made.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is agreed and so ordered.



OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING


[Stage Direction]
Ths house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien (for Mr. Marchand) for the second reading of Bill No. C-278 respecting the occupational training of adults.
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, as was said this afternoon, this is indeed one of the more important issues that we have faced in this session. One might even be inclined to say that this might be the most important issue in terms of its long range effects for the over-all good of the country. It is for that reason that it should not be passed over lightly, and I think it is somewhat tragic that it should have been dealt with in such a cavalier fashion to date. We are in fact dealing with a matter of great consequence to many millions of our citizens, a matter which affects their very livelihood, and affects their

April 25, 1967
Occupational Training
training and education. Yet, somehow or other, for no explainable reason, this whole matter has been handled in a very confused and misleading way by the government which has almost refused to discuss overtly this important legislation with the very people with whom it hopes to co-operate.
I for one find it difficult to understand why it is that we should be discussing legislation in this chamber under which regulations have already been in force for some 25 days. If this is a foretaste of things to come, then parliament has again been put in the back seat in terms of its involvement and participation in the decision making which affects this country. Not only does it extend to this chamber but it extends to all the ten provinces as well. I remember hearing my own director of vocational training say to me, when he attended a most recent conference on these regulations, with regard to the attitude of the federal agencies, "We were handed the regulations and told these are what will apply; there is very little point in discussing them in terms of any changes that might be made."
We are faced in fact with a strange problem in that, unlike most legislation, the regulations are in force before we have even passed the bill. This gives rise to questions as to what will happen in this place if an amendment is put and accepted; or does the government simply conclude that no amendments shall be accepted, regardless of their validity?
Last night the parliamentary secretary who was acting for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) told us that the explanation for doing this was that the details of such regulations are in fact spelled out in the estimates. I conclude therefore that the details under vote 5 must read as follows:
Administration, operation and maintenance, including the administration of the manpower mobility regulations and payments in respect of persons who are being afforded occupational training under the adult occupational training program in accordance with regulations approved by the governor in council.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Those few skimpy, paltry words are inadequate enough to deal with these regulations, but I think it is even more reprehensible when we remember that the only way in which these estimates have been handled to date for 1967-68 is through one month's interim supply, which allowed no time, as I recall it, for attention to be paid to the important questions of adult manpower training.
[Mr. MacDonald (Prince) .J
The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) began his remarks this afternoon by talking about co-operative federalism. He said perhaps we had passed out of that era. There have been comments in the press recently to the effect that we have a new wave in this cabinet. Perhaps the era of co-operative federalism is dead, because we have witnessed twice today, I think, a new kind of federalism which can only be described, for want of a better definition, as the Trudeau-Marchand federalism in which we let the experts make all the basic decisions and the people's representatives in parliament act as a great, big 265- person rubber stamp. If that is the kind of federalism we have introduced into this house, I think we should open up that matter for very serious debate both in the house and in public circles. I for one wholeheartedly disagree with that principle and feel it is just one more opportunity for the people's wishes to pass out of their hands into the purview of experts who are installed on some lofty perches unavailable to the people, thus further alienating them in terms of participation in their own democracy.
What are the aspects of this new kind of Trudeau-Marchand federalism? There are at least four or five I can think of. First of all, it is that when you decide to do something, you make sure that you do not consult overtly with the people who will be involved, for fear the conclusions that have already been drawn up with your experts will in some way be immeasurably changed. Second, in order not to disturb things even further, you make sure that the matter is introduced quickly into parliament, by passing any possibility of parliamentary discussion in committee where a thorough examination might be given to these highly important matters. Here we have, for instance, a bill that has not been on the order paper very long. Perhaps I should not use the word "long", since I came into this house at the same time as the minister, but it is somewhat naive to introduce a resolution on March 3 with the expectation that you will have regulations in force for the new act on April 1.
This does not square with parliamentary practice and tradition as we have known it in the past. Indeed, one can think of bill after bill passed in this house where literally months, and sometimes even years have gone by before regulations have been brought into effect, with no apologies, mind you, from any government. All of a sudden within a matter of days we find our government quite willing
April 25, 1967

to bring in regulations, put them into effect and then attempt to match up whatever legislation they might like to push through the house.
Further, as I said, this new kind of federalism seems to be of a kind that says you must do things quickly. We must not let people think about them too long either in this house or in public circles. Fourth, it would seem that at the heart of some aspects of this new Trudeau-Marchand federalism there is even the suggestion that we might be making some new definitions with respect to the constitution. May I quote one comment from the minister's remarks on March 3 when he stated in this house:
The education of youth is a provincial, not a federal responsibility.
This is almost one of those accepted things that does not bear repeating in our country today unless there is some subtle meaning to it, unless we are to draw from that comment some kind of reference or meaning which, in the context of what we are asked to look at in this bill, seems to suggest that education or training for adults will in fact be the responsibility of the federal government. I have not seen these matters dealt with at any federal-provincial conference. I do not recall discussing these matters in the house. I do not even recall lengthy speeches being made on the subject by those who might be enthusiastic about this proposition.
Finally, this new kind of federalism has in it marks of a new kind of government, as implied by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) this afternoon, where the experts, whoever they may be, are settling all our constitutional problems and at the appropriate moment they may deliver these good things as manna falling from heaven; so we have almost managed to produce legislation which does not need to be passed by this house because it is already working out nicely, thank you, with regulations that have been in effect for some 25 days. One might even question why the minister should have bothered bringing this matter before the house, if his regulations are working out so effectively. If that is the case, surely there is no need to waste the time of parliament to rubber stamp the machinery of his department.
There is a great deal more to this bill and this whole matter than simply a consideration of the way in which parliament seems very effectively to have been bypassed. There is the substance of the issue that is raised. The minister, and others perhaps speaking for
Occupational Training
him, have been making great point lately in clearly delineating a difference between training and education. I suppose the thought here is that education applies to a broad subject of cultural values, of one's own awareness of his total well-being and development, whereas training has specific application to a person's employment and his work.
There may come a day, and it perhaps is coming quite rapidly, when we can draw that nice, happy, simple line between these two areas. Perhaps the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) when he discusses the guaranteed minimum income and its implications will say yea to that sentiment. But the fact of the matter is that today, in 1967, and I think for a number of years to come, the distinction the minister and others make between education and training is not a valid one, because basically whether a person is referring to his own education or his own training, it is by and large directed toward his future, or ongoing employment, and it is employment that concerns us this evening. I think it has been a phony division, to draw a line between training and education, because I do not think it squares with the reality of the situation as it exists today. The minister in his remarks of March 3 said at another point:
From here on, vocational training ranks with work; it is no longer assooiated with unemployment or welfare.
I think in those few remarks he was perhaps laying the groundwork which has proved by and large to be unwise. Surely one of the reasons we are considering this bill this evening, one of the reasons the minister has been so anxious to get his regulations into effect, is that we are indeed concerned with the question of unemployment and the problems it has raised, not only the basic fact of unemployment itself but what has been happening to people year after year when they have become almost accustomed to living for a part of the year on unemployment insurance, and the kind of negative effect that has been having on people and their creativity.
If we cannot somehow correlate the question of unemployment and unemployment insurance with the need for training and skilled development we will have an act that surely in many areas will simply not meet the needs of people who should be benefitting under this legislation. Further, the minister said in the same speech in the house on March 3:
The resolution proposes to extend training services and training allowances to all persons with adult responsibilities who can benefit from training.

April 25, 1967
Occupational Training
There, it seems to me, he has made a very-clear-cut statement, that the legislation he is introducing is going to benefit all persons with adult responsibilities who can benefit from training. He goes even further, if the point has not been made clear by then, because he says:
The program will respond directly to the person's need for training-
I emphasize this last part:
-not to his statistical classification.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Now, I think that those are words with which I can wholeheartedly concur. The tragedy of the minister's own words in this regard is that they have been denied in this legislation and in the regulations that he has introduced. I am told, for instance, that in the program we have been operating over the last year, of the many hundreds of people who have been benefited from the initial program of manpower training, as many as two thirds will be ineligible for any kind of major benefit under the program the minister has introduced. This results from the regulations that define an adult. This definition, in itself, is interesting, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure whether this is the first time we have started to define an adult as other than a person who has reached 21 years of age. We now have a new definition of an adult as one who has been out of school for a year. Does this mean that a 12 year old child who has dropped out of school for a year is an adult? Does this mean that a person who is 25 or 26 years of age and is still pursuing training has not yet become an adult? Surely there are a number of anomalies in the definition of an adult as set out in this legislation.
Certainly I find in both the bill and the regulations an inflexibility that is difficult to understand and is almost intolerable. Why should we be anxious and willing to introduce a program which the minister knows, because of the correspondence he has received, will mean that province after province will have to disfranchise many of the people who would benefit from it? Ontario talks about 7,000 students who will immediately be cast aside because of the specifics that the federal government feels should be honoured by provinces like Ontario. In Prince Edward Island, where perhaps only 500 students are directly involved in this program, at least 300 will be set aside because of the inflexibility of these regulations.
Even stranger is the effect this program may have on another aspect of the minister's

own department. We are told, for instance, that immigrants coming into the country will be regarded the same as Canadian citizens, for inclusion in this program, if they have been on the labour market for three years, I believe, without dependants, or one year with dependants. They will then be automatically acceptable to this program for job retraining and skill development.
I should like to ask the minister this question. In many European countries, as he well knows, young boys-and they are boys-of 14 go on the labour market because their formal education ends at an earlier period. It is more than conceivable that many young men of 17 or 18 will come to this country as immigrants and will be immediately available for this kind of training, while many young people in this country who have become drop-outs, who have not been able to cope with academic problems, who are of the same age and apparently have the same qualifications, will have to wait for as much as three years before they can acquire the same benefits that are being made available to those who come to reside in this country. Here is one case where we have a reversal of the pattern. We are quite willing to be fairer to those who come to Canada than to those who are native citizens.
Further, I for one am quite depressed by the fact the minister has announced that as of April 1, I believe, the encouragement and activities that have gone on in his department to further training at the secondary school level will be abandoned, by reason of the rather paradoxical suggestion at this late date that it is not, after all, his constitutional responsibility. One could well raise the question of why the department entered into it in the first place, if it has now concluded it is no longer its constitutional responsibility. I wonder when we shall have an opportunity, in fact, to discuss the constitutional responsibility exercised by the department of manpower.
There is another strange paradox in this bill and in these regulations, because we are told that further money will be made available for capital grants. I believe this will mean a further, final allotment of some $4.5 million to Prince Edward Island. This amount is more than twice the required amount to construct further schools in Prince Edward Island, which in many cases will not be needed in view of the facilities that have already been established there. The failing is, I think, that we will make money available for further capital resources, whether or not they will be needed, and yet we are withdrawing from
April 25, 1967

some areas where it is vitally needed the assistance for operating expenses to carry on this important program.
Certainly, to the province of Prince Edward Island, which has a very slim tax base, this is a great set-back for its future vocational training program, to realize that there are many millions of dollars set aside for capital resources which will not be constructed, when the kind of assistance that is needed is operating grants. These operating grants cannot be made available because of the inflexibility that has been introduced into this program. I believe that in view of the necessity for academic training, we have been talking about giving certain upgrading courses to those who wish to improve their arithmetic and English in grade 9 and 10. Is the minister actually being realistic when he thinks that those who enter the labour market in the next five or ten years, even with some kind of skilled training and with partial grade 9 or 10, are going to find ready employment on the labour market? I believe he is not. I believe that shortly we will be faced with passing further legislation to deal with this short-sighted situation.
In addition, I believe we have tackled only one area of the necessity for manpower training. Surely it is an important thing, as we have been told in this house and will be told again, to provide the kind of opportunities we will provide for those who are now in the labour market, in terms of removing themselves from the labour market for a year, or perhaps two. However, I am concerned to see a program developed that will assist those who may not have to leave completely their specific job, but who could make use of night training or week end courses which would augment their present information and expertise. Surely, Mr. Speaker, we should be introducing that kind of flexibility in our program if it is going to meet the varied needs of the different skills and occupations across this country.
Further, we are told that the federal government is going to be able, under this new bill, to lend money to the provincial governments which they may use to erect various structures. Then, over a period of 30 years, the money will be repaid through yearly grants. This is a new, strange and complex way of financing, and it introduces some questions which have perhaps never been raised before. I would think the 30 year plan of rental and loan is based on the assumption
Occupational Training
that we will be operating, by and large, under this kind of legislation for the next 30 years.
Surely the minister knows that he is involved in one of the most dynamically changing aspects of society, man and his work. We can barely predict what kind of employment opportunities, what kind of skills will be needed five years from now; yet we are going to commit the provinces to a 30 year ownership of facilities. What kind of planning is that? Some governments, I do not know whether it will be provincial or federal, will be stuck with millions of dollars worth of hardware that will be out of date and obsolescent.
Earlier the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie), in commenting on the need for more co-ordination, mentioned the fact we should very carefully examine how this program will relate to such a program as ARDA. I believe that is very wise advice indeed. I am struck again and again with the way in which government departments seem to operate, in many instances, in isolated ghettos. They have no real idea of the sort of thing that may be happening in other departments or how they could effectively harmonize with one another.
An even more important aspect of the ARDA program that should be considered is found in the Rural Economic Development program, or FRED as it is euphemistically called and which will, in fact, be involved in a major transformation of areas of great economic necessity. However, there has been no recognition that I have been able to discover of that fact in the bill or the regulations before us.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important when we deal with this legislation that we be given some assurance that in making provision for many aspects of this manpower training program, provision will be made also for giving assistance to the provinces in connection with the administration of this program. In larger provinces this may not be any great problem, for I know their vocational training divisions and departments have many officers, a great many provincial experts and the opportunity effectively to administer this kind of program.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Yet it is true, Mr. Speaker, that although you establish a program which may work effectively in a large province like Ontario, Quebec or British Columbia, when you come to a relatively poorer province like Prince Edward Island the administrative cost can be

April 25, 1967
Occupational Training
an overwhelming burden and can well prevent a great deal of the program from becoming operative. Therefore I hope that the minister during the course of this debate will assure us that some recognition will be given to the problem of administrative cost in small and economically deprived provinces like Prince Edward Island.
In summary, let me simply say that I think this legislation is too important to be slipped through quickly, simply following the regulations which have already come into effect. I think it is important that we recognize that this is a matter of great national consequence. If the opportunity does not present itself tonight or within the next day or so to discuss the question of education, training and the responsibilities of federal and provincial government, then we must be given that opportunity soon. It is not enough to slip through some regulations and to bring in a bill without giving any consideration to the kind of precedents that we are setting or policies that we are following. We should not establish a whole new trend in federal-provincial relations without considering where we are going and when we hope to arrive.
It is also a little disturbing to realize that despite what I think the government would admit is its considerable inexperience in the field of education the government at Ottawa has been willing in this instance to make unilateral decisions with very little opportunity for consultation or creative discussion with the various provincial representatives.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, from meeting with other members the secret of this program, it seems to me, is found in its flexibility; and even the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has talked about this recently. If we try to lay down hard and fast guide lines in Ottawa to accommodate ten provinces which are vastly different in their capabilities, we will introduce and pass a law here which will be a very sad thing indeed for many of the provinces. The minister's colleague in this house, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau), remarked shortly after his appointment that he had not been in the cabinet long enough to change his mind. I trust that the minister of manpower has been in the cabinet long enough to change his mind. I do not think it is a sign of weakness not to be able to change one's mind. I think it shows right thinking. I think it shows a willingness to grapple with the issues as they present themselves and to pass the best legislation possible.
[Mr. MacDonald (Prince).}


Mr. Jack Davis (Parliameniary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the minister, who is a relatively new member of this house, for the impact he has had on the House of Commons in the short time he has been here, for the impact he has had on a new department and, more particularly, for the influence he has had on federal-provincial relations in this country. I think that that influence has been all to the good. He is now the minister responsible for manpower, one might even say the minister responsible for opportunities, certainly those opportunities that are open to adults in this country.
If we have anything in Canada, we have resources. We also have a lot of machines. We are told by the Economic Council of Canada that we have more machines per capita, certainly per employee, than any other country in the world, including the United States. We seem to have markets for many of our products but we are short of manpower. We have only 20 million people on a large half continent, and it is the way that we husband these human resources which will determine our economic progress in the months and years ahead.
Ours is a new country, Mr. Speaker. It is a country of great opportunity in terms of resources, in terms of new industries, in terms of occupations. In order to take full advantage of these new resources, industries and occupations our labour force has to be mobile. To be mobile it has to be educated. It has to develop new skills and through these new skills earn the greater returns that come to labour from these new endeavours. Canada must have policies which encourage education, and encourage mobility; and these are the type of policies which the present minister of manpower has been introducing.
Compartmentalization, in other words, is not for us. It cannot be the policy followed in a relatively young country like Canada. Compartmentalization in many areas means that we are not taking full advantage of those opportunities that are open to us. Compartmentalization can take many forms. It can be compartmentalization in respect to occupation; it can be compartmentalization in respect to the industry in which one is working; and in this country particularly it can be compartmentalization in the sense of being rooted to one locality or region. It means not being mobile enough to move to other areas where productivity is higher, where wages
April 25, 1967

are better and where the profitability of industry is on the increase.
Programs such as those incorporated by this bill lead toward this greater flexibility, this opportunity through education for our adult population. This program must be seen, of course, in conjunction with the manpower mobility program; but the two in harness provide us with an opportunity to make the best of our scarcest resource, which is manpower. We have the markets, we have the machines and often we have the money, but rarely do we have the manpower. Certainly we are short of skilled manpower.
I made reference at the outset of my remarks to federal-provincial relations. This area of education is always touchy because the British North America Act provides that education is a matter exclusively for the provinces. But education, I contend, as defined in the year 1867, is education of the very young, not of the adult, the mature Canadian, the person who, having come of age, should decide where he works, what his vocation is, and in what part of the country he resides. This is one of the reasons I welcome a rough division or breakdown in responsibilities in respect to education: education of the very young remaining the responsibility of the provinces; education, the training and opening up of opportunities for adults being a matter for the nation.
There are various definitions of the word "nation". They are areas in the world in which there is free trade in commodities- goods and services. They are areas through which there is free movement of capital. They are also areas through which the people of the countries concerned can move without serious impediment. We have seen a great improvement in manpower mobility in this country in recent years. The decline in unemployment in itself has helped people to move. The Canada Pension Plan and other measures to integrate welfare legislation provincially across the country have helped to make it easier for people to uproot themselves from one occupation, from one industry, and from one area often with a relatively low wage rate, to others which are more productive, whose industries pay more and where opportunities for one to make full use of his talents are greater, and more satisfying.
We have had through the National Employment Service and we now have through the manpower service centres the provision of
Occupational Training
information for people who cannot be expected by themselves to know where the best job opportunities are located across the country. The role of the manpower centres in explaining to the public and certainly to the labour force where these new opportunities lie is a crucial one.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
It is a very difficult role to play, and the Economic Council of Canada itself is providing some guidance in this respect. The provincial economic councils can supplement this information, but the manpower centres will have to be very ingenuous and work closely with industry if they are to determine precisely what skills are required five or ten years in the future and where these sources of employment are, these opportunities to upgrade one's skill, these opportunities to satisfy the drives and ambitions of our people to better themselves, their families and their communities.
We have problems in this country, problems of adjustment between growth industries and industries which have either begun to level off or to decline. We must enable our manpower to shift itself as between these dying industries and the more dynamic industries which have growth opportunities. If these industries, the growth industries and the dying industries, were to be found side by side this would be easier; but in Canada, a country of vast distances, we have the problem of our five major geographic regions; and within those regions we have areas which have been designated as areas of slow growth, with other areas having greater opportunities.
The Economic Council has done a reasonable job in describing what has been happening in Canada, and the picture is not encouraging. Roughly, it is this: For the last 40 years, the years for which the Economic Council can find statistics, the relative income levels as between one part of the country and another have remained unchanged. The Atlantic region, in per capita income terms, has been 25 per cent below the national average since the early 1920's, so far as the Economic Council can determine Ontario and British Columbia, in per capita income terms, have run 25 per cent above the national average. In other words, we have areas which pay more and have been paying more than some other areas, and we have areas which have greater employment opportunities and less unemployment than other areas.

April 25. 1967
Occupational Training
In pure economics one would expect a shift of people from the low income areas to the high income areas; and indeed that is what has slowly been happening in this country. However, despite the selective and specific policies introduced by successive governments, the margin between the Atlantic region and Ontario, or between Quebec and British Columbia has not changed very much. The situation has been described by the Economic Council in a series of charts which show parallel lines running up across the page. These parallel lines stand in strong contrast to those shown for the United States, where the differences of income between regions have been narrowing. We need to know more about why in the United States the income levels as between the deep south and the industrial north have been converging, and why the differences between the Atlantic seaboard and the United States west coast have been disappearing. Why have these regional differences been disappearing in the United States, and why have they been so persistent in Canada?
I might question whether some of our policies have been effective or well advised. Today we are in much better shape than we were in four or five years ago. We had to introduce special policies four or five years ago to employ people; to employ people, first, was all important. Now it is becoming increasingly important to make that employment more productive and efficient.
People should be moving out of the declining industries, out of the relatively static industries, into the growth industries of this country. That is the sort of function the national manpower centres must perform. They can perform this function, as I say, by advising people who want to better themselves, who want to know where new skills are required, what those skills are and where the growing opportunities are for those skills and occupations. They want to know the industries and the areas of the country where those skills are required. Knowing that, they can become more productive. It is that sort of opportunity that Bill No. C-278 describes-the opportunity whereby people can take time off from their jobs, at a moderate wage rate so to speak, and be retrained with an eye on a job that improves their prospects in the years ahead.
It is interesting to note that the differences in income across Canada which are so marked roughly parallel the differences in the education of the people. British Columbia has the highest educational standard in Canada in

terms of number of years at school, and it pays the highest wage rates. Ontario is close to British Columbia. As I said before, the average per capita incomes in British Columbia and Ontario are almost the same. Quebec's average is a bit below the national average, being 25 per cent below Ontario and British Columbia. It is below Alberta and below Saskatchewan. The Atlantic provinces are lower again.
I suggest that the inevitable result of programs of this kind is to enable people to move to those industries and those areas with the highest rate of growth. People will also move toward the bigger communities, the bigger cities and towns; they will tend to move west as they have done in the United States. The centre of gravity of the population has been moving westward year after year. That movement is inevitable because greater opportunities lie in the west at the present time.
We need manpower centres; we need assistance for the retraining of adults to bring about this great improvement in productivity and to make our people more mobile. There is great talk, especially in Europe and on other continents, of free trade areas and common markets. The mobility of people on the European continent today is much greater than it was five or ten years ago, and ten years from now that mobility will be greater again. People will be freer to move in those new viable, vigorous expanding economies. You will also find the more productive industries in those great free trade areas.
Canada, by degrees I am sure, will enter into freer trading arrangements with other countries. It may also enter into special arrangements, industrial arrangements from time to time, with the United States.
What this increased competition means is change; and what change means is that production lines will be retooled, new plants will be built, some industries will go to the wall and others will take their place. This means that people must be told where the growth industries are, what the growth opportunities for their occupations are, and what they should be readying themselves for in the future. They must be told of the jobs which are most rewarding in so far as their own talents are concerned.
I do not think we can afford compartmen-talization in this country either in terms of regional economics or provincial economics. We must not have a compartmentalization of industries, with some industries being favoured unduly over the taxpayers' expense;
April 25, 1967

nor must we have favouritism of other kinds which will unduly segment our country and reduce the opportunities to Canadians which would otherwise be theirs.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
I will say this to the minister: The hon. gentleman has, through this bill, given us legislation which will make this country more viable and which will make it a better place for Canadians to live in. He has broadly staked out an area, one which 1 call training, which is truly federal. It will help to increase mobility within the totality of Canada. It will afford an opportunity for self-improvement to all Canadians, regardless of where they live or what work they are doing today. The bill itself is well drawn up and I find no fault with the provision by which young people must have left school for at least three years before they can take advantage of this program. I do not find fault with the provision that those who are married and have dependants should receive special preference in this regard.
There is one clause which worries me a little; it is on the fines of a clause which creeps into a good deal of our legislation, and it has to do with rates of pay for those who are being retrained. In effect these rates are tied to the national average for all Canada as published by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.
Under this system people in the higher income areas will not find the level of pay as attractive as those in the lower income areas. Perhaps this will serve as a bonus or incentive to those in the lower wage areas to look for new jobs, to upgrade their skills and join the trend of the future. Perhaps we shall have to five with a national norm, but with this exception I am all in favour of the legislation before us. It is a useful bill tending to bind this country more closely together and make it more productive. By staking out clearly an area of federal responsibility and knitting it in carefully with provincial responsibilities and commitments in the field of education the Minister of Manpower and Immigration has gone a long way toward making this country a better country in which to live.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words about Bill C-278 because I consider that the training of our labour force is an extremely important matter, and its solution the key to our economic situation and to the well-being of our labour force.
Occupational Training
I do not intend to deal minutely with the provisions of this bill because a great deal of criticism has already been expressed with regard to the arbitrary manner in which the regulations were set forth prior to the passing of the legislation before us. Then again, some of my hon. friends have drawn attention to the almost violent criticism which has been forthcoming from the provinces, whose administrators are far better versed in the educational and training aspects of these proposals than anyone in the federal government. Since my hon. friends have dealt with many of the particular aspects of this matter, and its shortcomings, I intend to deal in general terms with the subject of training as a Whole.
The opportunities for labour were excellent, I must say, in the field of education and training generally under the legislation introduced and expanded during our term of office, from 1960 onward. The present minister has accepted these policies and is carrying them on. In some areas he has made changes, and the effect of certain of these changes appears to be detrimental rather than an improvement of the work which was started and accelerated during our term of office.
It is well, on occasions, to discard one's modesty and to tell the history of certain things which have taken place. I intend to do this by discarding my modesty tonight 

something I seldom do in this house-so as to remind hon. members of what was done during our administration with respect to the training and retraining of the labour force. In 1959 and 1960, after a careful survey had been made of the economic situation which had been left with us when we took office, it was found by the economists that only 30 per of all the jobs available in Canada called for unskilled labour. This was an alarming situation because many of those in our labour force were not equipped with the skills which had become necessary as a result of technological change and automation.
Moreover, it was predicted that 30 per cent of the unskilled jobs available would diminish year after year as progress was made in the field of technological change. Something had to be done, and in consultation with the provinces where jurisdiction over education properly lies we took this matter up. We were told that the provinces were prepared to undertake a program of retraining, provided they could acquire facilities which they did not then possess.
In order to make those facilities available, a bill was introduced in this house in

a great mistake, Mr. Speaker. The program under the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act should have been carried on and accelerated over the years because the important thing is that the facilities must be provided before training can be provided.
When we were in government we prepared a bill, separate from the technical assistance bill, to provide on-the-job training for those displaced by technological change and automation in industry. Unfortunately that bill was still on the order paper when we were turned out of office in 1963, and now the present government is sneaking in similar provisions under clause 6 of this bill. This is a move forward, but I believe the minister should call a conference of labour and management to get their ideas as to what type of regulations should be drafted. The co-operation of labour and management is needed, as well as co-operation between the provinces and the federal government.
This should not be a hard and fast piece of legislation; it should be flexible. However, the regulations that have been put into effect prior to the passing of the bill have provoked an outcry from provincial governments. In my opinion the provinces, with their experience, should know whether this bill will work or not, and since there has been an outcry from some of them I believe their representations should be heard, because education and training rightly fall under their jurisdiction. Why was no conference called prior to the issuing and the putting into effect of the regulations?
I read a newspaper report recently which said:
Ontario education minister William Davis wrote Mr. Marchand expressing concern over the apparently arbitrary manner in which Ottawa was determined to lay down its new act. Mr. Davis warned that if chaos were to be avoided, a high-level meeting should be convened without delay.
That report appeared in the Globe and Mail of Saturday, April 22. In the Ontario legislature last Thursday Mr. Davis again requested a meeting with the federal minister, and later said he was sure a solution could be found to the crisis. However, I have yet to read that the federal minister has paid any heed to this warning or that he is prepared to call such a meeting to be attended by the provincial ministers of education.
Why has there been no conference? Why has this bill been put forward in such an arbitrary way, without the knowledge of the provinces and without their participation in
Occupational Training
any talks prior to the issuance of the regulations? Where is all this co-operative federalism that the government has been talking about for so long? I know the minister believed in co-operative federalism, but something has happened and now we see this bill being pushed through with no evidence of co-operative federalism. Why has the minister taken this autocratic attitude? Why is he putting it to the provinces on the basis of "take it or leave it"?
In the light of this, and in view of the apprehension that has been expressed since the regulations were issued, the minister should seriously consider withholding this bill. After all, he now has his regulations, and the bill is given to us 25 days after the regulations were issued. Is it not time to call a conference of educational ministers and try to smooth out some of their apprehensions? It might even be possible to amend some of the regulations, showing co-operative federalism at work and satisfying everyone who has to work under the regulations.
In addition to the provincial ministers of education the Indian population is irked by this bill. According to a report in the Montreal Star of today's date:
The Indian-Eskimo Association of Canada is worried that Canada's new manpower training law will deprive thousands of unemployed and underemployed Indians of job training.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
The report goes on to say:
Mr. O'Connell said that more than one-half of the Indians are unemployed and many never entered the labour force. A recent survey showed that 61 per cent of a large sample group of breadwinners work less than six months a year.
He said large numbers of Indian children drop out of school before the age of 16.
How are they to qualify under the regulations? This is one more reason that the government should hold up this bill, have this conference, and iron out many of the things which are brought to our attention. As members of this House of Commons I believe it is our duty to point out these things to the minister, in case they have not as yet been brought to his attention. Another question which arises in my mind is what happens to the youngster who has been out of school for one year and has not put in three years in the labour force. This youngster will be given no benefits under the plan unless the provinces are prepared to pay his subsistence. The federal government does not intend to do this. In this regard additional costs are being added

April 25. 1967
Occupational Training
to the already overburdened provinces because of the high cost of education.
Unless this type of young person receives aid in the amount of 100 per cent from the provinces he never will be able to obtain the training which will be necessary in order to find employment or place himself in the labour force. He will never qualify. Yesterday the parliamentary secretary quoted some extracts from the minister's speech. I find these at page 15263 of Hansard of April 24. In quoting the minister he said:
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.
In other words, he is saying to the provinces: "Look, if these people do not qualify under our regulations, you can do what you like with them; it is your baby. Part of it is our responsibility and part of it is your responsibility." This, in effect, divides the labour force. It is the same as saying that these people will be responsible to the province for their training and that others who do qualify under the federal regulations will be a federal responsibility. This is something which has never been done before.
Under all previous training programs everybody came under the one act. Why is a distinction being made in this case? Why is it said that part of the labour force will come under provincial jurisdiction so far as training is concerned and that part of it will come under federal jurisdiction? I should like to quote the minister again:
The new program will train at least as many workers as the former program did.
If the idea is to launch something which is new and revolutionary, I would think it would be suggested that it would at least double the number who will be trained or who will wish to be trained, because we are to provide the facilities. The quotation continues:
The federal government is providing larger funds-
I suppose he means by that that they are providing a larger amount of money to pay for the subsistence of those who are taking training. Evidently it does not mean anything else, because he goes on to say:
-as the provinces provide more facilities.
In other words, they are saying they will not pay the subsistence for these people unless the provinces provide the facilities.

Then, if the provinces cannot afford to provide the facilities, it will not cost the federal government a nickel, because no one will be trained. That is what it amounts to.
In view of all these matters which I have brought to the attention of the minister, in view of those which have been brought to his attention by the former speakers, and in view of the inequities which appear in this bill I can come to one conclusion only and that is that the provinces cannot afford the cost of their participation in this retraining program, and therefore that I do not believe it will be successful.
There is, therefore, only one alternative, and that is to hold up this bill and immediately hold a conference with the ministers and others who will be directly concerned with this retraining in the provinces, to see how these regulations might be improved to the advantage of everybody concerned. Let us have practical co-operative federalism as it should be practised, and not this arbitrary attitude which we find at the present time in putting forward this training bill.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo South):: Mr. Speaker, before we reach the clause by clause examination of this bill I hope the minister will take the time which may be necessary to answer some questions which have been disturbing many of us who are participating in this debate. It seems more things have been unsaid concerning this bill than have been said by its supporters.
Perhaps it is easy to see the type of problems the minister has set out to correct. We have pointed out that the federal government should take greater initiative in the field of manpower programs. We have suggested that the shared cost arrangement leaves considerable discretion with the provinces. Those provinces which have the resources are able to participate, and those which do not have the resources are unable fully to avail themselves of the training. The fact that the federal government is prepared to play its full part in this particular regard is a very hopeful sign. However when, after accepting its full share, it acts in a way which antagonizes the best friends of this program, then we must seriously question the methods it has used.
When a vast group of persons who need training desperately-some people have calculated that the number is at least 200,000 young people of this country-is eliminated because of the attempt to cover the whole cost of the program, then I believe we need some answers to explain this type of attitude.
April 25, 1967

In the past we have pointed out that the allowances were inadequate. An attempt has been made now to correct these so that they are more realistic and will enable people to carry on with their training. However, while the minister is handing out better allowances with the one hand to some groups, he is taking everything away from another group. Where is the sense in this type of approach?
Surely, while we welcome the increased allowances, we must deplore the fact that the minister has practically eliminated an entire group of people from this program. This program has been enlarged to include those who are employed as well as those who are unemployed. Again I believe this is a forward step, a good step, which will lead to an all encompassing manpower program for the future. But the provisions which I criticized before in respect of those who are absent from school, those who have been employed for three years and those who have no dependants, is a retrograde step and certainly is not one which will help our manpower policy at all.
This particular group is the most sensitive one in our society; it is the group which needs the most encouragement; it is the group which, in social terms, will cost us untold amounts and cause us untold heartache unless we do something to provide those in the group with training and opportunities.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
There does not seem to be any understanding of this kind of problem. When we try to understand the thinking of the minister in this regard we find ourselves unable to do so. Has he done this because he wanted to establish clearly what is under federal and what is under provincial jurisdiction? Did he try to draw a clean line by saying, "If you are in the work force for three years, then you are the federal government's responsibility; otherwise you are the provincial government's responsibility and the province will have to look after you"? Is there a big power play going on between the federal and provincial governments? Do we have two bulls butting at each other to see who gets hurt first? I hope the people who need retraining are not in the middle or else they will get crushed. I hope the minister will examine this bill and make the kind of changes that I think are necessary in it. I wonder sometimes whether the minister was frightened by his own liberalism when he said, "We are going to increase the allowances, and this will cost some money. Let us get rid of a whole bunch
Occupational Training
of people, let us chuck them right out of the program so it will not cost us that much money; then we will only have to pay a relatively small amount." I hope this was not his thinking.
I hope the time has come when the importance of manpower is recognized to the extent that the government will be prepared to allocate resources to this purpose, because we can all agree that any money spent in this area will be amply repaid to the nation in terms of increased productivity which will be created in that regard. It is particularly disturbing when we read in the papers about the concern of the educators who have participated in this program from the very beginning, people who have been dedicated to doing this kind of work. I should like to read from the Kitchener-Waterloo Record of April 20 in which an article appeared concerning an interview with Mr. Charles Rushton who is the head of the adult education centre in Waterloo. He is quoted as having said the following:
Changes in the federal Adult Occupational Training Act may close the door to at least a third of the more than 800 who have been taking retraining courses at the adult education centre in Waterloo.
The changes will alter the entire philosophy of the program.
The young school drop-outs, housewives, recent widows and all those people who have not had three years in the labour force will be rejected.
I made a number of calls tonight to see whether I could get some information on how this affects people. I did not want statistics; I wanted to know how it affects these people in particular-not abstractions. For example let us take widows. There are many widows registered in these courses. They are without dependants, and many of them have not been in the work force. They cannot possibly benefit from the provisions of this act. Surely the minister must come up with some kind of answer as to how he will deal with this particular problem. There are housewives who have to go out to work because their husbands are ill or because they have family problems of one kind or another. If they have not been members of the work force, they also do not qualify under the provisions of this act. Does the minister really feel that he is promoting the manpower retraining program when he excludes people of this type, because of the rigidity of the provisions as set out in the bill?

April 25. 1967
Occupational Training
Mr. Rushton went on to say:
This seriously retards all the rehabilitative aspects of the retraining program that we have built up in the Kitchener-Waterloo area.
Counselling testing review work and personalizing the day-to-day time table of the adult are all major factors if the trainee is to be successful in his course.
I understand that as things are at present the manpower centre officers do not have the necessary experience for this kind of work. This is not to say they will not acquire it in time. I understand there are some very able and capable people in the service. However, right now they do not have the experience, and yet people who have it are not being consulted. The program has been taken out of their hands. They were told: "Look buddy, thanks for the work you have done. We do not need you any more. You will do exactly as we say, regardless of whether you are more or less qualified than you have been in the past." I do not think this is the kind of program we want to run. I do not think we are really helping by doing this sort of thing.
Farther on in the article Mr. Rushton is quoted as saying:
We are still optimistic that once the minister of manpower is made aware of the numerous fallacies in the act they will be corrected before it becomes law.
This is what we want the minister to do. We want him either to give us a reasonable explanation for his position or to make some corrections which will satisfy the objections we have raised.
I know that in the past it has been said that when people are close to the completion of their school education they will abuse this system. I can assure the house that I have studied the program five courses very carefully and have found that the number of people in that program who have behaved in this way has been infinitesimal. I think this danger is more in people's minds than it is a fact, and it is a danger of such insignificance that it would not warrant the setting up of provisions to prevent it. There are people who have gone back to program five only because they were able to obtain some assistance while they were taking the course.
I should like to read from the Kitchener-Waterloo Record of February 8, 1966. Mr. Rushton was asked how many of his pupils had difficulties-, to which he answered that more than 70 per cent of the students have serious financial and social problems, along with a lack of educatiin or skills. This means

that even if a few pupils drop out of school for a year or a lesser period in order to take the retraining course, they would not have been drawn out of school because most probably they would have dropped out of school anyway. Many of these drop-outs have to leave school for financial reasons. What is wrong with getting them back to school and offering them some financial inducements to do so?
If the minister feels that the three year requirement is necessary, then I think he should consider another program for those who have not been in the work force for three years. I think he should consider superimposing the program he is now advocating with the program we had before and thus establishing one which would be more satisfactory than the one proposed under this bill.
The editorial in the Globe and Mail issue of April 19, 1967 quotes Lieutenant Poulton of the Salvation Army as saying:
A bill before parliament threatens to wreck the rehabilitation plans of many of those youngsters.
... The bill would cut off training privileges and allowances for about 80 per cent of the teen-agers and young men enrolled in the Salvation Army's House of Concord program in Toronto.
This has been an excellent program. Its objectives were to provide a home for youths who manifest a need for more intensive supervision and closer control than is normally given in a community. It operates in conjunction with the magistrate's court.


Jean Marchand: Who told the hon. member that this program will be ended?


Max Saltsman: I am reading from the Globe and Mail which quoted Lieutenant Colonel W. C. Poulton. If the minister wishes to rise later on and give us an assurance that this program will not be ended or that the fears of Lieutenant Poulton are unfounded when he says that 80 per cent of the teen-agers and young men enrolled in the Salvation Army's House of Concord program will not be eligible, then I will be most delighted to hear him say it.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Jean Marchand: So be delighted.


Max Saltsman: Be my guest. In short, Mr. Speaker, I think that before going into the clause by clause examination of this bill the minister should rise and explain the various provisions, discuss the objections that have been raised, give us his reasons why the bill has been introduced in this particular form
April 25, 1967

and why it has met wih such antagonism from those who have been working in the program. We feel we are entitled to this kind of explanation and certainly it is incumbent upon the minister to make it.


Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments to make on Bill No. C-278 but I shall be very brief so that the minister can deal with some of the problems we have raised. I can be brief because of the good points brought out by other members of my party, especially the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr). I share with him apprehension with regard to the possible curtailment of the program under the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act which was brought into effect in 1960, as the hon. member said, by the government in which he was minister of labour. The hon. member said he feared that Bill No. C-278 would sound the death knell of this technical and vocational training plan. I hope that is not correct, and I think we should take every step possible to see that it does not happen.
I agree that there is a need for adult training or retraining in this period of great technological and economic change. As the parliamentary secretary to the minister stated, retraining people whose jobs are disappearing is only part of the task. We must also train the adults who earlier were not able to get the training that is needed today. As did the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Keays) who spoke earlier, I object to the suggestion from the government side that our debate and study of the unification of the armed forces delayed consideration of other government bills. As the record shows, we proposed that the unification bill be set aside so that the house could consider more important legislation. The decision to go ahead with the unification bill was entirely the decision of the government. As has been said many times, the government sets the pace of parliament by the order in which legislation is introduced. I agree with the hon. member for Ontario that this bill should be delayed, but apparently the government will try to push it through before it is completely studied, as it has with respect to other bills.
I have said on other occasions that I regret that the government is phasing out, under a program announced recently, the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act. Under the operations of Bill C-278 we must make sure that the excellent results being obtained by the technical institutes built under the program brought in by the previous 23033-969
Occupational Training
government are continued. If I may speak in a local vein for a moment, Mr. Speaker, there is a very fine technical institute in my home city of Moose Jaw. It has all the modern training facilities, the teaching staff is highly qualified and there is room for expansion at very little cost as compared with constructing new buildings. I point this out to emphasize that to obtain the best results Bill No. C-278 should be fitted in with the facilities of the technical institutes now established.
Under this bill the federal government proposes to pay for adult training. I suggest that the government should make sure that the money to be spent on this training is used in the best way possible. In my view this can be done by the closest possible co-operation between the local Canada Manpower Centre and the technical institute. There must be teamwork between the manpower counselling service and the technical institute. As the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacDonald) pointed out a short while ago, the government is offering loans to the provinces to erect new buildings, with the loan repayment being made over 30 years. I suggest that a much better way would be to add to the facilities of the present institutes and work them into this program.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, I am cutting these remarks short. I shall probably have more to say on this matter in committee when the bill is studied clause by clause. I have just one more brief observation to make. It is in regard to this statement made by the parliamentary secretary, as reported in Hansard on page 15259:
Since 1949, for instance, over half a million farmers have left Canadian agriculture.
This was a very casual and off-hand comment by the parliamentary secretary with regard to a very serious problem facing agriculture. It is a comment that cannot be accepted so casually. We have pressed the government, and shall continue to do so, for more effective solutions to farm problems than merely having farmers leave the land. I know this is not the entire responsibility of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand), but I consider it is partly his problem under the manpower training program.
The hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fair-weather) made some comments along this line. I agree with his suggestion that adult training under this bill must be dovetailed into the ARDA program. ARDA is aimed at the best possible use of land, water and other

April 25. 1967
Occupational Training
resources. The objective of this bill should be to help farmers fit into the ARDA program. Representing an urban-rural riding, I consider that much greater effort should be made by the government to put agriculture on a more stable foundation. I shall not refer at this time to the need for some solution to the farmer's cost-price squeeze. That problem belongs to other government departments.
I suggest that the manpower training program should include a course for specialized agriculture, such as the best possible soil use, better cost accounting systems, greater production per unit and other aspects of modern agriculture. There should be training in operating irrigated land to help farmers in certain areas stay on their land. These farmers would be taught to take advantage of irrigation projects, such as the south Saskatchewan dam when it is completed. In other words, there should be a definite plan to educate young farmers to continue in agriculture rather than to allow them to leave the farm and train them for some other occupation.
I consider, Mr. Speaker, this is the part such a manpower training program could play. This is a part of manpower training which the minister has apparently overlooked. Perhaps he will comment on this aspect of the matter before second reading is given to his bill. I repeat that I consider the training of farmers in order to get them to stay on the land is more important to the economy of this country than to retrain them for other jobs after they have left the farm.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, I have some comments to make on this Bill No. C-278, an act respecting the occupational training of adults and on the amendment introduced this afternoon by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) suggesting a tax compensation for the provinces not wishing to participate in this federal legislation on vocational training and who might prefer an independent provincial legislation, an autonomous responsibility in this area.
I hope that when the minister rises to speak he will bring some clarification to this matter.
My remarks will be brief. For most of the day, I have been listening to the speeches of the hon. members. I have noted that many of them are confused and unsure as to how far
[Mr. Pascoe.l
the central government intends to go and proceed in this vocational training of adults and how far the provinces, wishing to legislate in a similar area, will go.
We would like to know if on the whole other provinces have given up their jurisdiction or whether they have delegated their responsibilities in this field. We have learned through the newspapers in the past few months that the province of Quebec and the province of British Columbia have many reservations and have warned the federal government before the introduction of this bill against proceeding unilaterally without a definite and comprehensive agreement on all legislation in this area.
A few weeks ago, some Quebec officials came to Ottawa, among whom Mr. Claude Morin, deputy minister for federal-provincial affairs, Messrs. Arthur Tremblay and Yves Martin, deputy ministers of education and Mr. Fernand Jolicoeur, general director of permanent education. They came to Ottawa to discuss with the hon. minister or his representative, probably Mr. Kent, the occupational training of adults and related matters, and probably explain to the central government that the province of Quebec is deeply concerned with the matter and intends to guard jealously its authority and autonomy in that field.
I do not know whether there was any correspondence exchanged between the minister and the various provincial governments, but I suggest it would be most interesting if such correspondence, if any, were tabled, so that we might be in a position to find out in this house whether all the provinces agreed with the provisions of this legislation or, if they did not, to see what one or more provinces objected to and what their plans are in this field.
As pointed out several times today, it would not be desirable for both levels of government, that is federal and provincial, to operate and compete in the same field, as this could give rise to constitutional crises or conflicts which we must seek to avoid, in order to achieve better harmony in Canada between Canadians and the various governments.
Did the minister state clearly the responsibilities of the central government and those of the provincial governments when he met the provincial representatives, especially those from the province of Quebec?
April 25, 1967

I hope that, in his speech, the minister will tell us about the talks he had and the correspondence he received. That is very important because Canadians must not have the impression that, in the House of Commons, the government is trying to introduce a measure without the approval and the understanding of all the provinces and their population.
The policy trend of the various governments in the field of occupational training of adults should be quite clear in the minds of both federal and provincial administrators.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation points to the urgency of defining the responsibilities of the various governments.
Members of various parties have often asked the government during our debates or the question period to establish a joint parliamentary committee on constitutional reform but, unfortunately, the answers given by the government have been unsatisfactory to many hon. members and to millions of Canadians. While we know that federal officials are competent people we do not accept, as legislators responsible for the political, constitutional and legislative policies of this country, that a committee composed of civil servants, whose names we do not know, be appointed to study constitutional matters.
Many members of this house feel that this responsibility is incumbent on the legislator and that in delaying the setting up of such a committee, the government is fostering the present confusion and conflicts, which is not in the best interests of Canada and does not help to promote understanding between central and provincial governments.
For my part, I am anxious to hear the minister make his statement at the end of this debate and give us some details concerning the correspondence exchanged and the discussions held with representatives of the different provinces. But I see, from the underlying principle of this bill, that the federal government continues to intervene, directly or indirectly, in matters concerning education, since this legislation itself deals with the occupational training of adults.
I understand that the minister has already stated, in speeches and conferences, that it was up to the federal government to provide customers for the provincial authorities and for industry, by taking over all the financial responsibility for the occupational training of adults. The minister will probably tell us that the central government has no intention, through its officials and its agencies, to give 23033-9691
Occupational Training
training and education courses to adults, that this is left to provinces. But this act departs from the spirit and the letter of the Canadian constitution.
Our constitution must be amended, at least reformed and modernized, to keep pace with the progress of science and modern industrial techniques. That is why the government must create this official framework for constitutional reforms.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
That is why it is urgent for the government to set up that official framework for constitutional reform. But no, it is delaying the establishment of that framework and the official reform of the constitution, in agreement with provincial legislators and other Canadians, to continue to invade either directly or indirectly a field which, according to the spirit and the letter of the Canadian constitution, comes under provincial jurisdiction.
Of course, according to section 93 of our constitution, education comes under the exclusive authority of the provinces. It is clearly indicated in section 93 that education comes entirely and exclusively under the provinces.
Courts have been asked to give an interpretation of the word education. I think it was Justice Duff who, in his comments on the word education, wrote that it was used in a wide sense and included all fields of training.
It is also worth remembering that the 72 Quebec resolutions of 1864, which served as the basis for the drafting of the 147 sections of our 1867 constitution, in no way dissociated culture from education, or education from primary, secondary or university education, nor separated academic training from postacademic training; on the contrary, the wording of section 93 of our Canadian constitution gives full authority to the provincial governments.
I know that the minister or other hon. members will say that the central government will not, under this bill, give the courses itself, that it will merely pay the costs and allowances, but the fact is that in judgments rendered by the Privy Councill of London, which was our last court of appeal until 1949, many decisions were favourable to the spirit of a true federalism and recognized the sovereignty and autonomy of the federal government in matters coming under its jurisdiction by virtue of the constitution, but also the sovereignty and autonomy of the provinces in those fields set out in the confederation pact.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I know that the house likes nothing more at this hour of the evening than a legalistic or constitutional homily. Because the house likes such dissertations I am ready to oblige. 1 assure hon. members that my remarks will be brief, but the point is one that should be made, and I welcome the attention the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) is paying to me.
This bill, if and when passed, will confer upon the governor in council power to make certain regulations. That power is specified in various clauses of the bill, with a particular list of such regulations being set out in clause 12. It is standard practice with respect to legislation passed in parliament for us to give the governor in council power, by regulation, to enact certain provisions which have the force of law.
However, one of the cardinal principles of our form of government is that the executive-the cabinet, or the governor in council-does not have authority to legislate except in so far as that authority is given to it by parliament. This is a principle to which lip service and obeisance are often paid; but there have been times in the history of our parliament when that principle has been violated. It is my contention that it has been violated recently by the present government.
I hold in my hand a copy of the adult occupational training regulations which were
April 25. 1967

passed by order in council and which are now in effect. The parliamentary secretary referred to them several times in his speech last night, and they have been referred to a number of times during the debate today.
When one looks at these regulations he realizes that they are the regulations which were intended to be passed under the provisions of Bill C-278 after that bill had been passed. As one looks closely at the regulations he realizes that more is included in them than would have been necessary to include in them, had the passing of the regulations awaited the passage of the bill. As a matter of fact in the regulations one finds, word for word, a repetition of a number of the bill's clauses. In fact the important clauses of the bill are set out verbatim in the regulations.
It is my contention that the government had no legislative authority to enact these regulations. If I may refer back to what I said a few moments ago, I mean that parliament has not by any statute given the government power to enact these regulations.
Last evening when I raised this point by asking a question at the end of the parliamentary secretary's speech, he replied in this fashion, as reported on page 15263 of Hansard for April 24:


Mr. 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.
I then asked the parliamentary secretary whether he was referring to vote No. 5 of the estimates of the Department of Manpower and Immigration for the current year, and he acknowledged that he was. These are his words as reported on the next page:
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.
I have been here long enough not to be impressed by ministerial or sub-ministerial statements that the government has been advised that what it is doing is in order. The most glaring example that comes to mind, and this is within the memory of most hon. members, is the instance in 1962 when the former Conservative government passed an import control order by order in council, alleging it had done so under the authority of two statutes to which reference was made. We were told then that the government had
Occupational Training
been advised that what it was doing was right and sound. Most of us did not agree. A year or so later another government came to power and it was advised by the same officials that had advised the previous government that perhaps the order in council was not valid and that there ought to be legislation to validate what had been done. As I say, I am not impressed by statements such as those made last night, that the government has been advised that it is following the proper course.
By his answer to my question last night the parliamentary secretary revealed the basis on which the government contended that its action was valid-item No. 5 in the main estimates of the Department of Manpower and Immigration. Turning to page 286 of the blue book of estimates for the year ending March 31, 1968, that item, which I shall read in full, is as follows:
5. Administration, operation and maintenance, including the administration of the manpower mobility regulations and payments in respect of persons who are being afforded occupational training under the adult occupational training program in accordance with regulations approved by the governor in council.
The amount of money being asked for ia $73,635,000. The point of interest is not the amount of money but the wording of the item.


John Carr Munro: Read on; read the details.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The details? On what page?


John Carr Munro: On page 295, for vote 10, or page 291, for vote 5.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is just the same thing spelled out a little further, but I am prepared to read it if the parliamentary secretary wishes.
The point I wish to make is that the end of vote No. 5 which I read a moment ago, and the details over on pages 294 and 295 refer to the authority of the government to make payments in accordance with regulations approved by the governor in council. I submit the plain meaning of this language is that the government has authority to spend this money under these regulations after they have been passed. But they cannot be passed on the basis of the authority to pass them until that authority has been given by parliament. The contention that the government has this authority because we have voted one month's interim supply in connection with

April 25, 1967
Occupational Training
that item does not stand up. It does not, I suggest, by the wildest stretch of the imagination give the government authority to go ahead and enact as regulations the very legislation under which it was to be given authority to pass them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If this is possible, if this set of regulations stands up, the government does not need to rush us into passing this bill tonight or before the session ends. It has the authority already under the regulations. But I suspect the government is afraid they will not stand up, and is in a hurry to correct the situation by getting this legislation through.
I welcome the presence across the way of the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) who is interested in legislation by items in the estimates. If this is accepted we can do away with ordinary statutes; we can bring in one appropriation act in the year, sprinkle it with dollar items and references to doing things by regulations approved by the governor in council, and then the cabinet can pass all the regulations it wants to pass.
I think it is expediency gone mad. The parliamentary secretary in my view admitted as much last night when he said at the end of his first answer to my questions that they had taken this course "in order that we might get it under way". "It" relates to the program. In other words; the parliamentary secretary admitted on behalf of the minister that the government wanted this legislation by April 1, that it wanted to get it under way; it did not have statutory authority for action and it found a solution.
If hon. members to my right will not take offence-and after all this is now ancient history-this is just what their government did in June, 1962. They had in mind a course of action which they felt they were bound to follow. They used all the arguments in the book. We did not think they had statutory authority for what they did, and the rulings later suggested they did not. But they took action on the basis of two statutes, the Customs Tariff and the Financial Administration Act and went ahead to pass an order in council. The prime minister of that day defied us to say there was anything wrong about what was done. It is the same story a speeding driver tells in court. He says to the judge: I know the speed limit was 30 miles an hour but I had to meet my wife at the hairdressers, and that is why I drove at 40. I had to get there.


Mr. Groos:: Ninety days.


Stanley Howard Knowles: At least we are hearing something other than 60 days from across the way. I think the hon. member for Victoria is pronouncing the kind of judgment.
In all this I am not commenting on the merits or demerits of this legislation; my hon. friends and others have already done that. But I do not think it is good enough to treat parliament in this way. I am saying this to hon. members across the way, who joined with me in sharp criticism of what was done in connection with the import control order of 1962. I suggest that here again we have a case of an order in council passed without, I would say, any statutory authority, or in any case passed certainly without clear statutory authority.
Read these regulations again and read the bill which is before us. The bill has a few other things in it about Unemployment Insurance Act amendments and so on, but as far as the adult retraining program is concerned the regulations are virtually the same as the bill. The government has admitted that because it did not get this bill through it achieved the same end by passing these regulations. Yet these are the regulations which would have been possible under the authority of the kind of wording which is in them, and which implies that they cannot be passed until authority has been given to the government by the passing of the bill which is now before us.
I like to see good programs get under way. I agree with those who have said this is an exceedingly important measure. In fact I agree with the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacDonald) who suggested that this was probably the most important bill we have discussed so far this session. But for heaven's sake let us not forget the basic principles upon which government in this country is founded. One of those principles is that the executive does not have the right to legislate except when authority to do so has been specifically given to it by statutes of parliament. My contention is that the government has not got the authority for these regulations, and should not have acted in this way.
What governments do when they get into a position of this kind is to say: Who can stop us? They may not use that language always, though one hon. gentleman did; but in effect that is what they say. They do so because our system also works on the principle that if the government does something wrong all we can

April 25, 1967

do is throw the government out by defeating it on the floor of parliament, or by defeating it at the next election.
Far too often governments are tempted to act in an arbitrary way when they feel something needs to be done as a matter of urgency. Mr. Speaker, expediency still does not do away with the need for paying attention to the rule of law. The correct parliamentary way of doing things must not be set aside, no matter what the excuse may be.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the amendment. All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea?
Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


David Lewis: Let the record show there were no yeas.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
I presume the minister is rising to close the debate. If he does speak now he will close the debate.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, after listening to five or six hours of debate, I begin to wonder what is probably related to good political tactics, what is perhaps related to the conclusion and what is related to the actual weaknesses of the bill now before the house.
Perhaps, like my good friend for Prince (Mr. MacDonald), when we have gained a little more experience, we can untangle all the aspects of the problems debated in this house.
What struck me, Mr. Speaker, in the comments made, is not so much the criticisms that were made and that were, in most cases, objective and related to real doubts in the minds of hon. members, as the fact that virtually no attention was given to one of the most basic and most revolutionary aspects of the bill under consideration.
In my opinion, and I say this without any partisanship whatsoever, I would be glad to have the House of Commons of Canada accept a principle of this kind, and I think it would justify my presence in Ottawa for the last year and a half, and perhaps for the rest of my life, if I put through, for the first time in Canada, legislation recognizing-and rightly so-that the worker having to retrain due to
Occupational Training
technological changes in industry is entitled to the maintenance of his income and that he has a right to something more than the small allowance to keep him from starving to death. It goes without saying that he is not guaranteed any income enabling him to spend his winters in Florida, but such income will nevertheless be sufficient for him to provide a living for his family, while recognizing that his activity in retraining is normal. That, in my opinion, is basic and I suggest it meets an urgent need of our modern industrial society.
If we had been blamed for not introducing a more perfect bill than the one under consideration, I would have understood, but let us say that the basic principle was a little neglected even by those are said to be in the vanguard. That might be good political tactics; that might be normal; but to me it is so important that I will at least point it out to the house, because it is a precedent that will undoubtedly be used as a basis for a truly human retaining system that will meet today's needs.
I was surprised also at the confusion that seemed to prevail in some minds. I had the impression sometimes that the bill had not been read and that some main points had escaped some hon. members.
Mr. Speaker, it is certain that this bill does not aim at settling once and for all the whole problem of education in Canada, whether it is basic academic training or technical training. Its objective is quite different. That bill does not replace the provincial institutions and does not take any responsibility away from the provinces; it is only determining what will happen on the labour market when the workers need to be retrained.
Obviously, the scope of the bill is much larger than before. Its value was cut down and it was suggested that it was very restrictive whereas in fact, it is quite general in scope.
Mr. Speaker, I intend to refer to some of the objections raised in the house but before I do, I should like to detail the basis or the motivation of the overall policy.
Mr. Speaker, until recently, we had agreements with the provinces through our jurisdiction over occupational training, enabling us to offer training or retraining courses to certain categories of workers. We also had agreements on capital expenditures for the establishment or construction of technical or occupational training schools.
There used to be a sort of dual jurisdiction in the field of occupational instruction. I have

April 25, 1867
Occupational Training
no desire to criticize what has been done at the time and I believe that this legislation has been most useful to Canada. In fact, it was a starting point which enabled us to catch up in building schools and occupational institutions. Even though that act is out of date today, it has nevertheless proved quite useful to the whole country.
We wanted, first of all, to clarify the question of jurisdiction. In this connection, members of the political parties represented in this house will have to take their stand, because it must be determined whether or not the federal government has jurisdiction in the field of occupational training. It seems that our stand must be defined and that the federal government as such has no jurisdiction over educational institutions, over cur-riculums, even in the field of occupational training.
Under the previous scheme, the federal government could negotiate with the provinces, not only with regard to courses but also to the building standards of institutions. We put an end to that, and if the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) can read, he may be able to read it, because he took pleasure in mixing up everything, probably for a forthcoming television program. So, if he can read, he will find that we have withdrawn from that field. As for his reference to two architects arguing about the building of a school, that may have been possible in the past, but not any longer, because the province is now responsible for its own institutions. As a matter of fact, it is the province which will draw up the curriculums, hire the teachers, and plan the occupational training. It is quite clear that this comes under provincial jurisdiction.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)
Some hon. members suggest that this bill is a further intrusion of the federal government in the field of education, whereas it is clear that we have withdrawn from education proper. As a matter of fact, under this bill, we accept a responsibility with regard to employment and unemployment in Canada, and since we know that part of that unemployment is due to a lack of vocational training, we are providing those who are unemployed because of technological changes or automation, or simply because their skills are outdated, with the means of acquiring the vocational training they need through courses given by provincial institutions administered by the provinces.
[Mr. Marchand.l
Therefore, when the house is told-as if we understood nothing at all-that this is new and that we will be paying twice for the same services, I say that this is not so. It may have been possible in the past, but not now. Instead of two distinct services, there is the province which provides services in the field of education, and the federal government which assumes its responsibility with regard to employment and which sees to it that workers are able to benefit from the institutions and vocational training courses of the provinces.
Therefore, that point is quite clear, at least in my mind. One may disagree, even with the present intentions of the government, but one should at least recognize that, by comparison to the system which expired an April 1 or March 31, the present scheme certainly respects provincial autonomy to a greater degree.
Mr. Speaker, we have been blamed for not having consulted the provinces, for having proceeded autocratically, because the provinces complained. I know why they complained, and we could perhaps talk about that later on, but this matter of occupational training, as it appears in the bill under consideration, was discussed more than a year ago, at the first federal-provincial conference. It was then discussed in detail at the second federal-provincial conference last October, when the premiers as well as the provincial ministers of education and labour were informed of our intentions. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) explained that new philosophy, after which the officials of the federal Department of Manpower and Immigration and those of the provincial departments met to discuss the terms and regulations. There were exchanges of opinions and, in short, it is after all those consultations, all those exchanges, that we came up with the legislation which is now submitted to the house.
Some people contend that we trampled over the provinces and proceeded in an autocratic way. I believe we should distinguish between the dissatisfaction of the provinces in seeing the old system come to an end and the dissatisfaction expressed under the pretence that we have proceeded too hastily and in an authoritative way, which is not true.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean Marchand: Which is not true, Mr. Speaker, and I repeat it.
Therefore, one must take those facts into account.
April 25. 1967

The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) dealt with a technical point and I was somewhat impressed by his reasoning. Personally, I believe the way we have proceeded may not be the best, and without admitting that he is entirely right, strictly from the point of view of the rules and procedure, I would be inclined to say I am convinced that this is not the best procedure, and if we have proceeded in that way, it is because the agreements came into force on March 31 and our only alternative was to leave the workers without allowances and without help until the government decided to pass the new legislation.
Therefore, parliament was completely aware of what we intended to do and I have every reason to believe that the house did not vote those amounts so that we would not spend them. I think it passed them, so that we could spend them; otherwise, why pass them? And in so doing it gave us the authority to make regulations through the government and the governor in council.
And so, even though I do not like the procedure, that is strictly from a parliamentary and democratic point of view, the best thing we could do in a case such as this was to go ahead with a bill giving authority to the governor in council. Because of his experience with the labour movement, I feel the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will understand that we acted as we did, not to cheat the House of Commons, but rather because we were caught in a difficult situation and the workers would have otherwise suffered the consequences. Since the house know what we were undertaking, I feel that it would be wrong for the hon. member to make an issue of it today, as if we really, deliberately tried to cheat the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, many objections have been made to the fact that some young people will lose under the new plan some of the rights they had under the former one. There again, let us not be misled, for the young people of 17 or 18, who have not attended school for a year, although not entitled to the allowances we have set, can still take the courses free of charge. And we are willing to do that. We are therefore not excluding them.
The case was presented in such a way as to give the impression that under the new plan all those young people will quit the occupational training centres because we have decided that they are not entitled to the allowances. On the contrary the vast majority of those young people will be entitled to free 23033-970
Occupational Training
occupational training in provincial schools, and we will pay 100 per cent of the cost.
However, we were faced with the problem of deciding whether we could give them, at the same time, the same allowances as to adults who have family responsibilities and who are part of the labour force.
Let us try for a moment, Mr. Speaker, to consider the effect such an action could have on students if, after being out of school for only one year, they were allowed to go back to school and receive a $35 weekly allowance in addition to their tuition fees. Do you not think we would witness a mass exodus from the schools of young people who would see this as a way of obtaining a salary. In my opinion, this would create an intolerable situation in the schools, because you could have two students with exactly the same status in seats next to each other, and one would be getting $35 a week, and the other nothing. This means that those who continue their studies in high school or beyond would not be eligible for the allowance. They would have to leave school for a year in order to get the $35 a week.
That is not the aim of this legislation. On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, its aim is to provide financial help for workers who are legitimately a part of the labour force but who are unemployed and whose professional qualifications are outdated and useless, to help them live during their retraining period.
This legislation is not designed to provide free education in all vocational schools in Canada. That might be a good thing, but it will be done through another legislation.
The object of this bill is especially to grapple with this great evil arising from modern industry, which causes workers to lose not only their trade but their skills. We must endeavour to train them not only once but two, three or four times during their lifetime. That is the object of this clause. Provincial governments are dealt with on an equal footing with everyone else.
Everybody gets the same treatment-women, men, young people-provided one has been connected with the labour market for three years.
Now, another problem raised was that of the childless widow who someday finds herself in need of income. Once again, when I heard about this, I personally felt that it made sense. But I do not feel that the problem is one to be solved through this kind of legislation. Let us take, for instance, the problem of

April 25, 1967
Occupational Training
nursery schools. I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that if Canada does not only accept, but also wishes that women work it will be necessary to create normal working conditions for them. [DOT] (10:40 p.m.)
I agree with the idea, but this bill which has a very definite and particular purpose will not deal with all these problems. So I do not accept the objection in principle that was raised. I agree with the idea, but I think we must try to experiment with this bill, even if afterwards, either through cooperation with the provinces or otherwise, we have to extend its scope so as to cover injustices which shall continue to exist.
Mr. Speaker, according to the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) the new program is really a step backward, compared with the previous one.
It is true that large capital expenditures were made to build vocational training schools, under the former program, but we have not stopped them. On the contrary, we have increased them to $800 for each child between the ages of 14 and 19 years old, which is giving a tremendous credit to the provinces. This program is sure to disappear eventually, but we are concerned with capital expenses, since we accept to pay not only the cost of the courses that are given by the institutions, but also a share of the amortization of the invested capital and of the equipment of the institutions.
We have increased expenses in two ways, while, under the former government, workers received their allowances, providing their unemployment insurance benefits were exhausted first during these courses, and then, they were given hardly anything. Moreover, this was divided between the province and the federal government. At the present time we are not touching the rights of workers under the Unemployment Insurance Act and we are paying 100 per cent, not 50 but 100 per cent of the cost of both, training and allowances.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am not blaming those who implemented the other plan for having done so-I think it was a great service rendered to Canada. However, I think it is stretching the truth somewhat to say that under the new system, we will be worse off than before. Not at all, we will be better off. We could probably be much better off but this program is surely a great progress compared to the program in force since 1960.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply more in detail and in his own language to the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orli-kow). 1 was not in the house yesterday when he spoke. I read his speech and he might allow me to answer more in detail, since he has touched upon several points that were raised today in the house.

I should like to refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orli-kow) because they contain what must be close to a record number of misconceptions and inaccuracies. I am sure the hon. member means well. Unfortunately he has swallowed whole the attitude of the conservatives of the educational establishment. It is perhaps natural, since he is normally supposed to be a radical, that he has had difficulty in digesting. The consequences were apparent in his speech.
First let me state the facts. The hon. member for Winnipeg North claimed that I have refused to talk to the Ontario minister of education. I do not know where he gets his information. It is simply not true. Such a meeting was never proposed formally. What was proposed was a third federal-provincial meeting. This is something quite different. I did not agree to that because the only matters proposed for discussion were points that had already been discussed at two meetings. The only possible effect of a third meeting would have been to delay the implementation of any federal training policy when the arrangements came to a legal end last March 31.1 am as prepared as anyone to talk up to the point at which there is a deadline for action in the interests of the Canadian public. But I am not prepared to go on talking when it becomes a means of holding up necessary action.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North made an assertion about the attitudes of the provinces. He should identify whom he is talking about. Provincial governments, as represented by their premiers, have of course objected to the new federal fiscal policy as a whole on the grounds that they want more money. But very few if any provincial governments have expressed any view about our training policy as such. Apparently what some have done, and that is particularly true of Ontario, is to give a licence to officials of their education departments to engage in a public controversy on matters of policy.


Mr. Orlikow:: Will the minister permit a question? He is saying that the provinces
April 25, 1967

have not objected. Why then has the government not agreed to table the correspondence between the provinces and the federal government for which I asked two or three weeks ago?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather) asked for the same thing. Right now we are collecting this correspondence, and we will be happy to table it as soon as this is done. Apart from the official correspondence between the federal government and the provinces, there has also been some correspondence between the regional offices and the provincial governments, and we want to collect all of this. I think that the question of the hon. member was not properly founded as far as we are concerned because he mentioned the withdrawal of the federal government from training courses, which is not true. We never withdrew from anything. The agreements expired on March 31, and we never withdrew from that field. We came back with a new proposal which is before the house right now.
To come back to what I was saying-the results are not very constructive. Of course, those officials have preferred thus to make the same sort of arrangement for the future as came to an end on March 31. The essence of the arrangements was that we gave very large subsidies to whatever program the provinces chose to operate.
The officials concerned were able to say to their treasury boards: "Approve this $100 million program and it will only cost you $25 million or $50 million. The federal government will reimburse you for the rest". Of course the officials like that system, and if a member of the federal government wishes to make himself the mouthpiece for that viewpoint, I suppose he has the right to do so. But as far as I am concerned, the issue at stake here is the interest of the people of Canada.
I think I have shown, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North was kind enough to recognize, that I am fully prepared to improve my policies in response to reasonable criticism. I may say that I have the fullest co-operation of my senior officials in that attitude. However, I am not prepared to change good policies because some people with special interests put on a campaign of bad arguments.
The most common argument advanced against this bill is that it makes a distinction between education and occupational training 23033-9705
Occupational Training
for adults. Bluntly speaking, this argument is nonsense. There has always been a distinction. It used to be that while municipalities and provinces provided free education up to a certain age, they made no provision whatever for adult training. Furthermore, we are not even involved in adult training. All we are doing is to give money to those workers who need retraining. We are not involved in adult education. That began to change when hon. gentlemen opposite were in government. At that time the government introduced the technical and vocational training program. It was a good program for its day. The provinces took advantage of it to build a lot of schools. We have undertaken to spend for that purpose in the future almost as much as has been spent in the past six years. But one of the features of the old program was that it most certainly distinguished between education and training. The assistance given for the operating costs of high schools was strictly limited to a total for the country of $3 million a year out of a program costing in total more than $200 million a year. That $3 million is what we are withdrawing; that is all.
[DOT] (10:50 p.m.)
Under the old program, as under the new, adult training was supported on quite a different formula and a much bigger scale. Nevertheless the provinces were slow to get into adult training on a large scale. That is the fact to which the Economic Council drew such forcible attention and which no one denies. It is the reason why we changed our policy to provide the whole cost of adult training instead of 50 per cent or 75 per cent depending on the people being trained.
It is true, of course, that educational and training programs should very largely be planned together, that to a considerable extent they use the same physical facilities, and so on. That is obvious. That is why we are not proposing to set up training centres or run training programs. We are going on doing what was done before, only we are doing it on a bigger scale. Instead of financing part of the cost of training for various defined categories of adults we are paying the whole cost for all adults who need training.
I want to make this quite clear. There are no exclusions. Anyone who has been out of school for a year and who was previously entitled to training under a federally supported program is now entitled to training with the whole cost paid by the federal government. The difference is in coverage. Before there were all kinds of exclusions, and now

April 25. 1967
Occupational Training
there are not. That is one important difference between the old program and the new one.
The other main difference is a matter, not of training as such, but of manpower planning. Under the old system we identified a man as needing training and the province then accepted him when it could into one or other of the training courses in which they had a vacancy. There was no necessary relationship between the courses provided and the jobs that were going to be available. In taking 100 per cent financial responsibility we are changing that. We are saying that we will pay the whole cost of training in a course that equips the individual for a job he is likely to be able to get and do.
In the past the attitude tended to be to fill up the courses that were available. Now there will be a much more direct pressure to pattern the courses to meet the employment needs of the individual. That is the change that is disturbing some officials. But I do not think anyone would seriously advance it as an argument against our policy. That is the one difference we are making that affects the relationship between education and training and the structure of training courses.
Financially, from the point of view of the public, which is what matters, we are not creating a distinction between education and training. We are making them more alike. We are accepting the financial responsibility for seeing that free training is available to all adults when they need it, in the same way that free education is available to all children. Finally on this point of the alleged distinction between education and manpower training, let me repeat what I said in October to the federal-provincial conference:
The distinction we do make is quite different. It is not between kinds of education. It is a distinction between the needs of people-between, on the one hand, students in the ordinary sense and, on the other hand, men and women who are or have been earning their livings but who need further training or retraining for productive employment.
That means, of course, that there is one financial distinction. In order to take training most adults need a replacement income. But no province, as far as I know, has proposed to pay an income to the children in its schools. Therefore there is a line to be drawn as to when people should get training allowances. Obviously, if we pay allowances to young people of 17 or so, we create an incentive for them to drop out of school early and take training later.

There was a reference in the debate to whether we had conducted research on this program. For example, we commissioned an independent research firm to investigate student attitudes toward staying in school for the next two years or dropping out to work for a year and then receiving an allowance to take training. The finding was that if the allowances were available after only one year, the drop-out rate in grades 9 and 10 might rise by 40 to 50 per cent. That is the reason for the three-year rule for young people without dependants. It is not because we want to deprive them of their right to be trained. We want them to be trained and we are ready even to pay for their courses, but we are not ready to create an incentive that will probably destroy many school systems in many provinces.
Of course, like most things, it is the lesser of two evils. We would be severely and rightly attacked if we paid allowances to a lot of young people who were thereby encouraged to drop out of school early. On the other hand, of course, there are certainly some young people who had no choice but to leave school and who will be compelled to work, not trained, during the first three years afterwards. But the number of those cases is certainly not the 7,000 that some official has given to the press in Ontario. That is a wild exaggeration. A realistic estimate of the potential trainees who will not be entitled to allowance would be 2,000 to 3,000, and of course by no means all of them will necessarily have to forgo training.
There have been other allegations of discrimination. One hon. member charged discrimination against women. I urge him to read the bill. He will find that a woman just as much as a man will be eligible for our training courses regardless of whether she is married or single or is 30 or 45 years of age or even 20. All that is required is that she be one year out of school, just like men, and for the same reason. She will receive a training allowance if she has dependants or has been working in just the same way as a man.
The same hon. member attempted yesterday to criticize my able parliamentary secretary by claiming yet another type of discrimination, against immigrants. This charge is equally invalid. The bill treats immigrants in the same way as Canadians. An immigrant will be eligible for our training courses if he has been out of school for one year. Indeed, an immigrant youngster of 16 or 17 years of age can be enrolled in our program the day
April 25, 19G7



after he has landed in this country. He or she will receive a training allowance if he or she has been working for at least three years, and we do not make any distinction between working in Canada and working abroad. I am sure that no hon. member would suggest an improvement in these conditions; to do so would be to discriminate against Canadian workers. This applies equally to other special categories of people. We are treating them all exactly alike, on exactly the same principles.
I will turn now to a different issue. It has been alleged that we failed to consult adequately with the provinces. Allow me to state the facts. This is what I said in French: In October last, that is six months ago, this program was a main topic of the federal-provincial conference in Ottawa attended by provincial premiers and provincial ministers of education. This conference was followed a month later by another meeting in Ottawa with the provincial deputy ministers of education and labour at which the new provisions for training adults were discussed in detail. In January and February officials from departmental headquarters travelled to provincial capitals to join our regional officers in discussing the new program with provincial officials. Then and since our regional directors have been in continuing contact with their provincial colleagues.
[DOT] (11:00 p.m.)
The hon. member for Winnipeg North charged my department with rigidity. He claimed that we had not listened to the suggestions from the provinces, and that not one of the principles of the program enunciated earlier had been changed. May I say that by listening to provincial urging the federal treasury became lighter by some $300 million.
At the October conference, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) accepted provincial representations which changed the phasing out formula for capital grants, giving the provinces an additional quarter of a billion dollars. At the subsequent November meeting, the federal government announced a change in the original proposal for the occupational training program for adults so that younger persons with less than three years experience would be included in the training. Under our first proposal they were not even entitled to their tuition fees, and we were not paying anything. We modified that provision, too. As the house will hear at a later stage, we are ready in committee to propose certain amendments to the bill as it stands now, to meet
Occupational Training
some small technical points on which the provinces have advanced good arguments.
It is true that despite this consultation, a great deal of misinformation about the program has appeared in the press, apparently on the authority of one or two provincial officers. I can only say that there are none so deaf as those who do not want to listen. It is quite true that under the new program we will not subsidize some things the provincial departments would like subsidized. We never can satisfy them. When we have refused, we have refused because, in our judgment, there are more important and more appropriate uses for the public funds for which we are responsible. This is a highly expansionist program which opens up the way for a vast improvement in the training available to Canadian workers. I hope it can be discussed and passed in that spirit.

I shall now conclude, Mr. Speaker. There are probably objections to which I have not replied, but I shall have an opportunity to do so when we debate the bill section by section. However, I recall the objection that training allowances could vary from one area to another. That was done precisely at the request of the provinces because, in view of the relatively high level of the allowances, it could happen that, in some areas, allowances are higher than the real wages, and it seemed reasonable, after discussion with the provinces, that we allow some flexibility in that respect.
Therefore, I would prefer, as many people do, that salaries be equal in Canada, from one area to another-I am sure it would be better that way. We have not worked such a miracle yet. Trade unions have not accomplished it and employers obviously do not wish it either. But, in any event, we are taking into account the situation as it is.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the bill before us now-I am not saying it is perfect, nor that we will not have to change it a year from now-is one that is in the forefront of legislation in that field and that the house, instead of delaying it, for the sake of delaying should hasten to put it into force so that the workers may take advantage of it as soon as possible, not only the workers, but the Canadian economy as a whole, even if we have to amend it later, for we will probably realize that there are defects, that from the administrative point of view, there might be difficulties and no doubt also that we will want to extend it.

April 25. 1967
Occupational Training
But in regard to the principle ot a bill such as this it would be hard to understand, Mr. Speaker, that the House of Commons would not agree to give it a fair trial.


Robert William Prittie: Before the minister concludes his remarks, I wonder if he is ready to say anything about ARDA? A number of us this evening asked if there had been any consultation between his department and ARDA in the field of retraining and education in certain areas.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I
should point out to the house that the time allotted to the minister has expired. If he wishes to answer the question, it will have to be done by unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean Marchand: We have been working in co-operation with ARDA all the time. The deputy minister of manpower and immigration is a member of the advisory board on rural development programs. We always work together and try to have an integrated program. These programs, therefore, are not applied separately without any connection between them.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 2-Definitions.
Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I have a number of minor amendments to make to the bill. One is to correct a technical oversight which would have required the governor in council to approve each loan individually, although the amount might be as small as $10,000. The second is to permit part time courses to last more than one year so that they can provide the same amount of instruction as one year, full time courses.
Since the first reading it has been brought to my attention that the bill does not set out the machinery for the close collaboration with the provinces which I emphasized on the resolution stage and which is so essential to the proper functioning of the program. There is no legal necessity to provide for this collaboration in the legislation, but it is vital to the practical success of the whole program. I

therefore propose that we make the principles of collaboration more specific.
Explicitly, Mr. Chairman, I should like to suggest that we establish joint committees with the provinces to assist provincial manpower needs, and that we make it plain that these assessments will be used to the fullest extent possible for manpower purposes. In the same spirit we would make explicit provision in the bill for the eventual approval of courses which private schools provide and for consultation with provinces and firms that initiate courses for their employees. These amendments do not reflect a change in policy; they simply spell out how we intend to operate.
Similarly, Mr. Chairman, I think we should amend clause 12 to provide explicitly for consultation with the provinces on the level of allowances which will be paid to their residents. This consultation, I might add, has already taken place. Nevertheless I feel it is better that this collaboration should be specifically provided for in the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister
whether he has any copies of these amendments to the various clauses so that we can look at them?


Jean Marchand: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: While I am on my feet, Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I could ask for some intelligence from across the way in regard to what we are doing from here on. We have sat beyond ten on the understanding that we would not sit beyond midnight. There was to be some time set aside during this overtime period for private bills.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I do not suppose that there will be any prolonged debate on the clauses of the bill and I was wondering whether we could see if we can make some fairly rapid progress with them and, if possible, dispose of them. If this is not possible, then perhaps we should consider rising for a while and dealing with the other-matters that it was understood would be dealt with. I am saying this in the absence of the house leader who said that he might not be able to be here, and in that event asked me whether I would act on his behalf.
[DOT] (11:10 p.m.)


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask a question about paragraph (c) which reads in part as follows:
"occupational training" means any form of instruction, other than instruction designed for university credit-
April 25, 1967

Many community colleges will grow up in the future in the provinces. Not all those colleges will grant university degrees or their equivalents. Will this paragraph apply to courses, given in those colleges, which do not result in university credit?


Jean Marchand: I do not know whether I should answer the hon. member's question before moving the amendment to clause 2 that I propose to move.
Answering the hon. member's question, provincial institutions are to give vocational training to workers. Those institutions which seem suitable will be used, but the courses they give must be for occupational training and not for academic credits. Provided the courses result in occupational training we do not mind which institutions are used. We do not intend to replace the federal government in its normal teaching tasks at primary or secondary level. We are ready to pay allowances so long as courses are restricted to occupational skills or to the imparting of basic knowledge to allow workers to become occupationally trained. Where a worker, to learn a skill, has to learn a language, science or mathematics, we shall pay the allowance. Other than that the payments will be strictly for occupational training.


Robert William Prittie: I have another, similar question. Does this mean that courses of institutions such as Ryerson or the Eastern Ontario Institute of Technology will be approved. Say, after an interview it is found that a person who is unemployed or in a low income job is capable of upgrading his skill, can be take a course under this program at institutions such as Ryerson?


Jean Marchand: I have made clear in my statement that the purpose of this bill is to pay for training courses which are related to occupational training. That means that those courses will have to be limited normally to one year. The amendment I propose moving will allow a worker to take his instruction, should it be necessary, during 1,820 hours. It is known that some courses take longer to complete than others.
If the hon. member means, will the government pay for courses lasting three or four years in some technical school, the answer is that it is not the intention of the bill to do so. The bill intends to retrain or upgrade workers needing retraining or upgrading. This training must take either one year or 1,820 hours, and not more.
Occupational Training
Perhaps the amendment could now be moved.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I move:
That Bill C-278, An Act respecting the Occupational Training of Adults, be amended by deleting paragraph (d) of clause 2 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"(d) "occupational training course" means a course of occupational training that provides not more than fifty-two weeks of full-time instruction or 1,820 hours of part-time instruction; and"


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: On looking at this clause I saw that the initial time limit, was 12 months. That limit has now been changed to a stranger figure-


David Lewis: I am sorry to interrupt, but are we still on the amendment?


Maurice Rinfret: The hon. member is speaking on the amendment.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I believe the amendment introduced by the minister fails to overcome the difficulties inherent in the clause. It seems to me we need flexibility in terms of the variety of training programs we are able to offer people. It is hard to understand why we should limit ourselves in this way. By introducing this limit of 52 weeks or 1,820 hours it seems to me we are imposing a restriction. If the minister were willing to explain his amendment further we might be able to accept it, though I doubt this.


Jean Marchand: It is part of the whole philosophy of this bill. The program is intended to retrain workers who are in the labour force, and do so quickly. It is not intended to give instruction they should have received at 16 or 18. We have to give them a new skill. That is the purpose of the program, otherwise we shall And workers starting a university course at the age of 45. This is not the intent of the bill.
I do not say this should not be done. Perhaps, some day we shall have to do this. But the purpose now is to provide a course of retraining. However, we did not wish to set a limit which would prevent men following a course which might be spread over two years, bearing in mind that possibly they might wish to work part time during that period. Thus we have prescribed the number of hours so that there might be more flexibility in the law.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: The minister has indicated the difficulties which are involved. He has chosen a figure of 52 weeks. But

April 25, 1967
Occupational Training
certain policies may require 60 weeks. The danger is that by fixing the period at 52 weeks we are binding ourselves in an arbitrary way. On the other hand we might be encouraging people to take longer periods of training than they really need. It would have been as logical to select a period of 40 weeks. Surely there must be a better way of defining an occupational training course than by placing a specified number of weeks in this bill.


Jean Marchand: I might point out that the people to be trained will not themselves decide to follow this course, or that. They will be consulted but they cannot decide, for example, to take a course lasting 45 weeks as opposed to some other course because they would be receiving allowances during that period.
[DOT] (11:20 p.m.)
It is the manpower training centre which will decide what course is to be followed. This must be so, because we have to analyse the market to make sure as far as possible that the men, once trained, will have jobs in their new skills. The hon. member suggests that the present wording might encourage workers to take longer courses. I do not think this would happen, because the worker alone is not free to decide which course he should take.


David Lewis: I think I understand the amendment and personally I welcome it. I presume it is on the basis of 35 hours a week for 52 weeks that the minister arrived at this figure of 1,820 hours. I would like to ask the minister how this would fit in with clause 5(2) where that includes apprenticeship, because frequently apprenticeships go beyond this length of time. Perhaps I fail to understand clause 5(2) correctly. This is what worried me about the one year as well as the part time training deficiency which is now being corrected by the minister's amendment. What also worried me is the provision for apprenticeship training which, in my experience, in most cases goes well beyond a year, well beyond 1,820 hours.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, by this scheme we do not want to cover all apprenticeships. We will have certain cases of apprentices who will seek help under the scheme for a short period. This is the intention. This is why we want to have this authority because in some circumstances you may have an apprentice who attended a course for two or three years and he cannot complete this course. It is not the intention to

cover all the apprenticeship courses of workers.


David Lewis: What the minister is saying is that so far as apprenticeship training is concerned it will also be limited to the 1,820 hours or one year-in other words, that part of their apprenticeship and no more. Perhaps the minister could explain to me why that should be the case. If you have an apprenticeship course obviously you have an occupational training which people have undertaken for relatively skilled jobs. I must say, Mr. Chairman, I am not persuaded that the length of the apprenticeship in some of the trades is justified by the needs of the trades.
I am quite sure that in some cases the period of apprenticeship is too long, but I cannot think of anything more genuinely an occupational training than apprenticeship, whether it is a welder, an electrician or a plumber. Whatever the case may be by definition, the person undertaking an apprenticeship is seeking occupational training. Perhaps the minister could explain why the assistance under this adult training scheme for apprenticeship should be limited to one year or 1,820 hours.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, French comes easier to me. Courses for apprentices usually last 52 weeks. We can easily have two or three 52-week periods, but part of the apprentices' time is devoted to actual work, because of the training on the job. Therefore I think that by combining both elements, that is by increasing the number of periods and taking into consideration the actual working time, we could give an almost complete coverage.


David Lewis: Yes, I understand that.
Clause 2 agreed to.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, now that the amendment has been passed, I should like to say a few words on clause 2.
In my comments during the debate preceding the second reading, Mr. Speaker, I pointed out to the minister that this bill, like many
April 25, 1967

others which have been introduced in this house in recent years, will involve two sets of administrative expenses, one by the federal government and one by the provincial government. I also pointed out that both the federal and the provincial government would each send their own inspectors to check training facilities. The minister said that I was merely using an argument to try to deceive people again and to prepare a television program in order to mislead the public.


Jean Marchand: It happens to be true.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I will use the minister's bill, signed by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration himself, to show that the one who is trying to mislead the public is not the little man from Lapointe, as stated by the minister, but the minister himself.
I will refer to section 4, because on section 2 I am allowed to express a general opinion. I will refute what the minister said earlier during the debate preceding second reading, when we were not allowed to answer him. I will refute him by discussing section 2 which allows me to speak on the bill in general.
And I will refer to section 4 to show that there will be a duplication of service expenditures under that new legislation. For instance, subsection 1 states:
Where an adult who has not attended school on a regular basis for at least twelve months informs a manpower officer that he wishes to undertake occupational training, the manpower officer may, subject to subsection (2). arrange for the enrolment of that adult in any occupational training course that will, in the opinion of the manpower officer-
So, the federal manpower service will decide what would be the proper training to increase the earning capacity of the adult who wishes to follow those courses.
Consequently, that federal service which will decide what courses are suitable will cause federal expenditures, and the provincial government will also contribute another service which will establish appropriate courses for those who are interested in receiving vocational training. There will therefore be a duplication of operation costs. Let us now take shared-costs. The minister said that costsharing would no longer exist. He would withdraw section 20 of his Bill C-278 which states:
The aggregate of the contributions payable by Canada to a province under an agreement entered into pursuant to this section shall not exceed
(a) the lesser of seventy-five per cent.
Occupational Training
Therefore, both levels of government will be paying for buildings and installations which may be used to provide vocational training. Two different levels of government will be paying, and when the federal pays, it uses its own inspectors and bureaucrats; the same goes for the provincial government; when they both pay, both use their respective inspectors and bureaucrats.
I wonder who is trying to mislead the public! It is the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I say he is inconsistent with himself, with his own bill. He makes statements contrary to the content of Bill C-278. He may entangle himself as much as he pleases, but that is the case. Who is misleading the public?
It is not necessary to appear on television programs. The minister misleads the people here, in the house.
He claims there will be no dual administration, dual checking, dual inspection. Well then, if both are paying, which of the two will not check and inspect?
[DOT] (11:30 p.m.)
You are both paying, which of the two will not inspect?
The Minister of Manpower and Immigration may say that the Treasury Board and the comptroller will not check and inspect? Why do they pay?
Mr. Chairman, what does the Minister of Manpower and Immigration take us for? He knows very well that when monies are paid out, there will be a complete system of federal inspectors to look into what the federal government is paying for? Inspections will be made. These additional expenditures will be incurred, exactly as the provincial government will be inspecting and checking when the provincial government pays its share for the new facilities, as mentioned in clause 20.
The minister will now tell me that I am the one who is trying to mislead the people? How come then he is at variance with his own bill?
This afternoon, I put the following question to the minister: Do you endorse everything that was said yesterday by your parliamentary secretary when he introduced the bill? Well, this had been prepared by the office and his parliamentary secretary only read the statement in the minister's absence. The minister was absent because he was in the constituency of Lapointe urging the people not to re-elect the boy from Lapointe. Don Quixote wanting to crash through an open door. For a year now I have been saying

April 25, 1967
Occupational Training
that I will not sit here. He was playing Don Quixote in the riding of Lapointe, while his parliamentary secretary was reading a communication prepared by the minister and his officials and approved by the minister. Here is what the parliamentary secretary read and I quote from page 15261, right hand column, of Hansard for April 24, 1967:
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.
If he pays the costs that means an administrative service and prerogatives and besides if the provincial government supplies the education it would mean a duplication in administrative and bureaucratic services. That will make two. It was further added, as reported on page 15262, second column:
We propose therefore to co-operate with the provinces in paying for research-
But in paying for research, does the minister mean to say that those costs will be repaid without even conducting an investigation, without even knowing whether the province of Manitoba, for instance, has incurred expenses for research in occupational training? Will costs be repaid without investigation, without any control, whereas the provincial government, after having paid the first time, will have conducted its own investigations? The federal government will surely conduct a second investigation, a second check, a second inspection, and the minister has just denied it.
It is the speech made yesterday by his parliamentary secretary, while the minister was speaking about the horse and the fly in the riding of Lapointe. It would have been better for the minister to be in the house to see what was going on when such an important legislation was introduced. The parliamentary secretary repeated many times the following words: the funds that we will pay to the provinces for the training of adults will enable them to repay interest and principal. That means a new administration set-up. That means the federal controller would do exactly the same thing as did the provincial controller. That means that the federal treasury board will do exactly the same as the provincial treasury board woud have done before.
And it is like that everywhere. Double expenses. And that, Mr. Chairman, to be told what? To be told by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, who advocated not so

long ago, as he was militating in the unions: Freedom of the unions. Such flabbergasting words one must hear from other people. The individuals are not the ones who will decide what course they will be taking, they will be consulted, I admit, but they will not be the ones to decide, the manpower official will do that, not the individual, no. Oh no. He may show natural dispositions or wish to work in such or such a field, or express his wish to the official if he wants to, but it will be up to the official to make the decision.
Mr. Chairman, what kind of freedom is that? Is that the way the minister always fought for the workers in the past? What will the workers say in the province of Quebec, when they will be told this: You want occupational training, very well, you will not decide about it, it will be up to the bureaucrat or to the official to make the decision.
Do say what you want to do but we shall decide. This is what the minister said hardly ten minutes ago: "Do not bother you workers, even though you may think of going somewhere to work, you have nothing to say about that". The decision shall be taken by an official of the department of manpower. In other words, the bureaucrat shall decide for the worker.
What does this mean, Mr. Chairman? In Russia, when they wish to take a decision in the name of a worker, this can be done; under the communist regime, someone decides where people will work. And let us note, Mr. Chairman, to what extent the minister's intention can be serious.
He was supporting the speech made by his parliamentary secretary (Mr. Munro) yesterday, and he said, as is recorded at pages 15259 and 15260 in the Hansard of April 24:
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 small. But retraining people whose jobs are disappearing is only part of the task.
Whenever a farmer quits his farm, Mr. Chairman, he does not do so on account of incompetency, but because the federal government has not established adequate legislation which would allow him to live on the land.
Instead of preventing the farmer from living on his land and sending him out to take some vocational training to enable him to work in a factory, the government should begin by passing legislation that would enable the farmer to earn a livelihood on his farm.
April 25, 1967

April 25, 1967
Occupational Training
more television programs and tries to deceive everyone. A worthy argument, indeed. Here is another example of demagoguery: The minister said-I heard him on the television news: Some are saying that confederation is to blame if potatoes do not grow in winter. A blatant example of demagoguery. Will the minister deny that he said that? He certainly said it. I heard him. If the baby has a cold, confederation is to blame, according to the independentists. That is pure demagoguery.
The minister may well hold his head in his hands.


Mr. Bechard:: Does the member allow me a
question?


Gilles Grégoire: Yes.


Albert Béchard: Speaking of potatoes, Mr. Chairman, could the hon. member, who was born, raised and is still living in Quebec city, on St-Jean street or elsewhere, even though he represents the riding of Lapointe, tell the house what he, being the city-slicker that he is, proposes in order to improve the lot of farmers?


Gilles Grégoire: Well, Mr. Chairman, I shall answer that question put to me, as you see, by a government member.
It is surely possible to help farmers. The best way to go about improving the lot of farmers, it to go and see them and discuss with them.
And I, Mr. Chairman, have at least taken the trouble to do that. I often meet the farmers in my riding and elsewhere. But when we ask: What reforms are to be made? We hear about marketing, about the setting up of a reasonable price-


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I think that the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Bechard) tried to lead the hon. member into speaking of agriculture. But if we no not want to grow potatoes, we should perhaps come back to manpower matters and restrict ourselves to the bill now under consideration, namely the Adult Occupational Training Act.


Gilles Grégoire: Very well, Mr. Chairman. I hope you will recognize that I have not gone beyond the scope of the bill on my own initiative but because of a question put to me by a colleague of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In order to help him extricate himself from his difficulties, some hon. members have tried to explain to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration the meaning of the word demagogy. That is exactly what the

minister is practising. I gave an example, that of the little baby who has a cold on account of confederation. That is demagogy.
That was the answer given by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration during the debate on second reading of the bill. In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, that was not an answer at all. The minister merely evaded the question, and said: that is a member who is trying to prepare a television program and to mislead the people.
Who is misleading the people? The bill is there, printed. And it flatly and categorically contradicts what the Minister of Manpower and Immigration said earlier. The minister has been categorically contradicted and misled by his own bill and by the declarations which were made yesterday by his parliamentary secretary and which, he said, he fully supports.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I say once again that while I am in favour of the proposed measures as a whole, I am against the method used. The federal government should hand over to the province of Quebec a fiscal equivalent and Quebec should manage to organize, perhaps according to the principles listed here, at least most of them, its own program of occupational training for adults.
Mr. Chairman, I say on the basis of the bill itself and of the statements made by the parliamentary secretary, which are endorsed by the minister, that if we proceeded thus, we would save large amounts which could be invested to further improve this bill on occupational training for adults, which would be implemented by the provincial governments instead of by the federal government.
There are, Mr. Chairman, a few questions which I should like to put to the minister more specifically about section 2. Does the minister intend-it is indicated in paragraph (c) that:
-occupational training means any form of instruction other than instruction designed for university credit.
Does the minister intend to define a un-versity credit, because that does not always have the same meaning according to the province and the educational system in force?
Could the minister say, in connection with section 2, what is the amount of his department estimates with respect to the total cost of this legislation, firstly as concerns tuition fees, secondly, allowances, thirdly, capital expenditure and, fourthly, loans.
April 25, 1967

1 presume the minister foresees expenses for the implementation of the legislation he is introducing today. Could he tell us what are his expectations for the whole of Canada and he may also have a figure to quote as far as Quebec is concerned?
Could the minister tell us what these total costs will be and what they will be for Quebec especially? I would appreciate an answer from the minister on these two questions.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I think that this is only tittle-tattle, a kind of statement, and really a good example of a TV program. I think that if you will allow me I should like to answer tomorrow, for some statements are so false, not that I find this so important, but there are still people who take them seriously. So, I should like to take the time necessary to refute at least the fallacies that have been placed in Hansard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I could move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again in order to carry out the undertakings that were given with respect to private bills.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is it the intention to drop this bill then?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh no; we were just going to report progress, as I understood it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, Mr. Chairman, there was an all party agreement that this bill be passed. The intention was to pass it at eleven o'clock, but certainly it was to be passed tonight. This was allocation of time by agreement. Where are we now? Has the government failed to make arrangements with all those concerned? What is the purpose of having an agreement if it cannot be kept?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I gather that it takes two parties to make an agreement, and perhaps it takes two persons to make a party. One can only do what is humanly possible to do. It is quite evident now that we could not possibly pass the bill by eleven o'clock. Therefore I think my motion should stand.


Gilles Grégoire: I had not understood that it had been agreed to pass the whole bill before eleven o'clock. I thought we were supposed to dispose of it this evening, and that the debate could be extended until one o'clock in the morning; so far as I am concerned, I would
Occupational Training
have been ready to continue sitting a while longer to make my remarks.
But if the minister needs the whole night to think of the errors mentioned in his statement, we are willing to let him take all the time he needs to find the answer he is not able to give us right now.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense. Ridiculous. [English]


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to clear this point up. There is no question whatever of asking for the adjournment of the committee for any other purpose than to carry out certain other undertakings that were made. I did indicate at a time when the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre was temporarily out of the chamber that if we did not complete the bill by a quarter to twelve I would at the first convenient moment make this motion I have now offered to make, to rise and report progress, so that we could deal with a certain number of private bills with which there seems to be unanimous consent to deal.
As far as the government is concerned, Mr. Chairman, I am sure we would be willing to come back to the bill if there was a disposition to dispose of it, or otherwise take it as the first item tomorrow.
[DOT] (11:50 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: We agreed also not to sit past midnight. Let us not sit much beyond midnight.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The whole equation cannot be solved; I think I shall have to persist in my motion.
Progress reported.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think, sir, there was an understanding that an order of the house should be made that the house proceed to the consideration of the following items of business listed as private bills on today's order paper: items Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8. It is not expected that there will be another opportunity to proceed with private bills in this session. I wonder if that could be so ordered?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Is that
so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order, please. Is it the pleasure of the house that private bills enumerated and listed for consideration in committee of the whole shall be

April 25, 1967
Private Bills
considered together, pursuant to the provisions of standing order 54(1)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. S-28, to incorporate Anniversary Life Insurance Company-Mr. Fairweather.
Bill No. S-27, to incorporate Laurier Life Insurance Company-Mr. Cameron (High Park).
Bill No. S-41 respecting La Societe des Artisans-Mr. Gendron.

Mr. Ron Basford (Vancouver-Burrard) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-36, to incorporate Commercial Solids Pipe Line Company.
He said: I understand there was some agreement that since this bill, and others, will go to committee and will die at the end of this session in committee, they will be placed on the order paper next session without necessity for the payment of fees and advertising requirements.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Agreed.


Mr. Peters:: I understand there is an agreement that this be done but that this recommendation be made in the committee when the committee meets. There are two bills in this category and if they are reintroduced consideration will be given to waiving the advertising requirements and the fees in respect of them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In the absence of the house leader I think that whatever undertakings have been given, and which it is possible to carry out, will be carried out.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I take it the undertaking the minister speaks of is that the advertising and filing fees will not be required in the next session. This is, I take it, the undertaking which the leader of the house has made.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, but it is the committee which will decide that.
[DOT] 12:00 (midnight)


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not so conversant with the law that I can say that is an undertaking it is possible for me to give, or the
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret).]
house to give at this moment, but I will give my undertaking, on behalf of the house leader, that he will see whatever steps required to be taken, that the government can initiate, are taken to this end.


Stanley Ronald Basford: In view of the fact that this bill is going to die in committee I hardly see any point in making a speech on second reading although it is an important bill and means a great deal to the area from which I come.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and referred to the committee on transport and communications.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from June 28, 1966, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wahn for the second reading of Bill S-10, respecting Interprovincial Pipe Line Company.
And on the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Langlois (Megantic), that the said bill be not now read a second time, but that it be read this day six months hence.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: The
question is on the amendment.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, as I recall it, the last time this amendment was under discussion I had the floor when the hour for private members discussion came to an end. I believe I had some six minutes of speaking time left. In order to expedite the business tonight I will not use those six minutes but allow the house to make a decision on the amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: All those in favour of the said amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: All those opposed to the said amendment will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: In my
opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Call in the members.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if there would be agreement to have the vote taken without the ringing of the bells.
April 25, 1967

Division


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting suggestion but there may be members who are waiting to vote one way or another on this bill, and they should be notified accordingly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could we agree on a relatively limited time lor the ringing of the bells?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel):: Call in the members.


Mr. Tucker:: Mr. Speaker, had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Mr. Wahn:: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is general agreement that this bill should be put through all the stages this evening. It has been before the standing committee on several occasions previously, and with the unanimous consent of the house I would ask that the bill be put through committee of the whole.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: By unanimous consent, notwithstanding the provisions of standing orders 102 and 105 I do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider the said bill.
The house in committee on Bill No. S-10, respecting Interprovincial Pipe Line Company-Mr. Wahn-Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 1-Subdivision of capital stock.


Mr. Deachman:: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to make to clause 1. I move that:
Clause 1 of Bill S-10, an act respecting Inter-provinclal Pipe Line Company is deleted and the following clause substituted therein:
"1. Notwithstanding anything contained in section 3 of chapter 34 of the statutes of 1949 (1st session), as amended by chapter 66 of the statutes of 1952-53,
(a)	the capitalization of the company is hereby reduced to one hundred million dollars by cancelling twenty million of its unissued shares, and
(b)	each of the issued and remaining unissued shares of the capital stock of the company of the par value of five dollars is hereby subdivided into five shares of the par value of one dollar each, so that the capital stock of the company shall be one hundred million dollars divided into one hundred million shares of the par value of one dollar each."
The purpose of this amendment is to meet objections previously raised to the capitalization which appears in the first sentence of the explanatory notes of the bill, namely 40 million shares, and reduces that capitalization by half.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, in discussing this matter for some period of time and not being convinced that the idea and philosophy of stock splitting is advantageous, we are of the opinion that this company has made some concession in reducing the amount of its stock and establishing it now at 100 million shares of the par value of $1 each. I should like to point out, however, to those who have been interested in this company that an article which appeared on March 21 this year indicated that the company will spend in 1967 the sum of $76 million. So there really is little

April 25, 1967
Private Bills
relationship between the capitalization and the large amount of stock it has had, and the ability of the company to operate.
Therefore I think the company has been wise in considering the reduction of treasury stock, which it obviously was not going to put out under any circumstances. This company has been before us three times since it was chartered in 1949. I suggest that it and other companies would be well advised to find other methods of handling their rising costs. This company now has stock on the market at $100. I suggest that when this stock split takes place, by the end of next week the stock will probably have gained at least $5 or $6. This of course is not a bad thing for anybody who owns this stock. However, the increased value will be a result of what we are doing, so I feel that in the near future the matter of stock splits should be seriously considered. This practice has now spread to banks, which were considered solid institutions.
[DOT] (12:20 a.m.)
Of course this Interprovincial company certainly has an excellent position. I feel, however, the house is soon going to have to give consideration to why a company wants to split its stock, particularly when that stock will rise in value. We should consider why they are willing to go on the market to borrow $70 million in one year. We have now authorized the increase in the company's total capitalization to $100 million, three quarters of which they can borrow on the market in one year.
I know there has been a great deal of concern on the part of some people with regard to this particular bill. I agree with those who say, why pick on Interprovincial? It happens that Interprovincial is before parliament, and I believe that matters that come before parliament have to be considered carefully. The sponsor of the bill and the board of directors of the company have been able to remove what had become an unwieldy treasury issue of stock, with stock being issued but there being no intention of putting this stock out to raise money which the company may need for expansion. It seems to me that this has eliminated one of the things to which I took objection. I believe, however, the company would be poorly advised to come back within the next four or five years requesting an additional stock split because I think we might not be as lenient the next time.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Mr. R. J. Orange (Northwest Territories) moved: the second reading of Bill S-52, to incorporate Rainbow Pipe Line Corporation.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: So far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, this bill is asking this house to grant an open hunting licence, as I would call it and as it has been called by others in the oil industry, since the company has not established any particular plan for any pipe line.
This bill presumably authorizes at some time or other the construction of a pipe line to connect with the provincial pipe line now under construction in the Rainbow Lake area of northwestern Alberta. However, under this proposal the pipe line could be extended into the Northwest Territories and would therefore come under the jurisdiction of this parliament and the National Energy Board.
Because of the complexities and peculiar nature of oil exploration and development in this particular area, there is great fear that once the pipe line was built by this corporation, which is actually owned by a consortium of major oil companies, any independents would be precluded from oil development in the Northwest Territories. This is something to which I do not think we should bar the door.
It is true that this extensive oil development in western Canada has resulted from the operations of the major oil companies. They have done by far the biggest development; but we should not shut out the independents. There is another independent pipe line company which could also reach into this area.
There is no evidence on record, as far as I can ascertain, that gives us sufficient information to consider this bill and accept it; therefore it must go to committee. I have sufficient doubt about this proposal at this time that I am not prepared to let the bill go through on the present basis without a clearer indication from the proposers of what they intend to do. This is almost the granting of a carte blanche to a company owned by major oil concerns under foreign ownership to operate into the Northwest Territories, and perhaps even into the Yukon.
April 25, 1967
In so far as their operations in the province of Alberta are concerned, the administration there has had long experience in the handling of oil exploration and development and can well take care of itself. But with regard to the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, Mr. Speaker, I think it behooves us to be very careful. Personally I can only accept second reading of this bill at this time, on division.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I am not in disagreement with what the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has said, but this bill has been on the order paper for some time and it should go to committee. Because of other factors that entered into the matter the bill has only now been proceeded with.
There has been some suggestion that the bill be again introduced, if the sponsors of the bill so wish, in the hope that there will be agreement that the expenses of advertising and of introducing the bill be waived.
[DOT] (12:30 a.m.)


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member speaks now the debate will be closed.


Mr. Reg Cantelon (Kindersley):: I wish to add my remarks to those of the hon. member for Edmonton West and other speakers who have spoken on this matter. It seems to me that the fair thing to do would be to treat this bill as we treated Bill No. S-36. I wish to add my voice to what has already been said.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: As a
previous speaker said, it is only fair that this bill be dealt with as the previous bill was dealt with. We do not require that all that has taken place to bring the bill this far be repeated, yet there ought to be further consideration, and accordingly I concur with statements made by speakers on this side of the house.


An hon. Member:: Question?
Business of the House


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question? Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion for second reading?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on transport and communications.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This disposes of the private members business.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as a participant in the late show may I suggest that that show be put off until another night?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Pennell:: Mr. Speaker, perhaps hon. members would be interested in tomorrow's business-I beg your pardon, in today's business. We propose to resume debate on Bill No. C-278 respecting the occupational training of adults, following that with Bill C-280, second reading of the act to amend the Income Tax Act; then we would revert to motions to deal with the second report of the standing committee on procedure, and I would ask, by leave, that an order go to that effect. That would be followed by interim supply.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The understanding was that interim supply would come earlier in the program, ahead of the motion for the adoption of the procedure committee's report.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That was the arrangement at the meeting of the house leaders this morning. Interim supply should precede the discussion of the rules.


Lawrence T. Pennell: If that was the understanding, I have no hesitation in accepting the proposal of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.
On motion of Mr. Pickersgill the house adjourned at 12.35 a.m.



Wednesday, April 26, 1967