1967-09-25

[Stage Direction]
Monday, September 25, 1967


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that during the recess I received from the national assemblies of Uganda and Jamaica a message and resolution extending congratulations to Canada on the occasion of our centennial.



VACANCIES

Mr. Speaker:: I also have the honour to inform the house that the following vacancies have occurred in the representation:
Of Cyril F. Kennedy, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Colchester-Hants, by resignation.
Of Hon. John Whitney Pickersgill, member for the electoral district of Bonavista-Twillin-gate, by resignation.



ANNOUNCEMENT OF APPOINTMENT OF ALISTAIR FRASER AS CLERK

Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the house that the governor general in council has appointed Alistair Fraser, Esquire, B.A., LL.B. as Clerk of the House in the place of Leon-J. Raymond, Esquire, O.B.E., LL.B., retired.



THE LATE HON. GUY FAVREAU EXPRESSIONS OF REGRET ON PASSING OF FORMER MINISTER

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the house I should like to call attention, and I do it with great sadness, to the fact that since this house adjourned in July one of our former colleagues who, as the house knows, had resigned a few weeks earlier because of ill health, has passed away. I refer to Hon. Guy Favreau, as fine and great hearted a man, as unselfish and sincere a patriot as I have ever known in my public life. He was a man with no trace of meanness or pettiness, a big man in every sense of the word. Mr. Favreau
made great sacrifices to serve, in parliament and in politics, a country he loved. He worked untiringly and unselfishly at the expense first of ill health and ultimately of his life. Our country can ill spare men of his kind, especially at this time in our history.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of this party I wish to say to the Prime Minister through you that we join in the sympathies which have been extended to the family of the late Mr. Favreau. I also wish to say that in my opinion he served his country well on the treasury benches of this parliament. He was one of those men who endeavoured to bring about unity in this country and played an important part in its ultimate success. We all miss him, and we wish to extend our deepest sympathy to the members of his family.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I would like to associate ourselves with the Prime Minister in expressing our deep and profound regret at the passing of a former member of this house, Mr. Favreau. It was only a few months ago when he was elevated to the bench that we bade him farewell and expressed our appreciation of his services to this country. We little thought at that time that he would soon pass from amongst us.
I should like to place on record our great admiration for the qualities he displayed in his public life, and to express the hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will convey to the members of his family our sincere condolences at the great loss they have suffered, as well as the great loss that all Canada has suffered in the passing of a man who gave so much to the service of his country.


Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I join the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the representatives of the various parties in the house in expressing our deepest sympathy to the family of the Hon. Guy Favreau.
Those who had the pleasure of knowing the hon. Mr. Favreau knew that he put the interests of the Canadian people far above those of political partisanshin. For this rea-
2398	COMMONS
Retirement of Opposition Leader son, I think we must recognize that the Hon. Guy Favreau was a great Canadian and that both his family and the Canadian parliament have suffered a great loss.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like very briefly to say that we also share in the sorrow that has been expressed over the passing of a man who I believe was one of the most congenial and friendly individuals in the House of Commons. We also join in the expressions of sympathy to his family.


Mr. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, this house will appreciate how much I wish to endorse the words spoken by the Prime Minister and members of opposition parties in their eulogy of the man I had the very great privilege of serving for almost three years and whom I replaced as member for Papineau.
Hon. Guy Favreau entered politics at a difficult period in the history of his country. Need I recall that bombs were exploding in Quebec at the time? But Mr. Favreau firmly believed in Canadian unity; he served his country and his fellow citizens with conviction and courage. Unfortunately, his devotion to duty exceeded his physical strength.
It is fitting that this house, which was not always gentle with him, pay today to that great Canadian the last tribute he well deserved.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I should like to inform you, sir, that due to a number of actions and subsequent developments since the last sitting of this house I have resigned from this group in the house. Further I wish to advise you that I have made application to join, and have been accepted by, that group in this house who support the government.
I should also like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for all the courtesies you have shown to me in the past, and I hope you will be able to see me from time to time on the other side of the house.
DEBATES	September 25, 1967



THE MINISTRY


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the house of certain changes in the ministry since the house recessed on July 7.
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill has submitted his resignation as Minister of Transport and has taken up new duties in the public service as president of the Canadian Transport Commission.
Hon. Paul Hellyer has been appointed Minister of Transport. Hon. Leo Cadieux, the former associate minister of national defence, has been appointed to succeed Mr. Hellyer as Minister of National Defence. Hon. Allan MacEachen, the house leader on this side, has been assigned ministerial responsibilities for the Atlantic Development Board.
I have recommended to His Excellency that Mr. Charles Granger, who resigned today as minister of Labrador affairs in the Newfoundland government, be appointed at this time as a member of the administration without portfolio.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



REFERENCES TO RETIREMENT OF OPPOSITION LEADER AND CABINET CHANGES

Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be permitted to call attention to the fact that there is one vacancy in the house today, though only a temporary one, that is very much in our minds. The place occupied in the House of Commons by the Leader of the Opposition is for the moment unfilled, as the right hon. member for Prince Albert has relinquished that post and his successor has not yet entered parliament.
I do not propose, Mr. Speaker, to say much about the right hon. gentleman who sat directly opposite me for some years, because he remains a member of this house and will be back with us shortly to exercise that influence on our debates and proceedings which has made him for so many years a powerful and dynamic parliamentary personality. If I said more, Mr. Speaker, it might sound too much like a valedictory, and that impression I certainly do not wish to create.
It will I confess, Mr. Speaker, be passing strange for me, and indeed for all of us, not to see the right hon. gentleman rise first on orders of the day and with transfixing gaze
IMr. Caouette.)
September 25, 1967

and minatory gesture launch a penetrating question to the selected target on this side, usually me.
As to the hon. gentleman who has been chosen as successor to the right hon. member for Prince Albert as leader of his party, I have already conveyed to him-and I repeat them here-my personal congratulations and good wishes. I wish him health and strength as he faces the great responsibilities of his very important office. While we both have duties to perform which will bring us often and no doubt vigorously into opposite sides of debate and discussion, I am encouraged to think that as Canadians with the same objective of service to our country we will be able to co-operate to the maximum possible extent in respect of matters which are above partisan politics.


Mr. Herridge:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be permitted to offer my congratulations to the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr), now sitting opposite me, who has been chosen as Acting Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: He is an old friend and a doughty foe. We on this side-and I am sure this is true of members of the house on whatever side they may sit-appreciate his quiet, sincere and effective service to his party, to parliament and to his country. In short, he is a good man and a fine public servant.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There is also, as I have already indicated, a gap in the ranks on this side as a result of the resignation of Jack Pickersgill from the House of Commons. He also, if I may put it in this way, was a Rupert of debate and a devoted and dynamic man of the Commons. I have known him almost from the beginning of my appearance on the Ottawa scene and I have always had a very great admiration for his ability, his loyalty and his encyclopaedic knowledge-I shall certainly miss that. Indeed, I shall miss him greatly as will all members on this side of the house and, I think, of the house as a whole. He was a stimulating and stirring parliamentarian, and while a staunch party man he never allowed his friendships to be limited by party considerations. Perhaps the
Retirement of Opposition Leader house will give me permission to table the exchange of letters which took place between Mr. Pickersgill and myself on his resignation and allow that exchange to appear today as an annex to Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of documents referred to above, see appendix.]


Michael Starr: First I wish to thank the Prime Minister through you, Mr. Speaker, for his kind words toward me; I hope the things he has said about me will continue to apply in the future-with his co-operation.
His announcement of the decision of the former member for Bonavista-Twillingate to leave the treasury benches does, of course, represent a loss not only to the Liberal party but to the House of Commons and to this institution of parliament. He was a very articulate member of this house; he was well versed in its procedure and, particularly in opposition, he was at times devastating. His notable career in the service of a former prime minister is known to all of us as well as to the people of this country. He even tried his talents in the fields of law and of authorship. I am sure he will be as greatly missed on this side of the house, as he will be by the government and its supporters. We wish him well in his new position.
As far as the other changes are concerned, we only hope that the former minister of national defence who is moving to the Department of Transport as minister will not try to bring about another unification measure there. As for the new Minister of National Defence, we wish him well. He is well thought of in this House of Commons and I feel sure that at the helm of national defence he will prove a great asset to his department. To the leader of the house we extend our good wishes as he undertakes new duties in addition to those which already fall within his responsibility.
I am sure all members on this side of the house are grateful to the Prime Minister for his words about our former leader, the right hon. member for Prince Albert. It is hoped on this side of the house that he will remain in the ranks of the Commons so that his wisdom, energy and experience of parliament will not be lost.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: I am sure if our new leader were in his place at this moment he would
September 25, 1967

Retirement of Opposition Leader express gratitude to the Prime Minister for his good wishes. However, I wish to bring to the attention of the house that our new leader is in the gallery now, watching with a great deal of interest the proceedings in this chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: He is a man of integrity, thoughtfulness and reason, one who has projected his image in a most acceptable way in Canada, and the members of this party in this chamber as well as throughout Canada are looking forward to his entry into the House of Commons as soon as possible. I must say emphatically that we are all united behind him to form an effective and forceful opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Prime Minister has commented on changes of personnel in the government and House of Commons which will undoubtedly have far reaching repercussions on the political life of this country.
I am sure all of us are pleased at the honour which has been given to hon. Mr. Pickersgill in his appointment as chairman of the Canadian Transportation Commission. I think it was Senator Chubby Power who said that a member of parliament could only get out of politics in one of two ways, either by dying or by being defeated, and the first was so final and the second so humiliating. However, Mr. Pickersgill has managed to find a third way. It is not every member who can write his own ticket or draft the bill for his own final haven of rest.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I only hope that not too many other ministers will try to emulate him in that regard, but we wish him well in the high post to which he has been appointed.
We also wish the other new ministers, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux), well in the responsibilities which they are now assuming. The appointment of Mr. Granger as Minister without Portfolio- will cause some disappointment to those from the province of Newfoundland who had hoped one of the present members of the house would be selected for that post, but I have no doubt the Prime Minister has very sound reasons for the decision he has taken.


It would not be appropriate at this time to make any comment about the former leader of the opposition because, like the Prime Minister, I do not want anything I say to sound like a valedictory. We are all hoping he will continue in the house. I think we will all agree that the fact he is no longer leader of the opposition will make this a much less interesting and colourful place, but we do hope he will continue to occupy his seat and give the house the benefit of his long experience.
I would like to congratulate the Acting Leader of the Opposition and to say how pleased we are that this honour has been conferred upon him by his party. From experience we know he will discharge his responsibilities with great ability and with conscientiousness. Of course I would remind him of the old slogan "Big Brother is watching you."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He will, of course, be expected to conduct himself according to the party's strategy.
With reference to the new leader of the Conservative party, may I say I hope we will have the opportunity of welcoming him into the house before too long, and at that time we will be able to express our appreciation of the work he has done and to extend our congratulations on the honour which has been conferred upon him by the Conservative party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear. a (3:00 p.m.)


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, we wish sincerely to congratulate the new appointees to the federal departments made public over the week-end. As the right hon. Prime Minister, we regret the departure of the former leader of the opposition, the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. John Diefen-baker) whom we have all learned to know in various ways in this chamber.
In fact, the hon. member for Prince Albert has been in this house for many years. Personally, I came to know him when I was a very young member, in 1947, that is, 20 years ago. At the time, the former leader of the opposition was only 52. He was then already a determined fighter, a hard worker as he has shown himself to be throughout his political life.
Everyone agrees that he brought colour to parliament and he was a true leader. He had
September 25, 1967

his own opinions, he sought to make them known, to have them understood, and mostly to make them prevail as much as he could.
Mr. Speaker, the right hon. member for Prince Albert has, within the house and outside, set an example of hard work. He had the courage of his convictions and of his opinions. He did not fear to express them before anyone.
The Prime Minister was perfectly right when he said a while ago that the hon. member for Prince Albert was a dynamic parliamentarian. Surely, he made charges and he was even accused of obstruction in the House of Commons. To a certain extent, it was also true. On the other hand we always knew what he thought and we always knew what he intended to do to convince the House of Commons that he was right. That does not imply that we all supported him. Far from it, we have fought him and we shall probably fight him again as much and as long as he is sitting in this house. But, as far as the leader of the opposition is concerned, we must recognize that he had great qualities as a leader.
Mr. Speaker, he is temporarily replaced by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) whom we also had the opportunity to hear very often in the course of the various debates that have arisen in the house.
I had the pleasure of travelling with him two years ago when the Canadian parliamentary delegation went to Czechoslovakia and Russia. The member for Ontario attends the sittings of the house regularly; he is a man of duty and even a pleasant travelling companion. He therefore has several qualities.
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the new leader of the Conservative party, I shall wait till he sits in the house to appreciate his behaviour and his contribution to the whole of Canada. We all know he was a provincial premier for several years. But the provincial arena is not quite the same as the federal arena. And so, I want to see him in the federal arena before expressing any opinion about him. There is one sure thing: he is not of the same stamp as the former Conservative leader. He seems as calm, reserved, moderate as the other was fiery and impetuous. He has met the Prime Minister, possibly to seek his advice, or to find out how a leader of the opposition must act in the house, but I do not know for sure. In any case, we will be able to appreciate him when he sits here with us.
Mr. Speaker, since we are talking about departures, that of the former minister of 27053-153
Questions
transport (Mr. Pickersgill), the former member for Bonavista-Twillingate, whom we also knew very well in this house, leaves a gap. Whatever our political allegiance, it was always a pleasure to get in touch with him. There was no need to wear white gloves and a dress-suit to see him. In fact, it was possible to see him anywhere and he always welcomed us kindly. He dealt personally with matters we put to him and heaven knows how many there have been in the last six years.
We now congratulate the newcomers in this house and wish them a great deal of success.
With regard to one of our friends on this side of the house who now sits on the other side, as someone said a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, that is not surprising to us since the government supported him a few years ago.
We have nothing else to add now except that we hope that parliament becomes more and more efficient so that it can better serve the people whom we represent and whom we must serve for the welfare of Canada as a whole.



ECONOMIC COUNCIL


Mr. John R. Mafheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, with leave I should like to table copies in English and French of the report on consumer affairs and the Department of the Registrar General which was published in July 1967 by the Economic Council of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the parliamentary secretary have leave to table these documents?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Irvine: 1.	How many people who speak English only are employed in all federal government departments?
2.	How many people who speak French only are employed in all federal government departments?

September 25, 1967
Questions
3.	How many people who are bilingual (speaking French and English) are employed in all federal government departments?
4.	How many people in each of the three aforementioned categories are employed in each of the crown corporations in Montreal and Quebec city?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: The requested information is not available in personnel records. Furthermore, the required degree of bilingual proficiency varies for different kinds of occupations.
A system of objective tests of language skill, both French and English, is being devised by the Public Service Commission. When these tests have been completed they will be used as may be required for accurate verification of language knowledge of individual employees. This information will be fed progressively into the central personnel records system which is in the process of being developed. There will, however, inevitably be a considerable period before comprehensive statistics on this subject will be available.


THE NATIONAL ANTHEM
Mr. MacRae: 1.	Is "O Canada" as of this date the national anthem of Canada?
2.	If not, what steps are necessary to make "O Canada" the national anthem of Canada?


John Ross Matheson: 1. The formal designation of "O Canada" as the national anthem of Canada has been under consideration by special joint committees of the House of Commons and the Senate.
The first such committee was set up during the last session and in its second report to the House of Commons on March 15th, 1967, it unanimously recommended, inter alia, that the government be authorized to adopt forthwith the music for "O Canada" composed by Calixa Lavallee as the music for the national anthem of Canada. This report was concurred in by the House of Commons on April 12th, 1967, and by the Senate on April 19th, 1967.
The second such committee was established on May 19th, 1967, when the House of Commons resolved, "That a special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons be appointed to consider and from time to time to report upon the question of lyrics of the national and royal anthems of Canada". This committee has not yet reported.
2.	When the committee reports concerning lyrics consideration will be given, in the light of its report, to the question of such further action as may be desirable or necessary.


FRENCH SPEAKING FEDERAL CIVIL SERVANTS
Mr. Allard: 1.	Among federal civil servants receiving annual salaries of $5,000 or more, what percentage represent persons whose mother tongue is French?
2.	How are these distributed, in percentages, among the following federal departments and agencies: Agriculture, Manpower and Immigration, Defence Production, External Affairs, Finance, Labour, Energy, Mines and Resources, National Defence, National Health and Welfare, National Research Council, National Revenue, Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Post Office, Public Works, Trade and Commerce, Transport, Veterans Affairs?
3.	What is the total number of senior officials and the number of persons whose mother tongue is French among these officials in the following federal departments and agencies: Insurance, Export Credits Insurance Corporation, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., Industrial Development Bank, Bank of Canada, Canadian Wheat Board (Montreal branch), Canadian Arsenals Limited, Canadian National Railways, Trade and Commerce, Canadian Commercial Corporation, Farm Credit Corporation, Defence Construction Ltd., Eldorado Mining and Refining Ltd., Atomic Energy Control Board, Finance, Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, Fisheries Polymer Corporation Ltd., Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, National Research Council, National Health and Welfare, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Tariff Board, Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation, Air Canada, Transport, Air Transport Board, Labour, and Public Works?
4.	What is the number of federal civil servants earning $14,000 or more annually, and what is the number in this group whose mother tongue is French?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The requested information is not available in personnel records. Furthermore, the required degree of bilingual proficiency varies for different kinds of occupations.
A system of objective tests of language skill, both French and English, is being devised by the Public Service Commission. When these tests have been completed they will be used as may be required for accurate verification of language knowledge of individual employees. This information will be fed progressively into the central personnel records system which is in the process of being developed. There will, however, inevitably be a considerable period before comprehensive statistics on this subject will be available.


INDIAN AFFAIRS-COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IN YUKON AND N.W.T.
Mr. Orange: 1.	Were funds allotted in the estimates of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development during the fiscal year 1966-67 for the
September 25, 1967

purposes of community development In the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories and, if so, what was the total amount involved by community?
2.	What are the terms of reference under which a community may spend these monies?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: In so far
as the Northwest Territories are concerned the answer is as follows: 1. Yes. The following amounts were allotted to the community development fund for the Northwest Territories in the fiscal year 1966-67:
Arctic District
Frobisher region: Igloolik $11,000; Resolute Bay $1,000; Pond Inlet $4,000; Pangnirtung $11,000; Cape Dorset $5,000; Frobisher Bay $11,000; Queen Elizabeth Islands $1,000; Regional Reserve $6,000.
Keewatin region: Repulse Bay $3,000; Eskimo Point $10,000; Baker Lake $10,000; Rankin Inlet $14,000; Coral Harbour $8,000; Regional Reserve $5,000.
Mackenzie District
Frobisher region: Igloolik $11,000; Resolute Pelly Bay $6,200; Gjoa Haven $1,900; Coppermine $1,700; Thom Bay $500.
Inuvik region: Fort Good Hope $1,000; Ak-lavik $4,000; Tuktoyaktuk $3,500; Inuvik $2,500; Fort McPherson $1,500; Fort Norman $4,000.
Fort Smith region: Regional Reserve $9,600.
2.	A community may spend such monies for local physical improvement projects and local economic development projects. Physical improvement projects are required to have a labour content of at least 70%. Departmental field officers authorize expenditures from the fund, within the limitations of the community budget, and after consultation with the local community councils, where such councils exist.
In so far as the Yukon Territory is concerned, the answer is as follows: 1. No. Funds for these purposes were held at Indian affairs branch headquarters and no allotments were specifically made for administrative regions in the 1966-67 estimates.
2.	Not applicable.


FEATURE LENGTH FILMS, NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Mr. Nugenl: 1.	How many feature length commercial films are now in production, or in planning, by the National Film Board?
2.	What are the names of any such films, and what is the estimated cost of each one?
Questions
3.	Has a coloured film "Waiting for Caroline" been produced or is such a film being produced and, if so, what was the original estimated cost of this film, and what is the anticipated cost now?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the National Film Board as follows: 1. Three.
2.	The Ernie Game-estimated cost $300,-
000.	Waiting for Caroline-$498,000. Le Grand Roc-$160,000.
3.	Yes, it has been photographed and is now at the editing stage. The original budget estimate was $320,000. This was based on an 88 minute film. It has been decided to complete it at a length of 110 minutes and the anticipated cost is now $498,000. The additional length is one of the reasons for the increase in cost. Further, it should be understood that the figure of $320,000 did not include the normal contingency allowance as it is being produced on a shared cost basis with the C.B.C.


GRANTS TO TRAIN TEACHERS FOR INDIANS AND ESKIMOS
Mr. Orlikow: Are there government grants available for training teachers to work among Indians and Eskimos and. if so, what is the amount provided in the estimates, and how many people can be trained?


Arthur Laing: While no specific amounts are provided in the estimates of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for grants which would be available for training teachers to work among Indians and Eskimos, teacher training is provided in other ways. For example, $35,000 is provided for a two week orientation course attended by approximately 125 teachers per year upon appointment. Inservice workshops of one week are held each year at a cost of approximately $65,000 which are attended by over 400 teachers. An average of 25 teachers a year attend summer courses in specific subjects relating to the problems of northern teaching and workshops for the development of northern school programs at a cost of approximately $17,000. Also, in 1966-67 approximately $59,000 was spent in connection with educational leave for teachers to undertake further training particularly relating to the Eskimo and Indian cultures.
The department also offers training bursaries to prospective teachers enrolled in the intercultural education program at the University of Alberta. The students are employed

September 25, 1967
Questions
during the summer months as student assistants at the student assistants' rates of pay. Those who agree to teach for Indian affairs branch for a minimum of one year receive further assistance. Their transportation to and from university and their tuition fees are paid by the branch. Provision was made for ten such bursaries for the fiscal year 1967-68. The average yearly cost per pupil is $2,000.
The government of the Northwest Territories provides grants and loans to any high school graduate in the Northwest Territories who wishes to attend university or a teacher training school and can qualify for admission. Because it is a territorial program and not limited to the training of teachers, neither the numbers of people to be trained nor the cost can be determined.


SCHOOL ATTENDANCE OF INDIAN CHILDREN
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many Indian children attend schools, elementary and secondary, and how many of these attend (a) purely Indian schools (b) integrated schools?
2.	How does the percentage of Indian students attending schools, elementary and secondary, compare with the percentage of the whole population attending elementary and secondary schools?


Arthur Laing: 1. The
enrolment of Indian children as of January
1967, was as follows:
Elementary schools	51,431
Secondary schools	5,770
sub-total 57,201 Grade unknown	7,238
grand total 64,439
The 7,238 students for whom grades are unknown represent children who are living off reserve and attending provincial schools for whom details are not available.
Of the 64,439,	31,498 attended schools
operated by the Indian affairs branch and 32,941 attended integrated schools.
2. Of the 57,201, the percentage of Indian students attending elementary schools is 90 per cent while the percentage attending secondary schools is 10 per cent. The percentage of the school population in Canada attending elementary schools is 74 per cent while the percentage attending secondary schools is 26 per cent.
[Mr. Laing.)
USE OF POISON GAS IN NORTHERN YEMEN Question No. 199


Mr. Ormiston:: Has the government of Canada received any report or evidence of the alleged dropping of poison gas by the United Arab Republic on northern Yemen, since January 1, 1967?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secreiary of Stale for External Affairs: 1. The government has received reports on the alleged dropping of poison gas on northern Yemen. The Secretary General of the United Nations circulated on April 6, 1967 an exchange of communications between himself and the deputy permanent representative of Saudi Arabia to the United Nations as security council document S/7842. In this document Ambassador Baroody of Saudi Arabia alleges that United Arab Republic aircraft subjected an area of northern Yemen to a lethal gas raid.
In addition, on June 2, 1967, the international committee of the Red Cross in Geneva released a report which stated that a medical team, led by the head of the I.C.R.C. mission in the Yemen, had on May 15 and 16 visited a village in North Yemen, where, according to the survivors, many inhabitants of the village had died of asphyxiation after a bombing attack some days earlier. The report also stated that the Red Cross team had found various indications pointing to the use of poison gas. The United Arab Republic has not admitted the use of gas in any attacks in North Yemen.
The Canadian government does not have any official representation in the Yemen and is not, therefore, in a position to assess, on the basis of its own sources, the information contained in the reports noted above.



WATER SUPPLY, SPRINGHILL PENAL INSTITUTION


Mr. Allard: 1.	How much more or how much less did the federal government pay out than it received in the
September 25, 1967



province of Quebec for the 1965-1966 fiscal year, taking into account, between the federal government and the province of Quebec, all the revenue received by the federal government (including direct and indirect taxes and other sources of revenue) and all the expenditures made in the province of Quebec (including conditional and unconditional grants to institutions and private Individuals, all government expenses incurred by the Department of Public Works and others, plus the expenditures incurred by the federal crown corporations in that province), using in every case the same criterion, i.e., the destination of the dollar and not the percentage which the population of a province represents out of the entire population of Canada?
2.	What are the comparative tables for each province?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: 1 and 2. Information is not now available to provide an accurate answer to this question and the necessary expert staff is not available to undertake the large amount of work which would be required to gather the necessary information.


NAME OF LAKE AT KINGSMERE, QUE.
Mr. Isabelle: Is Mousseau or Harrington the official name of the lake situated near Kingsmere in Gatineau county?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: In 1931 the name Harrington lake was approved by the Geographic Board of Canada when the names for a map of the area were being considered. There was no controversy at that time as the name Harrington was found to be firmly established on all maps examined.
In 1951 an article in the Ottawa Journal suggesting that a more historically appropriate name would be Lac Mousseau prompted an inquiry by the Canadian board on geographical names, the predecessor of the present Canadian permanent committee on geographical names. The matter was investigated much more thoroughly than in 1931. It was ascertained that the name Harrington appeared on many maps and plans dating back to 1850 on a surveyor's plan of the area. The name Harrington appears to have been applied by this surveyor and may have resulted from the land grant in 1827 to a Joseph Harrington of lot 19 in the 6th range of Hull, some six miles south of the lake, according to evidence furnished by the Public Archives of Canada. Additional evidence served to confirm that the Harrington family occupied land near the lake until after the middle of the century. Letters were received from local
Questions
residents, mainly cottagers, supporting the name Harrington.
The name Lac Mousseau was promoted by others just as strongly stating that Louis Mousseau settled on the shore of the lake in 1867, his descendants retained title until at least 1905, and that most people have known the lake by this name for the past 50 to 60 years.
After a full review of the evidence and representations, the board decided in 1951 to retain the name Harrington. The decision was based mainly on the long establishment of the name on maps and plans as well as on demonstrated local usage. The board recognized that the name Lac Mousseau was also used, but they did not see fit to adopt the double name.
In Bill C-64, 1959, amending the Prime Minister's Residence Act, the lake is designated as Harrington lake (Lac Mousseau) in the English text and Lac Mousseau (Harrington lake) in the French text.
On September 5, 1962 a draft copy of topographic map 31 G/12d published by this department was forwarded to Quebec for a names check. On December 18, 1962, a letter was received from the secretary of the Quebec geographical board stating that the Quebec minister of lands and forests had approved the name Lac Mousseau (Lac Harrington). This name was ratified by the Canadian permanent committee on geographical names and is the official name of the lake.


FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO TEMPERANCE PROMOTION
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 277-Mr. Mather: Supplementary
What, in dollars, was the amount of federal contributions to anti-alcoholism or temperance in 1966?
Mrs. Margaret Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is as follows:
Welfare grants expenditures 1966-67 Prince Edward Island Half-way House
alcoholic treatment centre	$25,000
Northwest Territories-welfare services
plan: alcohol education program	8,536
Yukon Territory-welfare services plan:
Yukon alcoholism counsellor	6,101
Total	$39,637

September 25, 1967
Questions


HIEING PRACTICES, CAPE BRETON HIGHLANDS PARK
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	Has the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development received a communication dated June 11, 1967, signed by the president and the secretary of branch No. 32, Royal Canadian Legion, Cheti-camp, N.S., requesting an immediate investigation concerning hiring practices at the Cape Breton highlands national park and, if so, what was the nature of the reply provided?
2.	Was a copy of such a communication received by the Minister of National Health and Welfare and, if so, what was the nature of the reply provided?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Departments of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and National Health and Welfare as follows: 1. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development received a communication dated June 11, 1967 signed by the president and the secretary of branch no. 32, Royal Canadian Legion concerning the hiring of one man, for whom employment arrangements had already been made and who was taken on staff June 15.
2.	Yes, a copy was received by the Minister of National Health and Welfare and in his reply assurance was given that a report on the matter would be sought.


TREATMENT IN VETERANS HOSPITALS
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	Since January 1, 1965, what has been the average monthly patient load by classification at Camp Hill hospital, Halifax, Nova Scotia?
2.	What priorities are given to the admission of patients at the aforementioned hospital?
3.	Did the Minister of Veterans Affairs, on April 24, 1967, when speaking in the House of Commons, make reference to veterans in receipt of war veterans allowance when outlining priorities?
4.	Is priority given to treating such veterans and, if not, for what reason?
5.	Under what section of veterans treatment regulations is there defined a responsibility for the Department of Veterans Affairs to treat patients referred by other departments of the federal government?
6.	Who determined that such persons should have a priority over any class of veteran who may be admitted to a D.V.A. institution under veterans treatment regulations?
7.	Were representatives of any veterans' organizations consulted by the federal government before adopting such a policy?
8.	Under what sections of veterans treatment regulations are persons other than veterans admitted to D.V.A. institutions where such persons are not the responsibility of a federal government department?

9.	What types of facility or treatment are available in any D.V.A. institution which are not available in non-departmental hospitals in a particular area such as Halifax?
10.	How many beds at Camp Hill hospital are held vacant or earmarked for possible admission of non-veterans?
11.	How many veterans have been refused admission since January 1, 1965, and in what categories could they have been admitted?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1.	Classification under Veterans Average treatment regulations	monthly
patient
load
Sections 5 and 6-treatment for pensioned disability	37
Section 11

treatment of former members of regular forces in Canada during post discharge year for a condition being treated in hospital at the time of discharge from the forces	1
Section 12-treatment for non-pen-sioned condition of a veteran recipient of war veterans allowance or a veteran who would be a recipient of war veterans allowance if his Old Age Security Pension, including guaranteed income supplement, or that of his wife or both were deducted from his income, and of a person in receipt of an allowance under part XI of the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act	45
Section 13-treatment for a non-pen-sioned condition of a veteran with limited income and resources who served overseas and was honourably discharged, or who is in receipt of disability pension	57
Section 15-treatment for venereal
disease incurred during service	1
Section 16-treatment where there is uncertainty as to whether it is required for a pension condition	4
Section 18-treatment at the request and expense of Department of National Defence	3
Section 19-treatment at the request and expense of Royal Canadian Mounted Police	2
Section 20-treatment at request and
expense of a responsible body	4
September 25, 1967



Section 21-treatment at request and expense of any department of government of Canada
Questions
in a special centre for the treatment of paraplegics at Queen Mary veterans hospital, 15 Montreal.
Section 22-treatment of former members of commonwealth and allied forces for pensioned disabilities	1
Section 23-treatment in a departmental hospital for non-pensioned condition of a veteran of world war I, world war II or the Korean confict, as a paying patient	20
10.	None.
11.	All entitled veterans have been admitted in accordance with their medical need. Emergencies are admitted immediately and elective and chronic cases are admitted as beds become available. No record is kept of the number of non-entitled veterans who are refused admission.
Section 27-examination at the request of the Canadian Pension Commission
Section 28-examination required by the department for the supply or maintenance of a prosthetic appliance, by the war veterans allowance board or a district authority or for completion of an examination by the Canadian Pension Commission	14
Section 29-Domiciliary care	159
2.	(a) Medical emergencies, (b) Veterans for treatment of pensioned disabilities, (c) Persons whose treatment is the statutory responsibility of other departments of the federal government, such as serving members


COST OF SERVICES TO INDIANS
Mr. Orlikow: What were the costs for the last fiscal year to the federal government of services to Indians for health, welfare, education and economic development?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the departments of National Health and Welfare and Indian Affairs and Northern Development as follows: The expenditures for Indian health services for the fiscal year 1966-67 are:
* Administration, operation and maintenance	$22,200,000
Capital	2,100,000
of R.C.M.P. (d) Treatment of various categories of veterans for non-pensioned dis- Total expenditure abilities, eligibility usually being determined Revenue by their type of service and financial circumstances.	Net costs

3.	They were included in the group described in 2(d).
4.	Yes. They have the highest priority in the group described in 2(d).
5.	Sections 18, 19 and 21.
6.	Patients treated under the sections listed in 5 do not have priority of admission over veterans requiring hospitalization for treatment of their pensioned disability. The priority for the admission of any patient for active treatment is determined by the attending medical staff of the hospital within the limitations established by the governor in council.
7.	No.
8.	Sections 17, 20 and 24.
9.	Facilities available in D.V.A. hospitals include arts and crafts, auditorium, canteen, and patients' library. The only treatment peculiar to D.V.A. hospitals is that provided
*This does not include approximately $2,500,000, directorate administration costs. The costs of services to Indians for the fiscal year 1966-67 are:
Welfare* *	$31,420,317
Education	$52,262,632
Economic development	$5,541,864
As the final accounting reports have not yet been issued, these are approximate figures only.
* Welfare-1966-67.
Welfare assistance	$19,163,918
Repairs to houses	903,938
Construction of houses	8,459,584
Grants to bands	448,762
Expo '67	772,348
Other and community development 1,671,767 Total	$31,420,317

September 25, 1967
Questions


APPLICATIONS TO MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many applications for grants to finance research projects did the Medical Research Council receive in each of the past three years?
2.	What was the total dollar value of the projects requested from the Medical Research Council?
3.	How many of the applications made to the Medical Research Council were approved in full?
4.	How many of the applications were approved in part only?
5.	How many applications for research grants were turned down in each of the last three years?
6.	What were the reasons for the refusals?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: In so far as the National Research Council of Canada is concerned the answer is as follows: 1. Total number of grant applications: to the Medical Research Council: 1964-65, 687; 1965-66, 895; 1966-67, 1203.
2.	Amount requested: 1964-65, $7,904,743.16;
1965-	66, $11,040,860.76, 1966-67, $15,825,154.76.
3.	Approved in full: 1964-65, 226; 1965-66, 347; 1966-67, 702.
4.	Approved in part: 1964-65, 347; 1965-66, 385; 1966-67, 330.
5.	Rejected: 1964-65, 114; 1965-66, 163;
1966-	67, 171.
6.	Many factors are taken into account when considering applications and it is not the policy of the Medical Research Council to give reasons for rejections.


RESEARCH COUNCIL SUPPLIES FOR UNIVERSITIES
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How much money did the National Research Council provide for research equipment and supplies for Canadian universities last year?
2.	How much was requested by the universities for such equipment and supplies from the National Research Council?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.	The grants awarded to university researchers in 1966-67 which include support for research equipment and supplies totalled $27,946,000. It is estimated that 64 per cent of these funds were used for research equipment and supplies.
2.	For the grants awarded, $27,946,000, there was requested $45,332,700 by the universities.


SCHOOL ATTENDANCE OF INDIAN STUDENTS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Of the Indian children attending elementary and secondary schools (a) how many are attending elementary schools (b) how many are attending secondary schools?
2.	How does the percentage of Indian students attending secondary schools compare with the percentage of the whole population attending secondary schools?
3.	How many Indian students are attending universities or other advanced educational institutions?


Arthur Laing: 1. The enrolment of Indian children as of January
1967, was as follows:
Elementary schools	51,431
Secondary schools	5,770
sub-total	57,201
Grade unknown	7,238
grand total	64,439
The 7,238 students for whom grades are unknown represent children who are living off reserve and attending provincial schools for whom details are not available.
2.	Of the 57,201, the percentage of Indian students attending secondary schools is 10 per cent while the percentage of the school population in Canada attending secondary schools is 26 per cent.
3.	178.


TRAINING GRANTS FOR EDUCATION IN WELFARE WORK
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How much money has been allocated under the welfare training grants to help pay for the education of people desiring to improve their qualifications in the field of social work?
2.	How many people are now at recognized professional schools under the provisions of these grants?
3.	What are the amounts of the bursaries provided?
4.	Has any money been allocated for research projects in the field of social service?
5.	Have any plans been developed for research into appropriate use of sub-professional staff in the field of social welfare?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. In the fiscal year 196667 $235,763 was allocated to assist persons taking full time graduate social work training at schools of social work.
2.	155 persons.
September 25, 1967

3.	The bursary, training grant, scholarship and fellowship provisions are used to assist persons taking social work training. Costs of bursaries and training grants are shared with the provinces. Scholarships and fellowships are 100 per cent federal responsibility.
The amount of bursary and training grant is determined by the provincial welfare authorities, with the federal share not to exceed $4,000 for a calendar year plus $500 for dependents. These grants are reduced proportionately for periods of less than one year. Necessary travel costs are also paid.
Scholarships and fellowships are awarded by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The maximum amount of a scholarship is $2,500 for a calendar year, plus $500 for dependents. The maximum amount of a fellowship is $4,000 for a calendar year, plus $500 for dependents. These awards are reduced proportionately for periods less than one year. Necessary travel costs are also paid.
4.	In the fiscal year 1966-67 funds in the amount of $171,503 were expended in connection with a variety of welfare research projects, surveys and studies, priority being given to those projects which held promise of making significant steps forward in the organization, co-ordination and staffing of welfare services and in the development of new services focussed on meeting welfare needs and on the prevention of welfare problems and dependency.
5.	Yes, through the technical and vocational agreements of the Department of Manpower and Immigration and the national welfare grants program of the Department of National Health and Welfare, provincial departments received assistance in 1966-67 to undertake programs of training for sub-professional personnel, and these programs, which have advisory committees operating in conjunction with them, will be evaluated in terms of their effectiveness in producing competent personnel for the welfare field.
To date in the current fiscal year 1967-68, a grant was awarded to the Children's Aid Society of Vancouver to study the use of welfare aides in child welfare: an application from the Department of Public Welfare in Newfoundland for a study of the effectiveness of their in-service and undergraduate training for sub-professional welfare personnel is pending; and consultation has been provided to the department of social welfare, British Columbia, to develop a research project on staff utilization in public welfare services.
Questions


INDIAN AFFAIRS BRANCH PLACEMENT OFFICERS
Mr. Orlikow: How many employment placement officers does the Indian affairs branch employ in each province and, of these, how many are of Indian descent?


Arthur Laing: There are 32 employment placement officers in the Indian affairs branch as of June 23, 1967. None of these is of Indian status. The distribution of these officers by provinces is as follows:
Nova Scotia	2
New Brunswick	1
Quebec	4
Ontario	11
Manitoba	1
Saskatchewan	3
Alberta	3
British Columbia	7
Total	32


FUND FOR RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. MacDonald (Prince): 1.	Have regulations been enacted for the fund for rural economic development and, if so, on what
date?
2.	What are the terms of any such regulations?
3.	What provinces or agencies have made applications to this fund, for what projects and for what
amounts?
4.	What allocations from this fund have been made, when and for what amounts?
5.	Is it expected that allocations will be made for Prince Edward Island and, if so, when, for what amount and for what purposes?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: 1. No.
2.	See above.
3.	Most provinces have shown interest and actual studies are under way in Quebec, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. There are indications that provinces may soon proceed to survey their needs. See also 4 below.
4.	Agreements have been signed with New Brunswick and Manitoba for contributions under the Fund for Rural Economic Development Act. Programs in New Brunswick include the northeast New Brunswick federal-provincial rural development agreement with a contribution from the fund and from ARDA over a ten year period of $31.5 million and the Mactaquac agreement with a ten year FRED contribution of $9.4 million. Both these agreements were signed September 20, 1966.

September 25. 1967
Questions
In Manitoba the Interlake agreement was signed on May 16, 1967 with a total ten year contribution under FRED of $27.6 million.
5.	Basic research in Prince Edward Island has almost been completed and discussions are under way with the province on the next phase. The amount of money is dependant upon the program to be undertaken and the area selected but to date no decisions have been made on any of the particular elements.


VISITS OF HEADS OF STATE TO EXPO '67
Mr. Goyer: 1.	How many heads of state or their representatives have visited Expo '67 to date and what countries did they represent?
2.	In each case, were they accompanied on the Expo site by a minister or other representative of the federal government?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the commissioner general for visits of state 1967 as follows: 1. As of June 22, 1967, 17 heads of state or their representatives have visited Expo under the visits of heads of state program, representing Ethiopia, Mauritius, Belgium, Burma, Austria, Israel, Czechoslovakia, Netherlands, Great Britain, United States of America, Australia, Iran, Tunisia, Federal Republic of Germany, Korea, Ceylon, Thailand.
2. Yes, during the official portions of their stay in Montreal.
I am informed by the Department of Trade and Commerce as follows:
1.	As of June 27, 1967, only one head of state, the Prime Minister of Bulgaria, visited Expo apart from the official visits program.
2.	With the exception of Expo officials, he was not accompanied by a representative of the federal government.


BANKRUPTCIES
Mr. Latulippe: 1.	What are the (a) total numbers (b) amounts (c) nature, of the bankruptcies that occurred in the province of Quebec, during the last five years, and who sustained the losses?
2.	What are the (a) total numbers (b) amounts (c) nature, of the bankruptcies that occurred in Canada and in each of the other provinces, during the last live years, and who sustained the losses?
3.	What is the forecast for 1967 and 1968?
4.	What are the total numbers and the amounts of fraudulent bankruptcies, during the last five years, and who sustained the losses?
5.	What is the forecast for 1967 and 1968 in the matter of fraudulent bankruptcies?


Hon. John N. Turner (Registrar General):: Answers to Questions 1 and 2 BANKRUPTCIES REPORTED
Canada
No. of cases
Year	Reported	Assets(l)	Liabilities (1)1962	4297	68,491,500	159,435,6021963	5189	92,160,294	201,273,5381964	5562	107,149,000	210,855,6921965	5023	135,539,469	267,904,1481966	4668	158,779,020	259,748,590Eastern Provinces	Newfoundland	Year	Number of Estates Assets(l)	Liabilities(l)1962	2	19,482	65,4321963	10	181,517	425,6011964	8	382,878	600,9001965	9	423,782	994,3641966	3	102,909	232,867Prince Edward Island	Year	Number of Estates Assets(l)	Liabilities(l)1962	5	107,673	191,4531963	7	211,311	273,2291964	8	85,376	335,4641965	4	183,052	267,2991966	5	98,183	153,915Nova Scotia	Year	Number of Estates Assets(l)	Liabilities(l)1962	12	408,898	853,6591963	32	1,108,361	2,412,0321964	35	850,793	2,765,6601965	19	319,574	740,5431966	15	411,453	775,598New	Brunswick	Year	Number of Estates	Assets (1)	Liabilities (1)1962	15	1,573,430	1,826,2231963	25	482,289	850,7841964	25	201,614	560,5361965	29	488,399	1,217,1761966	20	144,432	433,589
September 25, 1967

	Provinces of Ontario and Ontario Number of		Quebec
Year	Estates	Assets (1)	Liabilities (1)1962	1544	26,493,861	60,635,2981963	2060	39,010,984	89,651,7161964	2225	42,561,407	79,635,3851965	2030	66,193,429	129,840,1851966	1813 Number of	74,708,191 Quebec	115,011,540Year	Estates	Assets (1)	Liabilities (1)1962	2360	33,708,580	80,739,1951963	2716	44,186,664	92,504,6751964	2832	52,877,709	106,029,3851965	2517	55,230,822	105,413,5901966	2439	72,405,775	123,525,269Western Provinces Manitoba Number of	Year	Estates	Assets (1)	Liabilities (1)1962	51	1,327,400	2,504,7901963	63	1,392,713	2,786,3821964	76	2,845,932	3,578,5231965	60	1,062,356	2,394,7931966	73 1,468,399 Saskatchewan Number of	3,378,758Year	Estates	Assets (1)	Liabilities (1)1962	47	635,320	1,275,0501963	45	343,013	994,5351964	45	556,719	1,240,7021965	35	178,784	616,3681966	36 Number of	541,757 Alberta	1,068,321Year	Estates	Assets (1)	Liabilities (1)1962	125	1,533,740	4,758,7971963	103	2,259,722	4,666,2671964	147	2,730,989	7,534,3541965	186	5,231,947	12,211,8791966	137	2,997,980	5,996,925
Questions British Columbia
Year	Number of Estates	Assets (1)	Liabilities (1)1962	136	2,683,116	6,585,7051963	128	2,983,720	6,708,3171964	161	4,055,583	8,574,7831965	134	6,227,324	14,207,9511966	127	5,899,941	9,171,808
Note: (1) Amounts are as reported by debtors.
The losses, in these bankruptcies, were suffered by the creditors of the bankrupts and a list of all of the creditors that have suffered losses as a result of these bankruptcies does not exist.
3.	No forecast has been made.
4.	The expression "fraudulent bankruptcies" may refer to any of a wide variety of situations and there are no statistics available on losses attributable to perversions of the bankruptcy process.
5.	No forecast has been made.


COST OF FEDERAL SERVICES TO INDIANS
Mr. Orlikow: What were the costs to the federal government for services to Indians for health, welfare, education, and economic development, in each of the past five years?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the department of National Health and Welfare and Indian Affairs and Northern Development as follows:
The expenditures for Indian health services in each of the past five years are:
1966-67	1965-66	1964-65	1963-64	1962-63* Administration, operation and maintenance	$22,200,000	$18,700,000	$18,600,000	$23,200,000	$17,400,000capital	2,100,000	2,700,000	1,100,000	1,900,000	1,600,000Total expenditure	$24,300,000	$21,400,000	$19,700,000	$25,100,000	$19,000,000Revenue	4,200,000	3,200,000	3,300,000	2,900,000	2,800,000Net costs	$20,100,000	$18,200,000	$16,400,000	$22,200,000	$16,200,000
* This does not include approximately $250,000 directorate administration costs.

September 25, 1967
Questions
The costs of services to Indians for the past five years are:
1962-	63
1963-	64
1964-	65
1965-	66
1966-	67*
Welfare**

Education

Economic
development

* As the final accounting reports have not been issued, these are approximate figures only. ** Welfare.
1962-63	1963-64	1964-65	1965-66	1966-67$	$	$	*	$Welfare assistance	
9,916,344	10,929,608	12,984,272	17,884,954	19,163,918Repairs to houses	
216,882	251,683	326,592	536,993	903,938Construction of houses	
1,968,292	2,140,877	2,920,277	4,997,514	8,459,584Grants to bands	
-	-	1,021	71,065	448,762Expo '67	
-	-	-	29,717	772,348Other and community development.	
238,791	266,536	429,338	1,270,889	1,671,767Total	
12,340,309	13,588,704	16,661,500	24,791,132	31,420,317HATCHING OF WHOOPING	CRANE EGGS	2. Dr. D.	A. Munro,	director,	Dr. F. G.


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Are any Canadians involved in the current program to hatch whooping crane eggs under controlled domestic conditions?
2.	If so, who are they?
3.	Has the advice and assistance of the eminent Canadian zoologist, A1 Oeming, been sought on this project?
4.	Who else is involved in this project?


Arthur Laing: 1. The collection, hatching and rearing program for whooping cranes was developed jointly by scientists of the Canadian wildlife service and the United States bureau of sport fisheries and wildlife. The collection phase was carried out by biologists of both agencies. The incubation and rearing phases are being carried out by United States biologists at the Petuxent research centre following a program developed jointly by the two agencies concerned. No Canadian is presently located at the Petuxent research centre, Laurel, Maryland. All changes or modifications to the jointly developed program are discussed in advance by competent scientists of both governments. Progeny which will result from the present operation will not be available for distribution for the final phases of the program until 1980. The ultimate responsibility for the program is held by the directors of both agencies concerned.

Gooch, staff specialist, Dr. N. S. Novakowski, staff specialist, Mr. Kuyt, biologist, all of the Canadian wildlife service.
3.	No, because the birds are the responsibility of both governments and the scientists available are equally as competent as Mr. Oeming.
4.	No person from the private sector is involved in the program. In addition to names listed in part two of this question, employees of the rare and endangered species division, bureau of sport fisheries and wildlife, Patuxent research centre, Laurel Maryland, are involved. The principal United States scientists are Dr. Ray Erickson and Dr. Glen Smart. They are assisted by 10 full time technicians as well as other specialists on constant call.


CANADIAN CADET CORPS
Mr. Goyer: 1.	How many cadet corps are there in Canada?
2.	How are they distributed by provinces?
3.	What were the total amounts paid to these cadet corps during the past year, and how are these amounts distributed by provinces?
4.	What were the total amounts paid to the members of these cadet corps during the past year, and how are these amounts distributed by provinces?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: 1. 1,055.
September 25, 1967

2.	British Columbia, 114; Alberta, 110; Saskatchewan, 80; Manitoba, 71; Ontario, 272; Quebec, 208; Nova Scotia, 89; New Bruns-wick/Prince Edward Island, 57; Newfoundland, 54.
3.	For the fiscal year 1966-67 $235,331.00 as follows: British Columbia, $14,503.01; Alberta, $10,276.62; Saskatchewan, $10,567.65; Manitoba, $10,536.71; Ontario, $92,250.88; Quebec, $61,916.72; Nova Scotia, $16,699.70; New Brunswick/Prince Edward Island, $12,096.53; Newfoundland, $6,483.18.
4.	$489,874.09 as follows: British Columbia, $77,627.56; Alberta, $6,200.04; Saskatchewan, $22,920.00; Manitoba, $7,537.15; Ontario, $139,444.29; Quebec, $158,144.05; Nova Scotia, $31,870.00; New Brunswick/Prince Edward Island, $24,834.00; Newfoundland, $21,297.00.


INVESTIGATION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMAL CASES
Mr. Mather: 1.	Has the Department of Agriculture received protests from the Ontario Humane Society over reported refusal by veterinarians of the department to co-operate with society inspectors in examining cases of animal cruelty?
2.	If so, have such complaints been investigated and the situation resolved?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minisier of Agriculture):: 1.	Yes.
2.	A meeting to resolve any misunderstandings has been arranged.


EXERCISE OF FRANCHISE BY BRITISH SUBJECTS AND OTHERS
Mr. Stanbury: At the date of the last general election (a) how many British subjects, other than Canadian citizens, had been ordinarily resident in Canada for the preceding 12 months, and thereby were entitled to vote and be candidates for parliament (b) how many persons had been ordinarily resident in Canada for the preceding 12 months but were not British subjects, and therefore were not entitled to vote and be candidates for parliament?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Chief Electoral Officer as follows: (a) Apart from the requirement that a British subject who is not a Canadian citizen is required to be a resident in Canada for the 12 months immediately preceding polling day to be entitled to vote at a federal election and be a candidate for parliament, the Canada Elections Act does not make any
Questions
distinction between these two categories, and consequently, this office has no information regarding this question, (b) The persons mentioned in this part of the question fall in the general category of those people not entitled to vote or be a candidate at a federal election and no records are kept in this office of the number of such persons.


'POPULATION OF NEW ELECTORAL DISTRICTS
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	According to the 1966 census, are there any electoral districts established pursuant to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act which have a population which (a) exceeds the quotient established pursuant to that act by a greater extent than 25 per cent more, or (b) is less than the said quotient by a greater extent than 25 per cent less?
2.	If so, how many are there in category (a) and category (b) and what are the names and populations of each such electoral district?
3.	If the answers to part 1 and part 2 indicated that anomalies and discrepancies have already arisen under the new redistribution, will the government consider amendments to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act to remove them?


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is as follows:
Since the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act provides for the review of electoral boundaries only after each decennial census, information such as is requested is not available from the representation commissioner. The government is not now considering any amendments to the act in respect of revisions based on the quinquennial census.


MEAT IMPORTS
Mr. Laprise: In 1966, what were the total imports of (a) beef (b) lamb and mutton (c) pork of all kinds (d) chicken (e) turkey?


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: In 1966, the total imports of:
Quantity Value $000
(a) Beef
fresh or frozen Cwt. 111,756	$ 7,843
cured	Cwt.	124,601	5,169canned	Lb. Net. 9,677,496	4,155
Total beef
17,167

September 25, 1967
Questions
Quantity Value
			$000
(b) Total lamb			
and mutton (fresh or frozen)	Cwt.	559,692	15,918
(c) Pork			
fresh or frozen	Cwt.	273,971	12,301cured	Cwt.	90,959	3,478Total pork	15,779(d) Total chicken	Cwt.	46,195	1,445(e) Total turkey	Cwt.	1,548	85


HOUSING LOAN APPLICATIONS, CHAPLEAU CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Laprise: 1.	Under the National Housing Act, how many loan applications were made in the constituency of Chapleau in 1965 and 1966?
2.	During the years 1965 and 1966, how many loan applications were accepted for the construction of houses in (a) the constituency of Chapleau (b) Amos, Senneterre, Chibougamau, Chapais, Macamic and La Sarre?
3.	What was the value of such loans granted in that constituency for the years 1965 and 1966?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: 1. Data on loan applications received are not available by federal constituency nor by municipal county.
2a.


NET NHA LOANS APPROVED FOR NEW HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
Northern and Eastern Parts of Abitibi County Northern Part of Champlain County; Abitibi and Mistassini Districts
1965-1966*
Approved lenders	CMHC	Total NHAPeriod	Amount	Amount	Amount
Loans Units ($000) Loans Units ($000) Loans Units ($000)
1965	
3	3	38	154	160	2,237	157	163	2,2751966	
-	-	1	216	263	4,061	216	263	4,062Total	
3	3	39	370	423	6,298	373	426	6,337
*CMHC Statistical data are not recorded on a constituency basis. The above is the closest approximation to activity in the constituency.

NET NHA LOANS APPROVED FOR NEW HOUSING Specified Municipalities in Abitibi County and District
Approved lenders	CMHC	Total NHA	Approved lenders	CMHC	Total NHA
Location	
[Stage Direction]
Amount	Amount	Amount	Amount	Amount	Amount
Loans Units ($000) Loans Units ($000) Loans Units ($000) Loans Units ($000) Loans Units i$000' Loans Units ($000'
Amos	
1	1	18	12	12	174	13	13	192	-	-	-	22	22	267	22	22	267Senneterre	
-	-	-	16	16	191	16	16	191	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	1Chibougamau	
2	2	20	19	25	264	21	27	284	-	-	1	31	32	354	31	32	355Chapais	
-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-Mstc&mic	-	. ~	. -	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	*	*La Sarre	-	-	-	3	3	46	3	3	46	-	-	-	17	20	476	17	20	476Total	
3	3	38	50	56	675	53	59	713	-	-	1	70	74	1,098	70	74	1,099September 25, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	2415
Questions
[Stage Direction]
September 25, 1967
Questions

Mr. Valade: 1.	How many persons applied to the government of Canada and obtained passports or visas to enter Israel or Egypt during the recent war between Israel and Egypt?
2.	Does the government of Canada consider such persons to be Canadian citizens who may return to Canada with privileges?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of State for External Affairs: 1. The Department of
External Affairs cannot say how many persons may have applied for passports for the specific purpose of entering Israel or Egypt during the recent war for the reason that Canadian passports are issued valid for travel to all countries and passport applicants are not asked to state the countries to which they plan to travel. Visas to enter Israel and Egypt are not issued by the Canadian Government but must be obtained from the Israeli and Egyptian authorities.
2. Not applicable.


BROADCAST GOVERNORS PARTICIPATING IN JUNE HEARING
Mr. Smith: Which members of the Board of Broadcast Governors participated in the hearings commencing June 2C. 1967?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Board of Broadcast Governors as follows: All members of the Board of Broadcast Governors participated in the hearings commencing June 20, 1967.


PERSONNEL OF BROADCAST BOARD
Mr. Smith: What are the names, addresses, and dates of appointment of the members (full and part time) of the Board of Broadcast Governors?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Board of Broadcast Governors as follows:
Full time members: Dr. Andrew Stewart, Chairman, 2322 Hillary Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario; (appointed Nov. 18/58, re-appointed July 7/67). Mr. Pierre Juneau, Vice-Chairman, 911 Hartland Street, Outremont, P.Q.; (appointed Feb. 18/66). Mr. David Sim, 730 Island Park Drive, Ottawa, Ontario; (appointed Feb. 18/66).

Part-time members: Mr. Joseph F. Brown, 2554 Wallace Crescent, Vancouver 8, B.C. (appointed Nov. 10/58, re-appointed Dec. 6/63). Mr. John M. Coyne, Room 1005, 77 Metcalfe Street, Ottawa, Ontario; (appointed Aug. 3/63). Miss Edouardina Dupont, P.O. Box 1106, Trois-Rivieres, P.Q.; (appointed Oct. 21/66). Mr. Claude B. Gagnon, 100, carre Youville, Quebec 4, P.Q.; (appointed Oct. 18/62). Mr. Joseph W. Grittani, Suite 304, 1801 Eglinton Avenue West, Toronto 10, Ontario; (appointed Sept. 12/63). Mr. F. G. Holmes, 211 Buckingham Drive, Windsor, Ontario; (appointed. Dec. 6/63). Mr. Major Reid, Rollo Bay West, Souris, P.E.I.; (appointed Oct. 21/66). Dr. Guy Rocher, 550, Cham-pagneur, Outremont, P.Q.; (appointed Oct. 21/66). Mrs. Alan Sweatman, 266 Kingsway Avenue, Winnipeg 9, Manitoba; (appointed Dec. 6/63). Dr. Gordon W. Thomas, c/o International Grenfell Association Mission, St. Anthony, Nfld.; (appointed Oct. 21/66). Mr. George T. Urquhart, 824 Manawagonish Road, Saint John West, N.B.; (appointed Feb. 2/67). Mr. Ian Gordon Stott, 181 St. Peters Road, Sydney, N.S.; (appointed June 15/67).


FEDERAL PARKS
Mr. Caoueile: 1.	How many federal parks are there in each of the provinces of Canada?
2.	What is the area of these federal parks?
3.	How much has the federal government spent on federal parks to date?
4.	Do some provinces not have federal parks and, if so, for what reason?


Arthur Laing: 1. British Columbia, 4; Alberta, 5; (including Wood Buffalo national park, partially in Alberta and partially in the Northwest Territories); Saskatchewan, 1; Manitoba, 1; Ontario, 3; Quebec, 0; New Brunswick, 1; Nova Scotia, 2; Prince Edward Island, 1; Newfoundland, 1.
2.	Total area, 29,416.2 square miles.
3.	$238,362,741 to the end of fiscal year 1966-67.
4.	There are as yet no national parks in the province of Quebec. The addition to the national parks system of one or more outstanding examples of Quebec landscape would indeed be welcomed by my department. However, the establishment of new national parks is dependent upon the province concerned taking the initiative. Customarily the province invites the federal government to participate in a joint survey of potential
September 25, 1967



park lands, followed by mutual agreement on a satisfactory area and subsequent action to transfer title to the lands, free of all encumbrances, from the provincial to the federal government. To date, no such invitation has been received from the Quebec provincial government.


STEPS TO MEET URANIUM DEMAND
Mr. Caouette: Has Eldorado Mining and Refining Ltd. taken any measures to fill the increasing demand for uranium and, if so, what are they?


Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Yes.
In the past year Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited has increased its annual uranium production from the Beaverlodge mine by 11 per cent and is bringing into production a new 250 ton per day mine located some eight miles from its present mining and milling operations.
Through press releases and annual reports, the corporation has repeatedly warned the Canadian uranium producers and the mining industry at large of the urgent need for increased exploration and development of new uranium deposits to meet the increasing world demand.


COST OF GUARANTEED ANNUAL INCOME
Mr. Davis: Has an estimate been prepared of the cost to the federal treasury of a guaranteed annual income for all Canadian families of $3,000 a year and, if so, what is this cost likely to be (a) in total (b) when demands which would otherwise be made on unemployment insurance, social assistance, etc., have been deducted?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No.


SECOND NATIONAL PARK IN SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Watson (Assiniboia): Has the federal government any plans for a second national park in Saskatchewan and, if so
(a)	what are they (b) what sites have been under investigation in Saskatchewan for this purpose?


Arthur Laing: Yes. A survey of potential national park sites was carried out during the summer of 1965. (a) The objective is to establish a prairie national park, (b) The survey concentrated on the area south of the trans-Canada highway. Precise
Questions
locations cannot be announced until such time as boundaries and other factors have been negotiated in co-operation with the Saskatchewan provincial government.


CONTRIBUTIONS UNDER UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND
Mr. Laiulippe: 1.	What was the maximum salary above which an Insured person was not compelled to remain insured or pay weekly amounts in 1947, 1957 and 1967?
2.	What was the maximum weekly contribution deducted from the maximum weekly salary of an insured person in 1947, 1957 and 1967?
3.	What was the number of insured persons paying contributions to the unemployment insurance fund in (a) Canada (b) Ontario (c) the province of Quebec in 1947, 1957 and 1967?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I am informed by the Unemployment Insurance Commission as follows: 1. 1947, $3,120. 1957, $4,800. 1967, $5,460.
2. 1947,	$.36. 1957,	$.60. 1967,	$.94.3.	(a) Canada	(b) Ontario	(c) Quebec1947	3,255,238	965,300	654,2101957	5,019,931	1,850,604	1,444,6881967	5,334,212	1,895,743	1,627,688


INCOME TAX PAYMENTS
Mr. Davis: 1.	What were the personal income tax payments to the federal government in total and on an average per capita basis, by province, for the fiscal year 1964-65?
2.	What were the corporate income tax payments to the federal government in total and on an average per capita basis, by province, for the fiscal year 1964-65?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: 1. Personal income tax payments to the federal government in total for the fiscal year 1964-65 were $2,903.9 million. The total includes old age security tax and provincial income tax collected by the federal government. Collection figures by provinces are not available because payments and refunds processed by the taxation data centre in Ottawa in 1964-65 relate to all provinces and district office collection figures, therefore, do not indicate correctly the amount collected in each province. The following table, based on an analysis of tax returns, shows the total tax payable by individuals in respect of the 1964

September 25, 1967
Questions
taxation year distributed by province of residence:
Total Average tax payable per capita
Province	$Million	$Newfoundland	26.5	53.97P.E.I.	4.8	44.86Nova Scotia	56.6	74.47New Brunswick	41.4	67.10Quebec	583.8	104.96Ontario	1,264.5	192.00Manitoba	119.8	125.05Saskatchewan	108.1	114.63Alberta	182.8	127.65British Columbia	314.3	180.84*Does not include	taxes levied	and collected by the province directly.	2. Corporate income tax payments to the	federal government in total for the fiscal year	1964-65 were $1,804.5	million. The	! total ineludes old age security tax and	provincialincome tax collected by the federal govern-	ment. Collection figures by province, based	on the district office	of filing, are	shown inthe following table:	Total	Averagetax collected per capita	Province	$Million	$Newfoundland	22.5	45.82P.E.I.	2.6	24.30Nova Scotia	18.6	24.47New Brunswick	15.4	24.96Quebec	498.1	89.55Ontario	867.3	131.69Manitoba	72.0	75.16Saskatchewan	18.1	19.19Alberta	100.5	70.18British Columbia	189.2	108.86
*Does not include taxes levied and collected by the province directly.


ACCESS ROAD AGREEMENT WITH QUEBEC
Mr. Blouin: Has the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources renewed an agreement with the government of the province of Quebec for the year 1967-68 relating to the construction of access roads to natural resources and. if so, what is the federal government's share in that agreement?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No.


WHARF MAINTENANCE, SANDY BEACH, QUE.
Mr. Blouin: Did the Department of Transport ask that repair and maintenance work be carried out on the wharf at Sandy Beach, Quebec, during the winter of 1965-66 and, if so, what is the name of the contractor who performed the work?

Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public
Works): Yes. The work was carried out by a contractor, James Blanc.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. McCleave: 1.	Does the government give any priority to persons from whom it has expropriated property to acquire such property in the event the property becomes surplus and is disposed of?
2.	If so, on what terms?
3.	If not, would the government consider such a policy?
Return tabled.


INVESTMENTS BY PROPRIETARY CORPORATIONS
Mr. Godin: 1.	What was the sum invested by each of the proprietary corporations as defined in the Financial Administration Act, for each of the past three years?
2.	What percentage of these investments originated from (a) corporation profits (b) loans (c) public funds?
Return tabled.


ACTION BY CROWN CORPORATIONS TO COMBAT WATER POLLUTION
Mr. Godin: What steps have been taken by the proprietary crown corporations as defined in the Financial Administration Act to combat water pollution?
Return tabled.


IMMIGRATION TO CANADA SINCE 1947
Mr. Stanbury: 1. How many persons have immigrated to Canada since January 1, 1947, from each of the countries whose citizens enjoy the status of British subject under the Canadian Citizenship Act?

September 25# 1967

2.	How many persons have immigrated to Canada during the same period from each of the other countries of the world?
3.	How many of such persons from each country have acquired Canadian citizenship?
Return tabled.


EFFECT OF AGRICULTURAL SPRAYS ON FISH LIFE
Mr. Latulippe: 1.	What branches of what federal departments at what centres in Canada investigate the matter of agricultural sprays harmful to fish, and who is in charge of such works?
2.	Is any damage caused to inland waters in Canada by the accidental flow of anti-parasitical substances and, if so (a) what is the nature of such damage (b) what is the monetary value of such damage?
3.	Were any young Atlantic salmon and speckled trout lost in this manner in federal fish breeding facilities in New Brunswick located on the tributaries of the Saint John river and if so (a) in what numbers (b) what was the cost of this loss to the government (c) what were the local restocking programs for the waterways and lakes where such accidents occurred?
4.	What percentage of oxygen supply is required for the hatching of fish eggs in New Brunswick?
5.	What (a) poisonous substances (b) poisonous insecticides (c) other chemical anti-parasitical substances in water are injurious to fish?
6.	Are any areas in New Brunswick sprayed to destroy injurious insects and, if so (a) what areas
(b)	what waterways, in that area can be polluted by the chemical products used in such circumstances?
7.	Is a special interdepartmental committee studying forest spraying programs and, if so (a) what is the name of this committee (b) who are the members (c) what is the duty of each (d) what has been the cost of this committee to the government?
8.	Has phosphamidon been used to date and, if so (a) in what quantities (b) with what results
(c)	at what cost (d) in what ratio is it effective (e) what areas in New Brunswick have been sprayed with this product?
9.	What were the lethal doses found in the waterways of New Brunswick?
10.	Has money been provided by the government to fight pollution by anti-parasitical substances and, if so, what amount?
11.	What areas in Canada are most affected by such pollution?
Return tabled.


ACCESS TO PUBLIC RECORDS
Mr. Bell (Carleion): 1.	What was the nature of the provisions for access to public records specified prior to order in council P.C. 1966-1749 of September 9, 1966?
2.	What change, if any, was made as a result of the passage of P.C. 1966-1749 in such provisions for access to public records?
Orders for Returns
3.	What are the existing provisions for such
access?
4.	Are there any plans for new provisions for such access and, if so, what is the nature of such plans?
5.	What is the present rule for access to public records now existing in (a) the United Kingdom (b) France (c) the United States?
6.	What negotiations, if any, have been held with the governments of the nations mentioned in part 5, to arrange uniformity of rules of access among the nations, and with what result?
7.	What problems, if any, arise for the Department of External Affairs and/or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police due to lack of uniformity of rules of access among such nations?
8.	Has an advisory council on public records been appointed?
9.	If so, what are the names, addresses and occupations of the members appointed to such council?
10.	Since its establishment, on what dates has the council met?
11.	In the preservation and custody of public records, what are the respective authorities and responsibilities of (a) the treasury board (b) Dominion Archivist (c) departments of government?
Return tabled.


PUBLIC SERVICE CLASSIFICATION REVISION PROGRAM
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	In what occupational categories has the classification revision program of public servants been completed?
2.	In what occupational categories is the program still incomplete and, in each case, when is completion anticipated?
3.	In each of the occupational categories mentioned in parts 1 and 2 of this question, how many positions are affected?
4.	How	many	positions	in	each	occupational
category were (a) "red-circled" (b) "green-circled" (c) converted to equivalent status?
5.	Of those "red-circled" (a) how many applications for reviews were received (b) what disposition has been made of the applications?
6.	How	many	persons	in	each	occupational
category have been removed by transfer, promotion or otherwise from the "red-circling" classification?
7.	How	many	persons	in	each	occupational
category are still "red-circled", and what plans are there for the removal of these "red-circled" employees from such status?
Return tabled.


COST SHARING PROGRAMS
Mr. Davis: With regards to federal-provincial cost-sharing programs (a) how many are now in effect (b) what was the federal contribution, in total, and by program, for the fiscal year 1964-65 (c) what
2420	COMMONS
Urgency of Housing Debate was the federal contribution, in total, and by program, in each province for the fiscal year 1964-65?
Return tabled.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been unable to find starred question No. 277 on the order paper. Could we have the number of the question which has been answered today?


Albert Béchard: It is question No. 277.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)



HOUSING


Mr. G. L. Chaiterton (Esquimall-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance under standing order 26. The matter to which I refer would be contained within the motion, if leave is granted. The matter is:
-the deepening of the grave crisis in the house construction industry as the result of the government's failure to provide the necessary funds;
the government's persistent failure to establish priorities in meeting the needs of citizens generally;
the increasing serious lack of housing accommodation, particularly for most low income families;
the alarming increase in the cost of housing created by the shortage of accommodation and aggravated by the government's policy of retaining the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials;
and the resultant disruptive effects on the retention of specialized and skilled labour in the building industry.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich kindly enlighten the Chair and the house on the question of urgency of debate? I take the liberty to caution the hon. member and others who might want to participate in the consideration of the matter of urgency that what is before the house at the moment is the question of urgency of debate, not urgency of the subject matter of the proposed motion.


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Speaker, I shall try conscientiously to restrict my remarks to the question of urgency of debate. I shall try very hard not to infringe the rules. We had all expected, and I know a great number of Canadians across the country and the building industry had expected this, that today the Prime Minister or the Minister of Labour would rise on motions and make a statement with regard to the serious question that arises in the country in respect of the housing shortage.
[Mr. Davis.J
DEBATES	September 25, 1967
This has not been done, in spite of the fact that since the house rose 11 weeks ago a large number of organizations have made representations to the government on this important matter. Also, during this time the Economic Council has submitted its fourth annual review. According to that review it would seem that this year something between
180,000	and 190,000 new housing units will be required. It would also appear from estimates I have been able to obtain that there will be a shortage this year alone of something between 30,000 and 40,000 housing units.
The second point I make in support of urgency of debate of the question is that it is now 11 weeks since the house rose. During this time there has been ample evidence of the rapid increase in the cost of housing, an increase occasioned largely by the shortage of housing caused by government policies. Because there are several buyers for the same house, the cost of the house has gone up very considerably. In the Toronto area, for example, I have one estimate that the cost of an average new house has gone up by over $5,000 in the past year.
The Dominion Bureau of Statistics indicates that between August 1966 and August 1967 the consumer price index for housing, which includes shelter and housing operation, increased from 145 to 152.2. This is an increase of 7.2 points in the cost of housing over the past year ending in August. Yet we have had no opportunity in the past 11 weeks to discuss this matter.
The third point I put before the house with regard to the question of urgency is that in spite of the clear warnings of the Economic Council in its previous reports and in its most recent, fourth annual review-some of the comments being almost startling, in spite of the reserved language used by the Economic Council-there is nothing on the order paper which will provide a vehicle for members of the house to discuss this matter which is reaching catastrophic proportions, namely the shortage of housing and the high cost of housing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Louis Chatterton: I am sure it is a matter of the gravest disappointment to millions of Canadians that there is no clear proposal by the government to solve or even ameliorate this question. During the past 11 weeks we have read statements made by the Minister of Labour, who I am sorry is not in the
September 25, 1967	COMMONS
house today. I understand that today in the west he is still talking about housing, as he has been for the past year and a half. But no action has been taken. We have no indication, for example, of when the budget will come before the house for debate.
I maintain, therefore, that in view of the serious developments that have occurred during the past year, the further anticipated increase in the mortgage interest rate by October 1, and the freeze on mortgage funds for direct lending by the government, there is an urgent requirement for debate today by this house on this most important matter. For those three reasons, Mr. Speaker, I submit there is an urgent requirement for such a debate.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me there is every reason to agree on the urgency of debate on the subject which has been introduced. As a matter of fact I had such a motion ready to introduce, because I think this is a matter of the utmost importance. All the members of the house who have just come from their constituencies must know that the housing shortage in this country is now reaching critical proportions.
All the indications are that targets set will not be reached. The Economic Council of Canada said just recently that we ought to be building 190,000 houses a year. The government's original target was 170,000 houses, later cut to 150,000. According to the best reports we are able to obtain it is doubtful now that we will even reach the target of
150,000	housing starts this year.
This situation has been worsened by the announcement of the Prime Minister in August that the $300 million of additional funds that it was hoped would be made available for housing is not to be made available. The Economic Council in its fourth annual review is most critical of the application of a tight money policy to house construction.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
The Prime Minister said in the middle of August that this whole question of additional funds for housing should be reviewed again in the fall. Some two months have elapsed and the government has had ample time to review this matter. It seems to me that it is the right of this house and of the people of Canada to know what the government's intentions are with respect to housing, whether or not they are going to make this $300 million available or whether we are going to continue to fall short of the targets with the results
DEBATES	2421
Urgency of Housing Debate that are now apparent, namely that houses are becoming scarcer and rents are increasing. People in this very city of Ottawa are being evicted from homes at the present time. The situation has become such that one of the leading housing authorities in Canada has said that in 1968 we will face a housing crisis such as this country has never before experienced.
It is because the government has not announced any policy and has not put forward any program that we are entitled to a debate in order that we and the people of Canada may know what the government intends to do if anything. Surely there is nothing that can be more important than to have a full scale debate at this time in order that we may know the government's plans and whether or not the government intends to grant the $300 million additional mortgage funds which, it was hoped all along, would be made available.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put forward my own contribution to this debate and express the views of this group concerning the housing situation in the country. This is not a new problem. We have been faced with it many times prior to the adjournment of this session and it has been growing with increasing speed ever since then.
I do not intend at this time to debate the urgency of the matter because we all know that it is a very urgent one in view of the fact that the two most basic necessities of human beings are food and shelter. There need be no discussion of that. There is a need for housing and we all realize it.
So far as urgency of debate is concerned may I suggest that we refer to Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 100 (2) which states that a matter "must be so pressing that public interest will suffer if it is not given immediate attention". In my opinion there is no matter that is more pressing and more urgent that this one now. Public interest will definitely suffer from lack of housing and therefore it is our duty, if at all possible, to put a stop to the high cost and rising price of housing and to ensure that the house does its duty before this situation develops into a crisis.
Far too often we have waited in this house before acting on important matters. We have waited until the situation became critical, at which time it is very difficult and sometimes practically impossible to deal with it. In such cases the measures we take can only be very hasty ones and not necessarily the right ones.
September 25, 1967

Urgency of Housing Debate
I should like to refer the house to citation 100 (3) which states as follows:
"Urgency" within this rule does not apply to the matter itself, but it means "urgency of debate", when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the House do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and public interest demands that discussion take place immediately.
I will leave it to the government to establish the earliest opportunity at which a debate on this subject can take place. When I say "the earliest opportunity" I do not mean in a month's time or next week. I mean this week either tomorrow or the day after. I am of the opinion that this should be the first subject discussed in the house because housing is in a critical state at the present time.


Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, may I say in very few words that we believe there is a real urgency of debate on this matter and that the government should be given an opportunity to tell us exactly what are its plans so far as housing is concerned. The reason I say this is that I believe we have a twofold program: first is the problem of the housing situation and second are the inflationary pressures which exist in the country at present. A great deal of money poured into housing will bring about an increase in the inflationary pressures. We should like to hear from the government how it intends to combat the inflation resulting from higher prices and still meet the needs of housing which is a matter of great importance. On this point alone I think it is essential that we hear from the government and that you, Mr. Speaker, give an opportunity for a debate to take place so that the government can give us a clear picture of how they intend to meet the present situation where a great deal of money must be spent on housing and yet the inflationary pressures must not be allowed to continue.


Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, the reason this matter is of urgency is that the period in which the situation can be corrected is very short because the construction season for this year will soon come to an end and by the end of this year, as a result of this government's lack of planning, close to 50,000 Canadian families will have inadequate housing to shelter them. This is a crisis. The government's housing program is actually running in reverse. In July we were given the last figures that the Dominion Bureau of Statistics makes available to the Canadian people. The number of housing starts in July was 7 per cent below the number of starts made in May and 14 per 
cent below the number of starts made in August. This situation is steadily worsening. It has approached crisis proportions. Even if the starts were maintained for the rest of the year at the rate of the July starts instead of decreasing further, as they have been doing for the past two months, by the end of this year we would still be able to produce only
146,000	housing starts instead of the absolute minimum of 190,000 housing starts which the Canadian Economic Council has told us is the minimum required for this country this year.
Therefore we must have a debate on this matter today. The government's plan is not a plan. As I said, it is running in reverse. We are producing less houses month by month and by the end of the year 50,000 Canadian families will be without shelter. Obviously the government has no plans to put forward. It is therefore the duty of the opposition to present plans to the government, which we intend to do, and to suggest what the government should do to get the 190,000 houses built in a year which the Canadian Economic Council has stated is the absolute minimum. Therefore a debate on housing should be proceeded with immediately and without delay.


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, despite your request at the beginning of this' debate that we confine our remarks to the urgency of the debate and not to the subject matter itself, every speaker who has taken advantage of Rule 26 has of course discussed and emphasized the fact that there is a housing shortage in this country. I should like to consider myself intellectually honest to the point that I agree there is a housing shortage in Canada at present, but unlike some of the hypocritical statements which I have just heard, particularly those made by the leader of the New Democratic party, I recognize that in this country there is the B.N.A. Act and that under the constitution of Canada housing is a provincial matter. Although the socialists preach in favour of particular status for one part of the country and not for another they have no hesitation in laying at the feet of the federal government the complete responsibility for the housing shortage, thus denying to the provinces their jurisdiction in this field.
I may be out of order, Mr. Speaker, but so was the leader of the New Democratic party.
I wish to point out that I am not as concerned with the shortage of housing in this country for people in the $20,000 to $25,000 income bracket who need homes as I am
September 25, 1967	COMMONS
about the shortage of low rental housing for people of average income. This is where the prime responsibility of the government lies, but requests for such housing must originate from civic and provincial authorities.


Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lamblon-Keni):: Far be it from me to attempt to give advice pertaining to the rules of this house. However, it is my understanding that the matter to be decided now is the necessity or urgency of debate at the present time. Is there or is there not a matter of urgency in and for the national interest relating to housing? In order to decide on the urgency of the debate I suggest a valued judgment must take place regarding how accurate and reliable are the reports of the economic council. If we assume that the advice of the economic council should be heeded-I for one believe that it should-then we need not only refer to the last and most recent report but we must refer to the previous reports made by this body a year ago. At that time a warning was issued to the government of an impending catastrophe in the housing situation. I submit that having largely ignored these warnings for well over a year the government has allowed a crisis of major importance to develop.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
In view of the unpardonable delay, I suggest that there is now urgency of debate in regard to this matter of extreme national concern.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, normally at this stage of this kind of debate comments are expected to be restricted to the procedural point whether there is urgency of debate and whether the normal business of the house ought to be set aside so as to permit the house to deal with a matter that is not listed on the order paper for consideration by the house.
The discussion so far, Mr. Speaker, has, of course, been completely out of order-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -because it has been directed entirely to the substance of the matter, namely, the housing situation in Canada.
I do not intend to go into the substance as fully as have hon. gentlemen opposite, but I should like to put on the record the fact that
DEBATES	2423
Urgency of Housing Debate the government of Canada regards this matter as one of great importance and of great seriousness.
The government of Canada has taken action in the current year to add substantially to the development of a housing program in Canada. The Minister of Labour, who is responsible for housing, is unavoidably absent from the house today on public business, but in the past he has put on the record the facts with respect to the housing situation in Canada.
There will be opportunities very shortly to deal with this matter in an orderly way at a time when the minister is in the house.


Mr. Churchill:: He should be here today.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There is on the order paper, Mr. Speaker, yet to be dealt with the estimates of the Department of Labour. These can be called at an appropriate time. We have the adjourned budget debate, with an amendment, and also a subamendment. One aspect of the subamendment opens up very clearly the field of housing. This must be dealt with by the house, and it will be at an early date. There are three supply motions to be considered by the house. Anyone of those can be chosen as an opportunity to deal with housing. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the situation has not changed in a way that would require the house to deal with this question today. I suggest that normal opportunities for debate will be available very shortly that will give members of the house an opportunity to deal with this very serious and important matter.
We have listed for consideration today other matters of public business, and these matters of public business are important. At a very early date, through one of the opportunities I have mentioned it will be possible for members of the house to express their concern about this important matter. The Minister of Labour will then be able to set on the record the facts with respect to housing and to outline the policy of the government.
If the motion for adjournment were accepted today, Mr. Speaker, it would be quite futile because the spokesman for the government who is normally present to deal with these matters would not be present.


Mr. Nielsen:: Is he the only spokesman for the government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Same old gang.
September 25, 1967

Urgency of Housing Debate


Mr, MacEachen:: How true, Mr. Speaker; it is the same old gang.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder whether hon. members want to pursue the debate. I might say that I have reached an opinion as a result of the arguments advanced by both sides of the house. However, I would not want to curtail this interesting discussion. I perceive the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre wishes to contribute to the debate and I will recognize him.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare began his remarks by saying that everyone who had spoken to this question was completely out of order. I suggest that practically all the members on this side of the house who have spoken to the question have addressed themselves to the urgency of debate. I would draw attention particularly to the fact that the hon. member for Megantic read the portion of the citation that deals with this aspect of the problem. I think it is important and that the house should hear it again. Citation 100 (3) reads as follows:
"Urgency" within this rule does not apply to the matter itself-
We all accept that.
-but it means "urgency of debate", when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the house do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and public interest demands that discussion take place immediately.
That is the basis on which this request has been made by the official opposition, and it is the basis on which we intended to make the same request today. I point out to Your Honour that on some occasions when an attempt is made to adjourn the house under standing order 26 a spokesman for the government gets into the debate on the procedural question and indicates a definite time when the subject before us may be discussed. But today the government house leader has taken part in the debate and all he has given us is the assurance that it will be possible to discuss this matter some time soon. In light of the urgency of the situation, and in light of the need for discussion to take place so that the public interest will not suffer, we suggest it is not good enough to say that there will be a discussion of this matter soon.
In the course of a conversation I had with the government house leader this morning he was good enough to indicate to me the business for today and tomorrow and, for that

matter, for the balance of this week. I suspect he has given that same information to the other house leaders. There is nothing in the list given to me that opens up the possibility of discussing the housing crisis this week.
I agree with all those who have spoken about the urgency of debate that the crisis is so serious that it is not proper for parliament to put it off week after week to that eventual day-some time soon. The crisis is here now. What is needed, and needed precisely within the terms of citation 100 (3), is debate now so that the public interest will not suffer.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare says that the minister responsible for housing the Minister of Labour, is not present. The Prime Minister has been able to make pronouncements on the question of housing. Surely this is a matter of government concern, despite the hon. member for Verdun who thinks it is a provincial matter. This matter is a federal responsibility. The whole country has been aware for the past two months of the growing nature of this crisis. Surely any prophet could have indicated that this question was going to be raised today. I submit that it is not a satisfactory excuse for the government to say that one particular minister is not here today to deal with the matter.
I am not discussing the urgency of the matter; we are all aware of that. I am saying that within the rules of the house there is urgency of debate, and that that debate ought to be allowed today.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister has already taken part in this debate. Is he rising on a question of privilege?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I rose on a point of order and so stated, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to comment on the fact that the hon. member-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the minister that it would not be conducive to reaching an early decision in this matter if we were to continue the argument on whether or not the point of view expressed by the minister is correct. If it will make the minister feel a bit better, I might tell him that generally speaking I tend to agree with the position he has taken.
September 25, 1967	COMMONS
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Hon. members referred the Chair to paragraph 3 of citation 100 of Beauchesne, fourth edition. That is a well known citation and I am in full agreement with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre when he quotes this citation and says that this is a matter of urgency and national importance. The wording, in part, is:
"Urgency".. .mean "urgency of debate", when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the House do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough ...
Of course, this is an entirely relative expression. The Minister of National Health and Welfare, as government house leader, says that some time soon, within a certain time, there will be an opportunity to discuss this important and obviously urgent matter. He has referred to the fact that an amendment to the budget motion is now before the house and that there are three supply motions to come before the house. I might add that one of these is to be brought forward very soon. I cannot say exactly when, unfortunately, but one motion has to be brought forward soon. There is also a third opportunity to which the minister referred.
My view would be, considering that this is the first day of the resumed session, that the best position to adopt might be to see whether some negotiations could not be entertained between the house leaders and for them to agree as to when would be the proper time, at an early date, to consider this important matter. If no such agreement is reached and if another motion were moved some time soon, the position of the Chair might be different then.
Perhaps I might read to hon. members part of paragraph 8 of citation 100 as found on page 91 of Beauchesne, fourth edition:
I do not think that, under the Standing Order... a motion on a subject of this kind, having such a very wide scope, was ever contemplated. What I think was contemplated, was an occurrence of some sudden emergency, either in home or in foreign affairs.
In their presentations hon. members have pointed to the fact that this is not a sudden emergency. It is perhaps a continuing emergency. I have some doubt, in view of this situation, whether this is the type of motion that can be and ought to be entertained under standing order 26. The citation continues:
-I do not think it was contemplated ... that a question of very wide scope, which would demand legislation to deal with it in any effective manner- 27053-154
DEBATES	2425
Inquiries of the Ministry
Apparently that is the situation here.
-should be the subject of discussion on a motion for the adjournment of the House-
In view of these considerations I would tend to the conclusion that this motion cannot be entertained at this time but could be reconsidered by the Chair, to use the minister's words, some time soon.



WHEAT-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON REPORTED PRICE DECREASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to address my question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is absent, as it concerns his responsibility to the House of Commons on behalf of the wheat board. I might have directed it to the Minister of Finance but he is also absent. I shall therefore direct my question to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister explain to the house and country why wheat has dropped 22 cents per bushel since the announcement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce prior to the adjournment of the house that the price of wheat would increase by 20 cents a bushel following his report to the house on the Kennedy round of discussions?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that is far too broad a question to be answered on orders of the day. I should be glad to take it as notice. There will be an opportunity very shortly to deal with the matter. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is away on official business. The Minister of Finance is attending the annual meeting of the world bank in Brazil. They will both be back in a few days. We shall have an early opportunity to discuss this important matter.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the international wheat agreement seems to have lapsed, did the Prime Minister or his government have any discussions with the United States at the ministerial level to avoid the decrease in wheat prices? Did discussions take place prior to the announcement by the United States that they were increasing the subsidy on their wheat, the effect of which would be to take our markets?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Minister of Trade and Commerce has been in Washington during the course of the last month discussing this matter.
September 25, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the seriousness of this situation would the Prime Minister not agree to make a statement in the house on motions within the next day or two dealing with the matter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That seems to be a good and reasonable suggestion. Perhaps we shall be able to do that tomorrow or the next day.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the drop in the price of wheat could cost the prairie farmers over $100 million this year and as the international wheat agreement expired on July 31 and the new agreement will not be effective until the middle of 1968, would the Prime Minister say whether the government intends to take any steps in the near future to implement the promise he made to guarantee the farmers a payment of $2 a bushel f.o.b. Fort William?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the question of wheat prices is under consideration. Perhaps my hon. friend could have restricted his remarks to that and not gone back into old election controversies.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would take a more broad minded, non-political attitude we could make more progress.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: May I ask
the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to indicate by his remarks, that all his promises are to be treated as lightly as he has treated that one?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As we have already had four or five supplementary questions I suggest we move to another matter to allow other hon. members to ask questions. If there is time, and I assume there will be, we can return to the subject.


Mr. R. R. Souiham (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which is supplementary to one raised earlier by the hon. member for Bow River. I am sorry that the Chair did not look my way when I rose to speak. In reply to the hon. member the

Prime Minister said that he would ask the minister concerned to report later in respect of the 22 cent drop in the price of wheat because he felt the question was important. Would the Prime Minister ask the minister to indicate when replying, why the international wheat agreement lapsed? I think this is the important question in this whole matter.


Mr. Reg Cantelon (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I feel this question is properly addressed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the wheat crop in western Canada has been somewhat less than average but of extremely high quality, what measures is the government taking to see that this high quality wheat is moved into the markets of the world?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to discuss this with the minister. I wish he were here today.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS QUEBEC-CONSIDERATION OF NATIONAL UNITY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister concerning the delicate situation now existing in the field of federal relations with Quebec.
Does the government intend to call a meeting of the federal members from the province of Quebec to discuss the problem of national unity and the Quebec situation in order to obtain from them a free non-partisan opinion to which the government might give consideration during federal-provincial conferences, should agreements be concluded? If so, when can we expect that such a meeting will be called?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that there will be an opportunity in parliament before long to discuss this important matter. That discussion, I am sure, will not be restricted to the federal members of parliament for Quebec.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alexander Bell Patterson: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of reports that a few
September 25, 1967
days ago a Canadian representative was in Hanoi to meet with officials of the government of North Viet Nam, can the Prime Minister indicate what if any progress is being made in efforts to begin negotiations to bring the conflict to a conclusion?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian representative in question was the Canadian member of the international commission there and he was paying a regular visit to Hanoi, as he does from time to time. No particular significance, of course, is to be attached to that visit.
I cannot say that there has been any progress in regard to the opening of negotiations on this important matter. Certainly no substantial progress has been made since the house last met. The matter is continuously being examined, more particularly from the Canadian point of view by the Secretary of State for External Affairs who has had discussions in New York concerning it. The matter will be before the United Nations general assembly and perhaps the security council during the forthcoming weeks.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister not indicate to the house what steps the government intends to take to stem the rapid acceleration in the increase in the cost of living which has taken place during the three months since this house last met?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it will not be possible to answer such a far reaching question on orders of the day. We shall be having a five-day budget debate very shortly, I hope, when my hon. friend and other members can go into this matter and the government will be able to reply.


George Harris Hees: Will the Prime Minister assure the house that when the budget debate does take place he will outline the steps the government intends to take to overcome, for example, the effects of the 2 per cent increase in the cost of living which has taken place in the last two months-an unbelievable acceleration?
27053-154J
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Most of the hon. gentleman's statements are unbelievable. I admit, though, that this is a very serious matter.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry in connection with a specific aspect of this problem. Can the hon. gentleman indicate whether the recent increase in the price of automobiles is due to the government's failure to cope with inflation or to the effects of the international automobile agreement?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that his question is argumentative.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister regarding the proposed construction by the United States of an antiballistic missile network. Is Canada in any way involved in this construction, will any part of this network be constructed on Canadian soil, and have any commitments been made or is there any prospect of any being made with regard to it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. As already stated, we are not involved in this decision of the United States government to proceed with an antiballistic missile defence facility. We are not involved in any way, nor do I think we shall be involved in this particular project. Naturally, we are anxious to obtain all the information we can on such an important step and to deal with the situation as it may develop in the future in the best interests of Canada and of peace, but we are not involved with this particular project in any way nor do I have any information to indicate that the United States government will be asking us for facilities of any kind on our soil in this connection.
I might add, since there have been reports to the contrary which were inaccurate, that we were informed of the decision of the United States government in this matter before it was made public.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of what happened in connection with the installation of the Bo-marc missiles in Canada, may we have an assurance from the Prime Minister that no commitment will be made by the Canadian

September 25, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry government before the matter has been referred to parliament and its members informed of any action which is contemplated by the cabinet?


Lester Bowles Pearson: If a situation were to develop requiring such an important change in Canadian defence policy and, indeed, perhaps in foreign policy, as to call for participation in an operation of this magnitude, with all the complications and implications of such a decision, I think that if parliament was sitting parliament would be consulted first.


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the decision of the United States to establish such an anti-missile system is not inconsistent with the NORAD Treaty, which was signed by Canada, to the effect that the United States should confer with Canada as regards North American defence?


Mr. Speaker:: That question is argumentative and out of order.


Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: supplementary to the Prime Minister on this question of North American air defence. In view of statements from Washington that the United States defence department is considering going beyond the missile defence project announced last week toward a new form of bomber defence for North America, may I ask whether the right hon. gentleman has any information with respect to Canada's role in these circumstances?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I know of no request or suggestion by the United States that we should alter the nature of our present participation in continental defence against manned bombers in any way. I will discuss this matter with the Minister of National Defence, however, before giving a definite response.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister and come back to a subject considered by the house a few minutes ago, and ask him whether the government intends to renew the agreement concerning the air defence of NORAD, which will be coming to an end shortly?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That matter is under active examination, Mr. Speaker, and I hope it will be possible to make an announcement in the house with regard to it very shortly.


CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question with regard to the constructive proposal of the prime minister of Ontario to hold a conference on the subject "Confederation for Tomorrow." Will the Prime Minister reconsider his position with regard to participation by the federal government and agree to be present himself or at least to have a senior federal minister participate so that the federal position may be presented in a positive and constructive manner?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister of Canada to be present as an observer at a provincial conference called by the head of the government of one province not as a federal-provincial conference but as an occasion for provincial consideration. This was made clear by the prime minister of Ontario when he met with other heads of provinces and myself last July; he had in mind a provincial conference though he would welcome federal participation in an observer capacity. There will be federal observers at the conference.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Prime Minister seems to indicate that the representation at this conference will be non-ministerial. Will he tell us what the nature of the federal participation will be? At what level will the government be represented? Will there be participation and, if so, what instructions have been given with regard to the position to be taken? Or will the federal government be represented merely by an observer?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We have undertaken to the province of Ontario to send observers and we shall send observers from an appropriately high level.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.
Could the right hon. Prime Minister tell us whether he intends to delegate the hon.
September 25, 1967	COMMONS
Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau), who has definite ideas on the Canadian constitution, to this interprovincial meeting in Toronto and whether the hon. Minister of Justice will then speak for all the cabinet members or for himself only?


Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister inform the house whether the representation at this conference will be merely at the level of back-room experts or civil servants or whether it will consist of members of this house?


Mr. Speaker:: The question is a repetition of one which was asked previously.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, in view of recent statements made in Quebec by members of the Prime Minister's own government and party concerning constitutional matters affecting Canada's future, will the right hon. gentleman take an early opportunity to make known the position of his government on this important subject for the benefit of the house and of Canadians generally?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have made a great many statements on this matter in recent months and years. I hope an opportunity will soon arise in this house when we can discuss this most important subject, a matter which we all consider to be a serious one. At that time I hope to be in a position to make the kind of statement which the hon. gentleman is suggesting.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, in deliberating over this question will the Prime Minister and his government reconsider the proposal which has been made a number of times and accepted in general principle by the right hon. gentleman himself, namely, that the whole subject of the constitutional future of Canada be referred to a special committee of the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I said in this house last spring that I believed it would be important to have this question considered by hon. members, possibly by means of a special committee, but that I thought such consideration would be more useful if it came after the federal government had made up its own mind with regard to its own policy on this most important matter so that it could submit that policy to a committee of the house and to the house itself. Since that time, as the hon. member knows, we
DEBATES	2429
Inquiries of the Ministry have been studying the question. We have set up a special branch in the Department of Justice for that purpose under a full-time senior official appointed for those duties. I hope this study will be completed before long. We will then be able to consider submitting the decision of the government to the kind of committee the hon. member has mentioned and obtain the views of others in this house on the question.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Royal: Mr. Speaker, when a discussion does take place in parliament can we be assured that the Minister of Justice will participate as a member of the cabinet and that his position will not be disavowed as it was by the Prime Minister and the rest of the Liberal caucus?


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


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether the final report of the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission is about to be published and tabled in this house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I doubt that this is a supplementary question, but since it has been asked it will be allowed.


Gilles Grégoire: May I then ask the right hon. Prime Minister when the report of the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission is to be tabled in this house and whether he himself has already received this report?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, I have not received the report yet, Mr. Speaker, but I have been assured that the first, or is it the second volume of the report of the commission-the second and very important volume of the report should be available before the end of November, and I hope that date will be kept.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the hon. and gallant Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of representations made by the Canadian Legion, other veterans organizations, the chairman of the standing committee on veterans affairs, other members of
September 25, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry the committee and members of the house, on the urgent need for an increase in disability pensions and war veterans allowances, can the minister inform the house of the government's intention with respect to his urgent question?
Hon. Roger Teillei (Minister of Veterans
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for giving me notice that he would ask this question today. Unfortunately I have no specific answer for him. The matter is still under consideration and no conclusion has been reached.


George Louis Chatterton: As a supplementary question, can the minister advise whether the report of the departmental committee on the basis of establishing disability pensions has been received and, second, whether such an amendment will be provided by way of amendment to the Pension Act or by way of estimates?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first of this three-part question is that I have not yet received the report of the departmental committee. The answers to the other parts will depend on the circumstances at the time when a decision is reached.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the newly appointed Minister of Transport, but in his absence perhaps I may ask the Prime Minister whether he will ask the Minister of Transport to use his powers relating to integration to see if he can possibly integrate the recommendations of the Freedman report into policy and make an appropriate announcement in regard thereto?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be glad to take that up with the new minister, Mr. Speaker.


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO PROVINCES ACCEPTING INVITATION TO ATTEND
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is reported as having stated that five of the provinces have

now accepted his invitation to the federal-provincial conference called for early next year. Could he tell us which provinces these are?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer, if possible, not to do that because I do not want to put the others, which have perhaps been delayed a bit, in an invidious position. I have reminded the other provinces today that I am hoping for replies shortly, and if my hon. friend would wait until the end of the week perhaps I may have ten replies.


Erik Nielsen: As a supplementary question, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the governments of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories have been invited to participate in that conference.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Carleton.


Erik Nielsen: Perhaps the Prime Minister did not hear my question, Mr. Speaker. Have either the government of the Yukon Territory or the government of the Northwest Territories, or both of them, been asked to participate in that conference?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall have to look into that matter, Mr. Speaker.


PUBLIC SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government has completed its consideration of the unanimous report of the joint special committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the public service for an increase in pensions of retired public servants and, if so, whether high priority will be given to implementing legislation?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could answer this question by simply stating that the government has not at this point completed its consideration of the matter.


Richard Albert Bell: Could the minister give any indication of when the consideration might be completed?


Edgar John Benson: In due course, Mr. Speaker.
Sepiember 25, 1987	COMMONS


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, may 1 ask the minister if we are going to get action on this matter or is it going to be put off indefinitely?


Edgar John Benson: When the government has made its decision that decision will be made known to the house in the usual manner.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Shame.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosihern):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the accelerating crisis in housing, the shortage of mortgage funds and rising interest rates, does the government intend to revise or amend the budget which was presented to us prior to the summer recess?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.


NATIONAL PARKS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melforl-Tis-dale):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Could the minister inform the house whether his drastic plan to do away with the cabins at Waskesiu will be proceeded with or will he take into consideration the strong representations of tourists in Saskatchewan not to do this?


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether this question is of immediate urgency. It is difficult for the Chair to decide.


Reynold Rapp: It is urgent.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskaloon):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the previous understanding that construction of the C.B.C. television
DEBATES	2431
Inquiries oj the Ministry station in Saskatoon would commence on or before September 1 of this year, and in view of reports that such construction has been stalled at cabinet level, can the Prime Minister tell the house when construction of the station in Saskatoon will be commenced?


Lester Bowles Pearson: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Speaker@: Order. I would suggest to the hon. member that that question should be put on the order paper.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: It would take just as long to get an answer that way as it has taken the government to act on this matter and if I could get an answer from the Prime Minister now it would save a great deal of time for the people of my constituency.


METHOD OF DEALING WITH ALLEGED SEPARATIST ELEMENTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Does he intend to bring shortly before parliament a resolution designed to rid the C.B.C. of the separatist elements which spread confusion among true Canadians?
Is it the Prime Minister's intention to introduce such a resolution? When can we expect to discuss the matter of the C.B.C., which is imperative at present in Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the importance of this question but I am not able to deal with it on orders of the day.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OF PERSONNEL On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is he in a position today to advise the house of the names of those who will serve on the complement of the Cape Breton Development Corporation apart from those already announced?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not at this moment, Mr. Speaker, but I hope to do so shortly.


Mr. Grafftey:: What has the government been doing all summer?
September 25, 19G7

Inquiries of the Ministry NORTHERN AFFAIRS


ROADS TO RESOURCES-INQUIRY AS TO RESUMPTION OF PROGRAM
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. On several occasions during the past year and a half the Prime Minister informed me that the cabinet was studying the possibility of reinstituting the roads to resources program. Can the Prime Minister now say whether this important matter is still being considered and when a decision may be reached?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to make a statement on the matter today but I shall look into it right away.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether he has received any representations from the premier of Saskatchewan regarding the necessity of re-establishing the roads to resources program?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether this is the type of question that can be asked at this time. If there is no urgency the hon. member might place the question on the order paper.


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. D. McLelland (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can he assure the house and the many interested farmers of western Canada that P.F.A.A. inspectors will be told to get their reports on the various crop failures in many districts filed as soon as possible so that farmers will receive assistance payments at an early date?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that a very large number of P.F.A.A. inspectors have been appointed this year-


An hon. Member:: Are they all Liberals?


John James Greene: -and have commenced their work. Many of them are relics of the 1957 to 1963 era.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. What is the government doing in respect of its promise to assist in any extradition proceedings taken against Hal Banks?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter which is under the jurisdiction of the province of Ontario and, as I understand it, that province is asking for extradition in this matter.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether this should be a supplementary question or a repetition of the previous question because my question to the Prime Minister was, what is the government doing in respect of its promise to assist in any extradition proceedings taken against Hal Banks?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We will be very glad to assist the province in this matter in the appropriate way.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that he will be very glad to give assistance. What assistance is he giving the provincial government, because no doubt the government is interested in getting Hal Banks back to serve his term in penitentiary?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not know whether any assistance has been requested.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Brefon South):: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister and the government are inclined to leave this matter to the provincial authorities in Ontario, I wonder whether the Prime Minister takes exception to the remarks made by the defence counsel for Mr. Banks in New York to the effect that this proceeding is an effort to save face for the Canadian people and the Canadian parliament?



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Maiher (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, it had been my intention to direct this question to the Secretary of State. I do
September 25, 1967

not see her in the house at the moment, so possibly it might be taken as notice.
In view of the public concern at this time about the alleged shortage of Canadian content in broadcasting, would the Secretary of State arrange for an early meeting of the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts so this matter can be considered?



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forreslall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Since there appears to be some confusion about when the government will be dealing with the subject of abortion, can the minister advise the house whether the government will refer to a standing committee of the house at an early date the two private members' bills and other views on this subject?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Would my hon. friend permit me to answer that question tomorrow? I think we will be discussing the matter in cabinet tomorrow morning.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when the Prime
Minister is answering that question would he indicate to the house at what point in this session we might be dealing with other social matters such as divorce, birth control and capital punishment?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think perhaps it would be more useful if the house leader would get in touch with the house leaders of the other parties in an effort to work out a timetable for this session within the limits of unpredictability.



REQUEST FOR PRESENCE OF MINISTERS DURING QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I should like to preface it by noting that seven or eight ministers who hold major portfolios are absent on this opening day. Would the Prime Minister make an effort to have his ministers here during this first week of the adjourned session so that they 27053-155
Inquiries of the Ministry will be able to answer questions which have arisen during the recess?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that all the ministers who are not here are away on important public business, with the exception of one who is ill. It would be of help if ministers could be given notice by members of any questions they wish to ask if they are indeed important ones.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Is he now in a position to inform the house when the long-awaited Indian claims commission will be set up?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, the situation in respect of the Indian claims commission is the same as it was when the house rose for the summer vacation. Representations are still being made to us by the Indians of British Columbia that it not be introduced until they have been given an opportunity to discuss the British Columbia land question. I have again advised them that we cannot wait much longer and that I expect we will have to introduce the bill at least by next spring.


Richard Albert Bell: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister be in a position to introduce the revised Indian Act at this session of parliament?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of priority. If the matters of first priority are dealt with quickly I think it is quite possible that the Indian Act could be dealt with. At the present time it is being discussed by my officials with representatives of the Indian Advisory Board of Canada.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Can the
minister advise the house whether he would consider setting a deadline for the Indians of British Columbia to complete their representations so that the Indian claims commission could be set up?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, anything I have said to the Indians of British Columbia would make that quite possible.
September 25, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question concerning the Indian Act. Does the minister intend to bring in the bill before the Christmas recess in view of statements made by the minister and the statement that the group of revolting Indians would not be able to kick their way out of a paper bag? I do not agree with this. If the bill to amend the Indian Act were brought in we might be able to eliminate some of these problems.


Mr. Speaker:: Since the hon. member has referred to the Christmas recess, I think the question might be placed on the order paper.


Raymond Langlois: Ten o'clock.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Is it still the intention to have the committee visit the Indian reserves across the country?


Arthur Laing: That would be my hope. In
addition I would hope that copies of the bill would be distributed to the Indian people for purposes of consultation and advice. I would hope that the committee would be reinstituted so that it can continue its work which I believe is full of promise.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister with regard to the visit to Quebec of the president of the French republic, General de Gaulle.
I should like to ask him how he can reconcile the fact that according to the statement he our Prime Minister himself, made during General de Gaulle's visit to Quebec, all the provinces are free while, at the same time, being shocked when General de Gaulle shouted "long live free Quebec".
Can the Prime Minister tell us how he was unable to see the inconsistency contained in that statement and does he intend to apologize to General de Gaulle for being discourteous with him?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Broadview-


Gilles Grégoire: Can the hon. Prime Minister answer the question?


Mr. Speaker:: The question is not in order.


Gilles Grégoire: Perhaps an answer is
impossible.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Labour. Have the Minister of Labour and the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation approved the formula of compensation devised by the city of Toronto and approved by the provincial authorities for home owners whose homes were expropriated in what is known as the Donmount urban renewal area in Toronto?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that the question should be placed on the order paper.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I hope I do not totally exhaust the Prime Minister on this opening day.
In light of the government's activity last fall at the session of the United Nations and the remarks of the Secretary of State for External Affairs last night, can the Prime Minister inform the house whether the government will again press this fall for the seating of mainland China at the United Nations and take some definite action in that regard?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, our policy in that regard has not changed. As the minister indicated last night-by the way, he is not here at the moment because he is on his way to New York-our policy has not changed and we think it is important to have the voice of mainland China at the United Nations as quickly as possible. This does not seem to be a very good moment to repeat the initiative we took last autumn, without success, but that does not mean our policy has changed.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the
September 25, 1967	COMMONS
Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Will the minister inform the house whether early action can be anticipated to correct the situation whereby miners are excluded from the retraining and upgrading program that is available to all other workers in this country?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to have more details on this question because I do not agree with the hon. member's general statement. If he has particular cases in mind I should like to look into them.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric Stefanson (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce but in his absence I will direct it to the acting minister or the parliamentary secretary to the minister. In view of the present chaotic marketing situation for freshwater fish, does the minister now have specific plans for implementing the recommendations of the Mclvor Commission to establish a freshwater fish marketing board?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think this is a question of a very general nature and I doubt that it can be asked at this time.



MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION COUNCIL


Jean Marchand: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the establishment of a Canada Manpower and Immigration Council, of advisory boards and of regional and local manpower committees; to provide also for the appointment of the members thereof, their remuneration, allowances and other expenses; and to provide further that all expenditures for the purpose of the act shall be paid out of moneys appropriated by parliament therefor.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the bill proposed in the resolution is to reorganize the structure of the advisory 27053-155J
DEBATES	2435
Manpower and Immigration Council councils that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration may consult.
At present, three advisory boards have been transferred from the Department of Labour to the Department of Manpower and Immigration. They are the National Advisory Council on Technical and Vocational Training, the National Advisory Committee on the Rehabilitation of Disabled persons and the National Employment Advisory Committee. Regional and local committees also advise regional and local offices of the National Employment Service.
Those organizations have rendered valuable services, but none of them has been able to meet the full requirements of my department and in some respects, their duties are not as clearly defined as they should be.

The purpose of the proposed legislation is to rationalize the structure so as to give me the best possible benefit of outside advice about all of the department's activities. The bill provides for one council charged with the responsibility of looking at the field of manpower and immigration as a whole. This will be supported by four specialized boards in the major program areas of adult occupational training, vocational rehabilitation, the adjustment of immigrants to Canada and research on manpower and immigration. The bill also provides for continuing regional and local manpower committees.


Mr. Regimbal:: Mr. Chairman, far be it from me to underrate the importance of the present resolution; but I believe that, generally speaking, the opposition is surprised, to say the least, that it is the first item on the orders of the day when such ticklish problems as housing and the cost of living are our citizens' prime concern. We are still anxiously seeking what measures the government should introduce, and soon, to solve those problems efficiently.
With regard to the present resolution, we note that by creating advisory councils and regional and local committees for the manpower division, the hon. minister seems to further the application of a principle established by the national employment offices. These, had indeed been successful in interesting and involving local organizations such as the chambers of commerce, school boards, managers of the existing factories, municipal councils and so on in winter works projects, for example, and in manpower orientation.
2436	COMMONS
Manpower and Immigration Council
Having personally taken part in the work of these committees in the Lachute region, in the county of Argenteuil-Deux Montagnes, I know that these committees can be very efficient, and it is to be hoped that we will be able to continue to rely on the initiative of managers and local authorities to provide real and not pretended service.
If that is the case, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) will have to be congratulated for this new initiative, as will also and especially the citizens who voluntarily lend their services to such enterprises without receiving full recognition for their contribution, without which no success would be possible.
On the other hand, there are some pitfalls to watch and that is surely what we will be looking for when the bill following this resolution is introduced.
First and most important is that the setting up of these various committees does not afford the minister an opportunity to avoid ministerial responsibility in the establishment of this policy on the plea that the whole thing is in the hands of committee members who will have to do their best and be responsible for the success or failure of their operations.
The main problem of the committees I have mentioned has precisely been the absence of direction and of overall planning in the alternatives to be offered. It is up to the minister, basically and exclusively, and to his departmental officials to constantly supervise the development and direction of these committees, and that is surely what we, on this side, will look for in the setting up of the principle and of the act.
Secondly, we have already emphasized on the introduction of the bill respecting the occupational training of adults, on page 15393 of Hansard, that lack of sufficient research not only among the local population to determine their tastes, their ambitions, their experiences, their willingness to move but also among industries and in new areas to determine their capacity to absorb these new elements.
What better example than that of Elliott Lake in the riding of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), Algoma East, where there has been a drop of 60 per cent in the enrolment of retraining classes in an area affected by unemployment for a long time.
There again we strongly insist on sociological as well as demographic research to ensure

DEBATES	September 25, 1967
a balanced, progressive and especially lasting development.
Thirdly, the present government has the reputation, not very enviable, of multiplying everywhere and in an alarming way operating costs and bureaucracy. This is another opportunity of swelling the expenses and the number of employees beyong measure. It is time as early as the resolution stage to provide for a close co-ordination with existing services. It would have seemed at least possible, on this particular point, to prevent the passing of a new legislation entailing a separate administration, a separate budget, an increase of jobs, staff and expenses.
The minister is not without knowing surely that he is blamed in several places for providing very comfortable, not to say luxurious, accommodations which look more like monuments than workshops for research and training.
There is also some displeasure among the civil servants because the tasks are not clearly defined and circumscribed. Both blames stress the dangers we have mentioned: excessive spending and increased bureaucracy.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, we will also be watching the degree of closely-knit consultation with provincial and municipal authorities which is essential in developing these boards and committees.
* (4:30 p.m.)
The need for this preoccupation was underlined very early in the fourth annual review of the Economic Council of Canada, and I suspect that this is not the last time that the report will be quoted. I quote the following from the last paragraph on page 2 of the report:
In Canada there is not only the problem of achieving greater cohesion and consistency in the making and implementation of policy within a particular government but also a larger challenge than exists in most other countries to achieve such cohesion and consistency among the three levels of government. Similarly, decision-making in the private sector of the economy is widely decentralized. Yet, because of the extensive and intricate interrelationships of a modern industrial society, the achievement of a cohesive and consistent appraisal of a wide range of problems and questions of policy facing both governments and private groups becomes increasingly important.
A few lines farther on it reads as follows:
Too frequently in the past, the economy has found itself in the midst of problems which could not be easily and quickly resolved once they emerged-education, shortages of skilled and professional manpower, business investment, public
September 25, 1967

construction and urban development offer striking illustrations-but which could have been anticipated through a more effective use of available information and prior study, or even averted through more timely and concerted public and private policies.
Constant, complete and early consultation is therefore essential among the three levels of government and the private sector if this new initiative or new approach is to be successful.
Therefore, with reference to this resolution the official opposition awaits the presentation of the bill and will seek out evidence of proper research, local involvement, ministerial responsibility, excessive costs, superfluous staff, and full consultation with every sector involved.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Chairman, we in this group welcome the resolution and the statement of the minister proposing to set up an advisory committee or committees to help him lay down policy in the fields of manpower and immigration. We welcome it because we have been proposing such a policy for a number of years, as have organizations such as the Canadian Labour Congress. We welcome it also because the minister certainly needs some advice and needs it very quickly. The fact is that the results we expected from the changes made in the manpower training program following the government's decision last year to abandon the technical and vocational training program and take over manpower training, which we predicted would lead to a very sharp reduction in the number of people being retrained, have come about.
I have some figures I wish to put on the record which are, to say the least, disturbing if not disastrous. These figures may surprise members of the house and the public in general but I am sure the minister knows them as well as I do. The situation is not only as bad as members of the opposition said months ago it would be, not only as bad as people working in the field for some of the cities and in the provincial departments of education said it would be; it is even worse.
A very good summary of the arguments for and against the changes which the minister introduced after a good deal of discussion is contained in two articles which appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail on April 22 of this year. The first article summarizes the objections of the government of Ontario and its department of education. It was written
Manpower and Immigration Council by Barrie Zwicker. I will read a few of the points which Mr. Zwicker made:
The key points in the new regulations exclude from allowances any person under 17 and any single person over 17 with fewer than three years of working experience. Before April, everyone was eligible.
Among the persons who do not qualify are young dropouts (or graduates) who find in a year or two after leaving school that they have no marketable skill, childless widows who suddenly need to work ...
Farther on he wrote the following about the minister:
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.
Another part lies in a liberal dose of what is described as bureaucratic arrogance by Ottawa, misunderstandings and some legislative bad luck.
At that time the Ottawa bureau of the Globe and Mail received answers from the department and from the minister which were published in an article that appeared on the same page. It was headed, "And Ottawa Points A Finger Right Back", and contained some of the defences and explanations. Part of it reads as follows:
The change means that the federal government has taken on the full cost of training or retraining adults, leaving the provinces with the full cost of educating the young.
The federal spokesman also said that newly arrived immigrants accorded landed immigrant status will be able to count their time spent in the labour force in their country of origin when applying for living allowances for job retraining here. This will place them in the same position as Canadian members of the labour force.
The new regulations also make exceptions from the three-year rule for persons with dependents. Individuals who have been out of school for 12 months and have dependents will qualify for the training allowance.
Farther on it goes on to say:
Federal officials explain that the reason for prohibiting school-age youths from qualifying is to prevent some from dropping out of school, collecting the training allowance and then returning to regular schooling.
I will not repeat what the minister and his parliamentary secretary have said already or what I said or what the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam said, but let me point out that we have now had some months in which to see what has happened. I took the trouble to write to the city of Toronto over a month ago. We now have the record. It is a pretty bleak one and the minister will see the need for giving us an explanation almost immediately. Here it is. In the last year the number of people taking retraining
September 25, 1967

Manpower and Immigration Council courses in the city of Toronto under the program now administered and paid for by the federal government has dropped disastrously. The figures are as follows: In February of 1967 the people who were taking training under programs 3, 4, 5 and 6 in the city of Toronto numbered 5,980. On March 31, 1967 the number of people taking training under these programs was 5,970. At the end of April the number was 5,440. By May 31, the number was 5,134. By June 30 the number had dropped to 4,526. By July 31 the number had dropped to 4,132, and by August 31 the number had dropped to 3,711. The number is down by 40 per cent. This is a disaster in a country which the Economic Council of Canada says needs to have a much more skilled work force.
These figures do not tell the whole story. They do not tell how serious the situation is. For example, amongst the 4,100 people in the city of Toronto who were taking training on July 31 of this year there were still a large number of people taking training who had registered and started their training before the new program took effect.
Let us look at the situation with regard to applications. In March, 1966 there were 1,235 applications in the city of Toronto. In March of this year there were 1,524 applications, an increase over last year. In April, 1966 there were 830 applications; in April of this year there were only 338 applications, a drop of more than 50 per cent. In May, 1966 there were 805 applications for training; in May of this year there was a slight increase, 971. In June, 1966-this is when the government's new program was beginning to bite and take effect-there were 830 applications in the city of Toronto; in June of this year there were 262. In July, 1966 there were 805 applications; in July of this year there was a grand total, Mr. Chairman, of 92. In August last year there were 995 applications; in August of this year there were 239. In September of last year there were 1,154 applications; in September this year there were 278 applications.
* (4:40 p.m.)
So, Mr. Chairman, the picture is clear. In the space of one year there has been in the city of Toronto, one of the two largest and most important employment and labour centres in Canada, a reduction of substantially more than 50 per cent in the number of applications. The government and the minister took on this job and told us they knew what they were doing, that the provinces

were exaggerating their problems and difficulties. Yet here is the situation, and it is even worse than we predicted.
Is this true only of the city of Toronto, Mr. Chairman? No, it is not. I have been given to understand that the Vancouver city school board has virtually abandoned its English upgrading program because of the new policies and regulations which have been made under this program.
Let me refer for a moment to the situation in the city of Ottawa. In September, 1966 there were between 200 and 300 students who applied and registered for upgrading programs. These were people who were referred to the school in Ottawa by manpower officials in this city. Compared with the 200 to 300 who applied last year only 30 to 40 have applied this year. These are applications for upgrading programs involving study in grades seven, eight, nine and ten.
I said, Mr. Chairman, that I was not going to quote the minister, but during a debate some months ago he said that the new programs would permit people to take skill courses lasting up to one year. Although I have not been able to find the exact quotation, on one occasion his parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Hamilton East, said that every Canadian who met the other qualifications would be eligible for one year's upgrading training and one year's skill training, or a maximum of two years of training.
I now understand-if I am wrong about this I should be glad to be corrected by the minister or his parliamentary secretary-that orders have gone out to the manpower counsellors to do their best to eliminate all students who want to take upgrading courses. I understand that the department has issued a directive to the effect that skill training which has been provided by the manpower department for the select few to whom I have already referred will be limited not to the one year program about which the minister talked but to a program lasting a maximum of 26 weeks.
As I have said on other occasions-and I do want to give credit where credit is due- the original program was begun under the former government by the then minister of labour, the hon. member for Ontario. It is a program under which the federal government has spent more than $600 million to help the provinces build technical and vocational training schools. In light of the annual reports that we have received from the Economic Council of Canada and in light of the
September 25, 1967	COMMONS
speeches which have been made across the country by the minister and his departmental officials about the importance of manpower training, it seems incredible to me that instead of expanding the program it is being curtailed. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, I think it is fair to say that the program is being strangled.
It seems to me that perhaps this new Advisory council will be able to provide some of the answers that we have not been able to get from the minister. We need to know whether the government has decided that the recommendations made by the Economic Council with regard to the retraining program and the upgrading of skills in the labour force of Canada are unacceptable and it is therefore cutting back, whether the minister now finds that the government does not have the money to pay for the large number of Canadian workers who are willing to take courses to upgrade their skills, or whether what we have is a bureaucratic morass under which the job simply cannot be done.
My colleague from Greenwood will be discussing the question of immigrants so I am not going into detail on the problem of immigration. However, I should like to repeat what I have said on other occasions. We in this party believe in an aggressive immigration policy. The party to which I belong agrees with a policy which brings more immigrants to this country every year who speak other than English or French. We have been following a policy of encouraging the coming to Canada of more people from Italy, Portugal and Greece each year, and I approve of that policy.
In light of all the advices given us to the effect that a working force which is not well trained will be unable to do the jobs required of it in coming years, surely we should be expanding our training facilities for new immigrants who wish to learn English. If I may refer to the situation in Toronto specifically, the Toronto board of education has a program called "Special English For New Canadians", but it is obvious that rather than expanding the program we are killing it.
Let me close by putting on the record some figures relative to what is happening. In February of this year there were 2,300 people taking the course, "Special English For New Canadians", which is held in Toronto. In March there were 2,290 people taking the course, in April 2,270, in May 2,060, in June 1,700, in July 1,479, and in August there were only 1,137 people taking the course.
DEBATES	2439
Manpower and Immigration Council
Surely, Mr. Chairman, the minister and his departmental officials will agree that if we are to encourage people whose native tongue is not English to come to Canada it is elementary that every single one of them should be persuaded to attend either day school or night school to learn English, or to learn French if they are living in the province of Quebec, and to learn the language as quickly as possible.
[DOT] <4:50 p.m.)
The figures I have given for Toronto could be duplicated for Montreal, Ottawa or Vancouver and show precisely the same situation.
Before I sit down may I say that since provincial departments of education have not been able to obtain the answers to these questions which are of utmost importance to the people of Canada and to the manpower needs of this country in the years to come, the advisory committees which the minister proposes to appoint should be enabled to obtain those answers which this country deserves to have.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be very brief at this time; as the bill is not available and the government policy is not clearly known yet, it is rather difficult at this point to dwell at length on the matter.
In any case, it seems to me that this bill is concerned mainly with the manpower problem in Canada, rather than immigration, although in my estimation both are rather closely related.
I think that a Canadian manpower council should be set up, as this is a relatively new area of concern for the Canadian government, and this is due, I think, to the technological explosion occurring not only in this country but throughout the world.
I think that if the council is asked to advise the government instead of being told by the latter what recommendations to make, it would be more effective because the government seems, by itself, unable to find the proper means of meeting the requirements of manpower relocation arising from the technical development of our industries.
And here I should like to urge the minister to invite the industry to participate as closely as possible in the manpower training program, not only by providing advice or facilities, but from a financial point of view. I think that industries, especially major industries, should have funds available for such a
September 25, 1967

Manpower and Immigration Council contingency in order to improve their production techniques.
Then, the burden of manpower development, which we must foresee, would not fall upon the Canadian taxpayer alone, but also on the big financiers, the capitalists who have also some responsibilities in the field of technological change.
So, Mr. Chairman, these are the comments I wished to make at this stage of the resolution. When the bill comes before us, we shall have a better understanding of what the government expects from this Canadian manpower and immigration council. I believe also, as I said before, that immigration is closely related to the manpower problem and that, therefore, the yearly influx of immigrants should be geared to our manpower needs.
I know that some people claim it is more economical to import skilled workers than to train them in Canada. Personally, I do not share this view. I think we must develop educational facilities in our own country so that we may find among our own countrymen the specialists needed by our industries to develop your country and to provide all consumers with the production and the finished products that we need.
Therefore, I think that we must be careful. The flow of immigration should be put under control when especially nowadays our unemployment rate is still too high. It should even be restricted to the fields were manpower is really needed where we cannot train rapidly enough skilled workers required by our industries.
When the bill is before us, we will be in a better position to discuss more clearly the aims of the government.


Mr. Johnston:: Mr. Chairman, I will not speak at great length this afternoon on this resolution. The proposed manpower and immigration council may be most worth while and could operate on several levels. This is especially true of the advisory boards and the regional and local manpower committees.
In looking at this measure one suspects the possibility of another vast proliferation of civil servants. I hope that the functions performed by what I hope will be a limited number of such people will be worth while.
I expect that other members who have dealt with immigration problems have found, as I have, that they are interminable. Situations do not change. I hope that the recently [Mr. Laprise.l
announced regulations and the points system will improve that part of the immigration procedure. I hope that the council will have time and authority to look into immigration questions on a fairly broad basis. I think we are adopting a somewhat selfish policy when we take the cream from other countries in the world in the form of the best people they have to offer. We carry on a somewhat sanctimonious external aid program to countries that we are busily engaged in robbing of the very people they most need. What we imagine we are generously doing with the one hand, we undo with the other.
Perhaps the council might determine why in certain occupational areas we are so terribly short of Canadians to do certain jobs. As an example I mention teaching. In the province from which I come we obtain half the necessary teachers each year from outside the province, many of them coming from outside the country completely. At this time of year when school boards publish their acquisitions of new staff, one reads with amazement that people have come from Scotland, England, Ireland, Australia, the Philippines, India, Pakistan-indeed, from all over the world. People such as these who are coming to British Columbia and other parts of Canada I am sure are desperately needed in their own countries.
We obtain many of our skilled people from the British Isles, mainly because there is an inflow into the British Isles from the West Indies, Pakistan and India of others with similar qualifications. The outflow from Britain comes here. That has continued for some time and I do not know whether it is wisest or best for Canada or for the other countries that are losing their educated people to allow it to continue. The council might look at that aspect.
I hope that the local committees will have power to recommend on matters touching immigration for agricultural purposes. We must remember the needs of this important industry and be prepared to see people spend some years in agricultural work and then move to other occupations. That sort of policy would be wiser than a policy under which people are brought in almost as indentured labourers and sent home at the end of the season. Such a policy has never worked in any part of the world where it has been applied.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
A local manpower committee would be able to assess the situation in the local area, and this applies particularly to agricultural
September 25, 1967	COMMONS
areas. There may be a real possibility of bringing in people who are not the best educated and are not those most desperately needed back home. In this way we could possibly repair some of the damage done to countries which need the trained and expert people we so gladly receive in our own land.
As a young and developing nation we must, I feel, pursue an open immigration policy but I hope that through the wisdom of the council and the advisory boards it will be a just policy and one which will show consideration for the needs of the rest of the world as well as for our own immediate needs.


Mr. Bell (Carleion):: Mr. Chairman, this resolution could be mere windowdressing, a hollow faqade, or it could represent a move toward a constructive and intelligent community involvement in the significant work of the Department of Manpower and Immigration at the national, regional and local levels. The minister's brief and relatively uninformative statement this afternoon certainly gave us no indication which of these alternatives is likely to result from the resolution before us. Consequently it seems to me we must defer judgment and await the bill itself for a more elaborate explanation of its purpose before reaching a final conclusion.
I wish to make only two comments at this stage. The first is that the more community involvement there can be in government procedures at this level, the better it will be for government and the better it will be for manpower policy generally. We are in the days of big government-I fear this is inevitable-and it is more than ever important to get at local and regional levels a genuine committee involvement of dedicated persons who are prepared to give their time and energy in helping to formulate policy. This is important even at the staffing level.
One of the results of the creation of the new Canada manpower centres has been grave dissatisfaction on the part of the staff in some of these offices. I hope the minister will do something soon to remove the discrimination which exists as a result of the policies of his department and the policies of the Public Service Commission. I say to him this afternoon as we resume this session of parliament that unless decisive action is taken to remove discrimination against public servants in various offices of the manpower centres across the country he will have a tough time before the session ends.
With respect to the minister's observations about the local committees being involved in
DEBATES	2441
Manpower and Immigration Council the adjustment of immigrants to Canada, I think the minister would agree with me that we have not done as much as we ought to have done in this connection nor has there been sufficient co-ordination at the provincial and municipal levels. I hope that settlement policies will in future be co-ordinated more closely than has been the case at any time in the past. I, for one, will be looking forward to what I hope will be constructive results from these local committees which are to deal, in the words the minister used, with the adjustment of immigrants to Canada.
The second point I should like to make is that I am concerned lest under this proposal for a Canada manpower and immigration council, immigration policy may become subordinate or subservient to manpower policy. This, the minister may remember, is precisely the fear I expressed at the time the reorganization bill was under discussion in the house when the Department of Manpower and Immigration was created-a fear lest immigration policy might become at all times conditioned exclusively to what might be the economic circumstances or the economic whims within this country during a particular period.
This committee and the house have listened frequently to my contention that immigration is a stimulus to the economy, that it is a genuine stimulus in a period of economic recession just as it is in a period of economic growth. I reject completely any tap on, tap off policy or any attempt to relate long-range immigration objectives to immediate changes in our economic climate. So the warning I give this afternoon as the minister introduces his resolution is clear and definitive. I hope he will give us his assurance, and I hope the council will remember, that it is not the intention of this house that immigration policy shall be merely subservient to manpower policy and that we should only bring in immigrants when there are precise places available for their employment.
I disagree with the view expressed a short time ago by the hon. member for Chapleau. I believe it is a shortsighted view, one which will not permit this country to grow as rapidly as it ought. We need to set targets and objectives for immigration and go forward to meet those goals in the belief that the very bringing in of immigrants in maximum numbers will provide employment for more people in this country by providing an important stimulus.
September 25, 1967
2442	COMMONS
Manpower and Immigration Council
That is my confession of faith in relation to immigration. I hope the bringing together of manpower and immigration questions under this council will in no way make immigration policy subservient or subordinate to manpower policy.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Chairman, when the house was last meeting in July I had laryngitis and was unable to make my views heard.
I do not suppose anything I have to say this .afternoon will make the minister wish this condition had continued as a permanent affliction; nevertheless, there are some mild criticisms I should like to make and some reservations I should like to express, at least until we have the bill before us.
Here is a minister who spends over $300 million; he is the sixth ranking spender in the government heirarchy. Some of us have doubts about whether a young fellow, or at least one so young in parliamentary ways, should have so much spending money. I can fell him, however, that he has come here with a tremendous fund of good will on all sides, not only on the government side of the house, and we wish him well in his attempts to formulate new and important manpower policies in this technological age.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
If we had any doubts they began with a bill that he brought before us in the spring. He had to introduce amendments to more than half its clauses, which gave a rather raffish air to the whole proceedings and at least suggested the legislation he presented has not really been thought out. However, since he is not a lawyer I will blame that shortcoming not on him but on his colleagues in government who should know better.
What has his policy accomplished to date? In an article in the Monetary Times of June, 1967, its Ottawa correspondent, Gordon Pape, had this to say, and I quote from page 31:
Ask a Manpower official what's been achieved since the department came into <Je facto existence in January, 1966 (although things weren't made official until October), and he'll mention such things as a smoother seasonal farm program, slightly improved service in the Canada Manpower Centres (formerly National Employment Service offices)-


Mr. Munro:: Would the hon. member please repeat the name of that magazine and the date of issue?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Yes, certainly. The article was in the Monetary Times of June, 1967,


and what I am quoting is found on page 31. I continue the quotation:
-and aid to the economically-stricken residents of Newfoundland's Belle Isle. But impact on the Country as a whole? Virtually nil.
To those who wanted instant action, it's a pretty poor show for a department that's due to spend almost $313,000,000 of the taxpayers' money during the current fiscal year-a figure that's exceeded by only five other ministries.
Our problem, sir, is the effective use of manpower in Canada or of manpower that is going to be attracted to this country. To the extent that the minister is able to make effective use of that manpower, to use it to increase our productivity and make us economically more healthy, he will have achieved the purposes of his policies.
One thing that pleases me in the setting up of this manpower council and immigration council is the fact that what used to be conflicting sides of the problem are in effect being melded. I have said "conflicting sides," and to make my point very quickly and perhaps very forcefully I point out that the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development observed last year:
There is evidence that many Canadian employers have tended to neglect on-the-job training partly because they are accustomed to a large inflow of skill through immigration.
If the manpower and immigration council and the department live up to their responsibilities we hope that this shortcoming on the Canadian scene will be corrected.
I hope the council will have the power to provide a better welcome to those entering Canada as immigrants. I will look anxiously at the bill to see if the council has such power. I represent an area which is a port of entry for a large number of immigrants to Canada. I have heard complaints about the rosy heaven promised to these immigrants in other lands and the drab, gray, austere sort of welcome they receive, the barest opening of a door to let them into a grim and dingy shed where they may have to spend hours or days before going on somewhere else. That is the welcome given them by this country, and this is particularly true of Italian immigrants to Canada.
I would hope that the manpower and immigration council, together with the minister and his officials, would do something about that situation which results in Canada and my area in particular being given a very poor name. We have good hotels in Halifax and immigrants could be accommodated in them. They should not have to linger and
September 25, 1967	COMMONS
loiter in and around immigration sheds until transportation is available to take them somewhere else. I note that one of the purposes which the minister mentioned is the adjustment of immigrants to Canada. I suggest that adjustment should start with a great, allembracing welcome in happy surroundings at the moment they first set foot on the soil of this country.
What are the objectives of the minister and his department? I have read some of the addresses delivered by the minister and I think the philosophy he expresses can best be found in a speech titled "Careers In Canada-Today and Tomorrow" which he delivered at the opening of Careers Expo '67 at Peterborough, Ontario, on April 18 last.
The first point he mentioned in that speech in developing his concept of the new Department of Manpower and Immigration was:
-leave the field of basic education and turn our attention to the occupational training of adults.
He included some riders with respect to government policy dealing with help at that level of education, but by and large the philosophy is to get out of the field of basic education and concentrate on occupational training of adults.
The weakness, if there is one, concerns a segment of our people most conspicuously represented by the hippies of Yorkville and of other parts of Canada, who have not really taken basic education and have no desire to take occupational training either. Since the hippie problem continues to grow I think the new manpower council might want to make some suggestions to the minister as to how one can utter the word "work" to a hippy without causing him to faint or to reach for a double dose of L.S.D.
The second point which the minister made in his Peterborough speech, dealing with his basic philosophy, was the new program to encourage manpower mobility. I make no comment on that as it is quite fitting in the world of rapid transport today.
His third point dealt with this development: -a manpower consultative service which helps industry work out manpower problems caused by changing technology, automation and other modern industrial facts of life.
The fourth cornerstone of his philosophy and program he stated as follows:
-there is much that can be done to encourage that part of the immigration process that will contribute most effectively to our economic growth.
In fairness to the minister I should say that he did not leave out of his philosophy
DEBATES	2443
Manpower and Immigration Council certain of the social aspects as well as the economic aspects of immigration into this country, but I think I have quoted him fairly as to his basic philosophy in setting up this department.
Sir, not having seen the bill I can only guess where its weaknesses may be, but I think there are three areas of possible criticism. This council seems to be so broadly conceived that it could almost be a substitute minister in suggesting policies that would cover the universal operations of his department. I do not know what he has in mind for the ladies and gentlemen who will man the council, how strong their personalities will be, and whether they will be confined to one side or the other of industry. I presume he will bring both management and labour into the picture but I hope that whatever he comes up with he will not let the council become the tail that wags the dog.
The second area of criticism arises from a point made by Jean-Real Cardin, director of the Industrial Relations Department at Laval University, who reported to the Economic Council of Canada in March as follows:
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Efforts to develop a truly effective manpower policy have been unsuccessful up to now and may well be futile in the future unless: employers and workers become better informed on the real issue: the scope of collective bargaining is greatly broadened; major changes are made in labour legislation; and there is a real change of attitudes, power structures and organization both in labour and management.
I think it is valid to mention those points here and also to note that the objectives the minister has for the Canada manpower and immigration council, it seems to me, do not go to the root of the problems that are mentioned by Monsieur Cardin.
I should like to make a third point but before I do so perhaps I might note the presence of the hon. member for Russell in the chair. I believe this is the first time he has honoured us as our chairman by his presence in his new uniform. I am glad to see that it fits so snugly. He seems to have had a good summer and I hope the salary is commensurate with the splendour of his garb.
Finally, my third suggestion to the minister in respect of his proposed council is: Let it be advisory, yes, but do not let it be an excuse for not fully developing manpower policies that will achieve the maximum good for Canada with economies which, at least to outside observers, are not apparent now.
September 25, 1967

Manpower and Immigration Council


Mr. O'Keefe:: Mr. Chairman, possibly it is because of my hon. friend's laryngitis but I am not sure whether I heard him correctly. I thought he said that the effect of the manpower program on Bell Island in Newfoundland was almost nil. May I point out that nearly
2,000	people have been moved from Bell Island to places where they can obtain employment. The cost of this project was half a million dollars.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The hon. member must have laryngitis of the ear because had he heard me correctly he would have known that I had praise for that program and no denigration of it whatever.
Mr. B re win: Mr. Chairman, I should like to reiterate our general approval of the resolution and the proposal to create this particular council dealing with the problems of manpower and immigration. Indeed, it seems to us it is absolutely essential that in the administration of these two highly important subjects we have a council composed of the widest possible representation of knowledgeable people in Canada. We certainly believe that this council, composed I hope of people of a very high calibre, has a very valuable function to perform.
I should like to underline the point already made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North in respect of the personal tragedies and the grave economic loss involved in the lack of proper planning with regard to manpower policies as indicated by the legislation that was introduced and passed by this house in April. I should like to give some details to supplement what has been said already by my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North.
In the Globe and Mail of July 21 Mr. A. W. Fair, who is the co-ordinator of the program of the board of education for immigrants and for adult training, said:
Toronto's adult retraining program will dwindle to an enrolment of a few hundred by Christmas, barring changes in the regulations governing it, the Toronto co-ordinator predicted yesterday.
The same press story in the Globe and Mail concluded with these words:
The immigrants who were taking classes now are swamping the society's office looking for any kind of work. "They are discouraged. But they won't ask for welfare because of their pride. On humanitarian grounds alone, somebody's got to do something," he said.
He was referring to the situation created by the recent regulations which, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North pointed out, cut

down substantially the number of those who can take retraining because of the particular qualifications required.
I have in front of me an article which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of July 15. I should like to read one paragraph:
But now, not quite four months after introduction of the legislation, widespread discontent with the program is voiced by many Ontario educators. Comments on the program implementation range from "a potentially serious problem" to "a national scandal."
In the Toronto Star-I do not have the exact date but it was in the month of July-a long article appeared under the heading "Retraining Denied, Italian Immigrants Would Leave Canada". The first paragraph of the article reads as follows:
Scores of Italian immigrants are considering leaving Canada because tough federal restrictions have cut them off from retraining funds, the administrator of the Italian Immigrant Aid Society said today.
"Some of the newcomers who come to us are just walking around the streets," said Mrs. Isa Scotti. "They are in despair."
Farther down in the same story we find the following:
The federal government's new regulations have already resulted in the closing of one adult retraining centre in Metro and two more will shut their doors Sept. 21 because of the lack of applicants. A. W. Fair, co-ordinator of manpower training for the Toronto Board of Education, said the number of trainees now enrolled in courses in Metro is about 4,000-a drop of more than 2,000 since the new rules came into force.
My friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North, pointed out how the number has dropped even farther. The article continues:
Forty teachers already have lost their jobs because of the decrease in students and another 70 will be let go before Christmas.
I should like to call the minister's attention to this sentence in the story:
Provincial education officials met with Manpower Minister Jean Marchand on Tuesday to seek relief from the new federal government regulations, which went into effect April 1.
At this week's meeting, Marchand denied-
He speaks rather familiarly of the minister.
-immediate aid, but provincial officials came away optimistic that federal assistance would be forthcoming in a few months.
The result of this is well set out in an editorial in the Globe and Mail of July 24 under the heading, "A Rule That May Ruin A Good Program", in which the following is pointed out:
There are few sounder investments in the nation's future than government spending on retraining
September 25, 1967	COMMONS
programs. As the dropouts and unemployed re-enter the labour force with their new abilities, they provide a quick return on the taxpayer's dollar.
While there is agreement on this principle at all levels of government thousands of workers are already suffering directly (and all Canadians will suffer indirectly) because of a demarcation dispute between Ottawa and the provinces.
With its new adult training program, the federal government has sought to create a wide buffer zone between school education-a provincial responsibility-and the retraining of genuine dropouts from the school system.
It goes on to point out the following:
To qualify for federal subsistence allowances (from $35 to $90 a week) during retraining, an applicant must either have dependents or have been working or seeking work for the past three years.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
The article goes on to point out that these new requirements were based upon a desire to deal with the loophole which allowed some teenagers to quit school and return to classes a few days later and apply for retraining. The article continues:
Ontario government officials said that about 7,000 persons stood to lose the living allowances that they were receiving during training.
Then it goes on:
Many of these reluctant dropouts are immigrants who have been picking up the basic English and the technical skills that would make them productive members of the community. Without the allowances, many single persons simply cannot afford to support themselves while going to day school.
The federal government has a particular responsibility toward the immigrants to whom it is now denying retraining opportunities. Immigration is a federal prerogative and Mr. Marchand and his colleagues have a clear duty to help the people they have brought into Canada until they are in a position to look after themselves.
I repeat to the minister that if this policy is based upon some so-called constitutional rule or argument that the federal government does not have responsibility in this field, he should get some better constitutional advisers because there is no question in the world that it is a constitutional responsibility of the federal government to assist in the retraining of immigrants. Indeed, it runs totally contrary to the whole theory behind the immigration policy which the minister has eloquently advanced from time to time, namely, that immigration is an economic necessity and that to meet it we are seeking people with skills who can make contributions to this country.
It does not make any sense, when we should be seeking to retrain and teach English to immigrants in our big cities-I have
DEBATES	2445
Manpower and Immigration Council mentioned Toronto because I am more familiar with that city but it is only an example-if the courses are discontinued because this government does not accept responsibility in that particular field. I read one further paragraph from the editorial in the Globe and Mail:
In its second annual report, the Economic Council of Canada stated with great emphasis that a lack of skilled manpower was one of the major obstacles to be overcome in achieving a satisfactory rate of economic growth. Yet the new regulations have already succeeded in turning away thousands who are anxious to acquire new skills.
I plead with the minister to reconsider this matter because, as I said before, it not only affects the individuals who are denied the opportunity and are thereby perhaps thrown into unemployment and despair in the new country to which they have come but it represents a loss to our whole economy. It is in absolute contradiction to what I thought to be on the whole a very enlightened policy enunciated by the minister in regard to immigration to this country.
I do not believe for a moment that these sort of regulations would ever have been adopted had there been in existence strong advisory committees and a manpower council that could have told the minister ahead of time what would happen. I am sure it was not the minister's intention to destroy this excellent program but he has partially succeeded in doing so by reason of a lack of adequate advice. I believe this council will be very helpful in that regard.
I should now like to turn from the question of manpower to immigration generally. Many of us observed with very great interest the recently announced changes in the regulations, the points system, and so on. How these will work out will be seen in the course of time. I think this is a very genuine effort to give a more specific content to the rules for admission and as such it is to be commended and welcomed. But I say to the minister that this is only a small part of the problem. There is the whole question of the revision of the act itself. There is the whole question of how security procedures are denying us, contrary to the advice of many of the most loyal ethnic groups of this country, the ability to bring from the countries of eastern Europe skilled and loyal people who will make a real contribution to this country. That matter has not been dealt with.
2446	COMMONS
Manpower and Immigration Council
I believe this immigration council will soon be able to provide or suggest the machinery whereby this obstacle can be overcome so that we will be able to bring from countries such as Poland, Rumania and Czechoslovakia people that we need in this country, people about whose loyalty we would not have the slightest need to worry. A great deal of the future usefulness of this council depends, of course, upon the type of persons appointed to it. I hope the bill will ensure that we will have on the council people with the broadest experience. Those of us who were members of the special parliamentary committee on immigration know the wisdom and experience that were available to us from those who had themselves been immigrants and were active members of various ethnic organizations, from social workers in the Canadian Welfare Council to organizations such as the Canadian Labour Congress and the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. I mention those organizations for the sake of achieving a balance. If groups such as these are represented on the council they will bring a wealth of information and advice to that body which will greatly assist us in achieving an intelligent immigration policy.
I conclude by saying that no matter how many councils we appoint and how effectively they do their job, this will not absolve parliament from its responsibility in this connection. I am not talking just about the department, because the minister is responsible for the administration of the department.
I say that parliament will continue to have a responsibility for the careful surveillance of both these highly important fields, manpower and immigration.
One of the hon. members who spoke-I am not quite certain who it was-said that when the council was appointed we would perhaps not have to worry as much in this house about these problems. He said we would not have to worry so much about would-be immigrants and other problems of this sort. I think the hon. member is quite wrong. I believe it will continue to be necessary for members of this house, particularly those who come from industrial ridings in which most of the immigrants live, to continue to take an active interest in these matters. I believe there should be continuing activity by a parliamentary committee in reviewing the regulations from time to time and acting as a sort of corporate ombudsman.
I know there are many people on the government side of the house as well as on

DEBATES	September 25, 1967
the opposition side who are experienced and capable of constructive criticism of the administration of the act and the rules and regulations that exist, which by no means have reached perfection although I believe we are going forward in this respect. I do not think the existence of this council will in any way absolve us of the responsibility of maintaining an active parliamentary committee to deal with this matter.
With those observations, Mr. Chairman, and saying that I believe progress is being made in this field, I repeat that we in this party will support this legislation. We hope it will be successful and we look forward to the appointment of members of the council who will make that body independent and widely representative of all groups concerned with this question. We hope that independent, qualified people will be appointed to the council, which will be of real assistance in the better administration of the important subjects of manpower and immigration.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, like many of the other speakers today I shall not spend a great deal of time dealing with the resolution inasmuch as the information that we have on the nature and functions of this advisory board and its related committees is not very great. Yet I appreciate the opportunity, as have other hon. members who have spoken, to speak specifically to the information that is before us and relate it to some of the activities that have already taken place with regard to the developing responsibilities of the Department of Manpower and Immigration.
When we review the resolution as it is defined and the very short remarks of the minister we have something that seems imaginative in concept or, if not imaginative, at least necessary. But somehow we are tempted to suspect that it will be somewhat futile in its execution. The idea of councils being established to supply advice to various government departments is indeed most commendable. Certainly when one thinks about this government one has to agree that it is in great need of as much good advice as it can obtain.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: However, whether the instruments that are defined here will do the trick for this department remains to be seen. I for one have not been greatly encouraged by the activities, as I have been able to observe them over the past few
September 25, 1967

months, of the department in this field. I wonder whether, in spite of the fact that many such advisory groups might be created by the department, the department will indeed be willing to listen and listen closely to the advice that is brought forward.
I for one have been greatly disturbed by the way in which a number of local situations have developed. In many cases we have to refer to our own experience. The newly created manpower offices seem unable at times to grasp the realities in local situations. They seem unwilling to recognize what are indeed the real interests in these matters and they seem incapable of dealing with them in a way in which such problems could be effectively resolved.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
In the past few years we have had an increasingly effective program in Prince Edward Island to assist people seeking to have themselves retrained either for new vocations or to improve the particular skills used in their present employment. Indeed, I can speak from very personal experience when I say that the previous program which was abandoned to a degree this year did a great deal this past spring for many of the rural residents of Prince Edward Island. However, we are discovering now that with greater activity on the part of the department of manpower there is a greater unreality or a movement away from the prospects for which we had hoped with regard to the gradual decrease of a hard core of continuing unemployment and sometimes seasonal unemployment. What this means in fact is that to date at least the department of manpower seems not to be listening more to what is happening in various regional situations but is listening less. If we are simply creating national boards and agencies that will do nothing more than provide a rubberstamp for the present direction of manpower policies and activities, we are certainly not going to improve the situation which currently exists.
It has struck me as well that apart from the very poor communications which have been established with the local communities concerning needs and possibilities there is a similar breakdown in communications with the various provinces. This afternoon facts and figures have been quoted which would indicate that as a result of this breakdown in communications the possibilities of activity which these offices might exercise have been greatly diminished. I hope that later in this debate the minister may be able to supply us with answers to such questions and will be
DEBATES	2447
Manpower and Immigration Council able to explain why it is that instead of improved communications, instead of expanded opportunities, instead of greater hope for people who have lived for years with conditions of lingering poverty and dangerously high unemployment rates, we have in fact moved away from some very good results that were being achieved during the last few years. It seems to me that if committees and councils are to be established there must be a very firm indication that they will be in close touch with local communities and with the leaders in local communities who are in contact with the realities of the situation and that the closest possible liaison will be maintained with provincial governments and departments. My experience leads me to believe that to date this has not taken place.
Furthermore, I think we would be anxious to learn from the minister who are the people who will be appointed to the various councils dealing with adult training, vocational rehabilitation and the adjustment of immigrants to Canada. We must be very sure that we do not simply supply a number of loyal party supporters with the opportunity to be remunerated for their past good work but that we will make available to the department people with genuine expertise and experience who have something to contribute not only at the national level but also in the local areas, in provinces, regions and local communities. We would also like to know how much will be required of these people so that genuine thought can be given to the choice of the very best people to fill these positions.
I have also been concerned a little-I hope this will also be clarified as we proceed with this debate-whether or not most of this advice will simply be directed to what might be termed the head office in Ottawa or whether there will be established strong communication links and responsibility for decisions at local levels. The minister has indicated to the house that there will be a move away, in terms of some of the responsibilities of this department, from complete centralization. In other words, he said there will be a decentralization of many of the decision-making processes which will be necessary to make these programs effective. I hope that such will also be the case with the advisory committees operating at local levels and that they will not have to see their advice pertaining to local situations move all the way up the chain of command and communication to some omnipotent figure on the national scene who will decide in his
2448	COMMONS
Manpower and Immigration Council great wisdom and from a great distance whether or not these recommendations are appropriate to small communities wherever they exist across the land.
Finally, I should like to echo the sentiments of the hon. member for Carleton that in all of this program the government will in fact allow for a great deal more community development by people who are dedicated and who will give the time and energy necessary to make these programs really effective. The dangers of bureaucracy are such-perhaps this need not be repeated -that there is a growing tendency to take away from people in a host of different ways a sense of responsibility and participation. It is important and fundamental in some areas related to vocational and occupational retraining and to matters that are closely related to livelihood and education that people be allowed the largest measure possible of self determination. I have not been happy with instances of bureaucratic interference which to me have seemed unwarranted and unnecessary in giving people a chance to control and to improve their own destiny. The minister will have a further opportunity when he speaks on second reading of the bill to clarify how many of the fears that have grown out of real situations may be alloyed through the setting up of these advisory councils.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt after listening to the discussion this afternoon on this resolution that the manpower department is facing serious difficulties in the implementation of its program. I do not intend at this stage of the discussion and at this late hour in the afternoon to enlarge upon the points that have already been made. We can draw the conclusion from the remarks that have already been made in the house that one of the reasons for the difficulty facing the manpower department arises from its failure to consult adequately first of all at the local community level and, second, to ensure the means for intergovernmental consultation, particularly between the federal and the provincial governments.
It would appear to me from the resolution we are discussing this afternoon that this is an attempt on the part of the minister and the government to close the gap which has become painfully obvious in recent months and has been pointed out by several speakers earlier in the debate this afternoon. At the time that the amendments were made last April I remember taking part in the discussion and pointing out to the minister that it

DEBATES	September 25, 1967
was going to be extremely difficult for the provinces in particular to cope with the terms of the new legislation in time to meet the demands of enrolment for the new sessions at the vocational schools. I was aware that in the province of Manitoba, where they had very ambitious retraining programs under way and new schools were recently opened, there was a complete lack of communication between their officials and the officials at Ottawa over what exactly would be possible under the terms of the new legislation. In practice this has quite definitely proven to be the case.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I am not going to read from editorials, letters to the editor, or any newspaper comments on the subject because this fact was brought home to me quite forcibly as a result of personal exposure to the problem during the past few weeks in my home city of Brandon. We have there a new and elaborate vocational training school which completed its first full year's operation very successfully last year. I know from personal contact with my constituents and also from visits to the school that they are not going to be able to carry out this year the same kind of program that was carried out last year. For one thing their enrolment is going to be down. I have been besieged and beset by potential enrolees who anticipated enrolling on the same basis as last year and arrived at the school to take the program only to discover that the terms of reference, the regulations, the rules of the game, had been changed half way through. If there had been adequate consultation in connection with the new legislation I am sure that many misunderstandings would have been avoided.
Looking at the resolution it seems to me that this legislation is not going to bridge the gap that has occurred with reference to intergovernmental consultation. I know there is internal machinery to which it is possible to resort other than advisory councils of this nature, but I would point out to the minister that the expressions of dissatisfaction and unhappiness that have already arisen early in the new educational retraining year will increase in intensity unless very urgent attempts are made to resolve the difficulty of lack of communication between the federal and provincial authorities.
Most of this lack of communication arises as a result of the elimination of the Part V program under which it was possible even for the school authorities to deal directly
September 25, 19G7
COMMONS DEBATES	2449
Manpower and Immigration Council
with and process potential candidates for the program. Now, of course, this is not possible. More bureaucracy is involved, and I think the question can be resolved only if the problem of communication is dealt with on an urgent basis.
Second, Mr. Chairman, in regard to the question of setting up advisory councils and committees and so forth, I think there has been a gap in communication between the vocational and technical schools, the manpower program and the actual businesses operating in the different communities. This has resulted in a situation where there has actually been a shortage of manpower which has been created by the failure of the manpower offices to anticipate the actual work situation in a particular community. We have found workers returning to school for retraining or upgrading, for the acquisition of new skills and so forth, at a time when they are urgently needed in the labour market as it exists at that particular moment.
Again I think that this situation could be resolved if the minister would see to it in the implementation of the general ideas proposed in the resolution that there is some assurance in the legislation that there is going to be very close co-operation with the entrepreneurs in industry and in the general business community. These people would be much more happy with the program if they felt that they could have a determining influence through these consultative committees and councils.
There is one final point I should like to make; I do not want to prolong this discussion beyond six o'clock if it can be avoided because I know we are anxious to get on with the business of the house. I also hope that the minister will not ignore the work that has been done by voluntary committees in the field of immigration. I refer specifically to the Canadian Citizenship Council which ever since the end of world war II has been operating on a voluntary basis offering advice and assistance to immigrants arriving in this country, first under the direction of the late Mr. John Kidd and more recently under Mr. Alan Clarke, who was transported to the Company of Young Canadians. Perhaps he now wishes he was back with the Canadian Citizenship Council. Here we have a corps of citizens who have been working in this area on a voluntary basis over the years. I think that the experience of these people should be taken into consideration in setting up this new advisory council and these committees.
Much more can be said which will be said when we have the bill before us, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Winch:: May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman?


The Chairman:: Order. Perhaps the committee will permit me to read the proceedings on the adjournment motion tonight.
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 New Westminster-Water Resources, Ottawa River-Request for Pollution Control; the hon. member for Lotbiniere- Transport, Turbotrains and the Safety of Grade Crossings; the hon. member for Carle-ton-Increases in Pensions for Retired Civil Servants.
Perhaps I could refer the committee at this time to standing order 15(4):
On any Monday, Tuesday or Thursday, notwithstanding the provisions of section (3) of this standing order, the consideration of private members business shall be suspended when an order for resuming the address debate or the budget debate, an order for a motion "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair" for the house to go into committee of supply, or an order to go into committee of the whole on a money resolution pursuant to standing order 61A, is set down as the first item of government business in any such sitting.	'
The present debate falls under standing order 61A, and I interpret this standing order as suspending private members' hour for today. It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased at this early stage in the renewed session to have the opportunity to speak about this department. I wish tonight to raise two or three matters which call for the attention of the minister and his staff, and indeed, for the attention of other hon. members of the house, with regard to the Department of Manpower and Immigration.
The first matter I raised during today's question period. The minister said that he wanted further particulars, and I am pleased to be able to give them to him. During the summer recess on a number of occasions my attention was directed to miners who, on
2450	COMMONS
Manpower and Immigration Council endeavouring to take advantage of this program to retrain and better their position in this country, were told that they, as miners, were excluded from this program of retraining and upgrading.
We ought to consider, for a moment, why miners would want to take advantage of a program such as this. In that connection I should like to give a couple of illustrations. One of them has to do with a man who came to my office last week. He is an immigrant who arrived in this country in 1951 and worked for some 17 years in the Timmins gold mines. At the age of 48, because of low wages prevailing in the gold mines, he wanted to make a change and thought that he should make it before his age prevented him from so doing. He went to British Columbia and obtained a job with the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company of Canada Limited. Some weeks after that he received a registered letter from the medical referee for silicosis for the health authorities of British Columbia, and owing to his condition was barred from working in the British Columbia mines. He returned to Ontario, was taken on by Dome Mines Limited, passed his X-ray to go underground and at the present time is working underground. Needless to say, the man, his wife and family were greatly perturbed. After working in mining for 17 years he finds that he cannot pass the basic minimum medical requirement of another province. Nevertheless, for some strange reason, in the province of Ontario he is considered fit to work underground.
I wish to give another example of a man who for some 11 years tried to establish a silicosis pension. He was told that, according to the act in force in Ontario, he did not have silicosis. After that he was killed in a motor car accident and the insurance companies became involved. His widow's legal representative received a letter from the lawyers representing the other party. It was to the effect that because the man had suffered from advanced silicosis, the settlement should be much smaller than otherwise it would have been as his earning capacity had been greatly reduced.
I have cited these two illustrations to show why miners should be the first to come under the umbrella of this measure. They should have the opportunity to upgrade themselves, to retrain themselves, before it is too late and their health suffers.
As I said, on several occasions this summer I heard of miners who had tried to take

DEBATES	September 25, 1967
advantage of this program, only to be told that they were barred from it. I took up this question with local officials of a manpower office, and one of them said that mining is a very necessary industry for this country. There is a great shortage of miners and therefore they cannot be retrained for other jobs.
I cannot think of anything more unfair. Should a man, because he is silly enough in this day and age to become a skilled miner, be given a life sentence so far as this program is concerned? The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, in the speeches he has made over the last year or two, appears to have recognized the situation in the mines. When the mine operators went to him, with a great hue and cry, asking that there should be brought into this country unskilled, untrained and uneducated men to fill the jobs in the mines, he told them that if they paid better wages and established proper working conditions there would be no shortage of miners. I could not agree more with the minister's estimate.
What have we under this program, Mr. Chairman? In effect, we have collusion-it is not intended, I know-between the mine operators and this department of government. The government is saying, by its attitude: "Okay, continue to pay low wages; continue to keep these dismal working conditions; we will exclude the miners from retraining programs so that they can better themselves." That, in effect, is what is happening. It is high time that this question was looked into and this situation corrected.
There is another program under the minister's jurisdiction that I wish to mention. I have brought this question to the minister's attention. It has to do with the mobility program.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Not long ago a mine in the Timmins area closed down. One of the men who was thrown out of work took advantage of this program and was moved from Timmins to Pickle Crow with the assistance of the department which paid, on his behalf, the sum of $370 to move his furniture. He worked in Pickle Crow for less than a year before the mine there closed down, when he was faced with the same situation as before. Again, this program took effect and he was moved to the Tri-Bag mine at Bachawana Bay. The distance between Timmins and Pickle Crow is some 184 miles further than the distance between Pickle Crow and Bachawana Bay,
September 25, 1967	COMMONS
yet the cost of moving this man's furniture was $672 for the shorter distance compared with $370 for the longer distance. My point is this: while rules and regulations are needed in connection with these programs they should be guided by common sense and be sufficiently flexible to allow common sense to be used. The situation in Bachawana Bay is that no housing is available; employees moved there must live in trailers. Consequently, there was no space suitable for the storage of this man's furniture unless he decided to buy a tent and store it more or less in the open.
The employee concerned is within two years of retirement. He wanted to move his furniture to Toronto where he has children and where he intends to live on his retirement. He went to the department and asked whether the money it was prepared to pay on his behalf could be credited against the cost of moving his furniture to Toronto. He was willing to pay the balance. The officials told him this was not possible. Contract was signed with an outfit called Rember moving and the furniture would be moved to Bachawana Bay even if it had to be thrown into the street on arrival.
This raises two or three questions. First, I think we should know why the price charged for moving the furniture was doubled even though the distance was shorter by some 200 miles. Second, we should be told why a little common sense cannot be used in such circumstances.
The other matter I wish to raise has to do with the retraining and upgrading program. Again, I should like to bring up a particular case in order to illustrate the point I am making. It has to do with a woman who is the sole support of her four children and who had enrolled in a course designed to upgrade her education and train her as a bookkeeper. She wished to pass grade ten and become trained as a bookkeeper.
After she had enrolled it was discovered that this woman had exceptional ability. Although it had not been intended that she should receive this training she went on to attend the school for some two years during which time she passed not only grade 10 but grades 11 and 12. As a result she is within a year of getting a teaching certificate which would enable her to work to support herself and her children from that point on. This situation came to light about the same time as the government was putting on a big economy drive, and this woman, within a
DEBATES	2451
Manpower and Immigration Council year of becoming a most useful citizen capable of looking after herself and her family, was turned out. Two years have been wasted and she will have to fall back on welfare payments for the support of herself and her family.
Various officials with whom I have discussed this matter were extremely sympathetic; they realize that this is an unusual case involving a woman of exceptional ability who should be given every opportunity. But they are bound by the regulations and cannot provide assistance in any way. They say, moreover, that the provinces are raising a furore about the danger of the federal government moving into the field of education.
To my mind this represents a "dog in the manger" attitude. If, in fact, the provinces are raising objections, it is a case of utter stupidity. If they are not prepared to supply this training themselves, why should they object if the federal government brings in a plan which will fill the gap and enable students to become valuable, contributing members of society?
As I said before, these programs are basically good programs and we shall certainly support this resolution. But let us, for heaven's sake, iron out some of the difficulties which have been encountered and, far from least, ensure that this program is applied with common sense. Let us remember the objective we are trying to attain; we are seeking to assist and train people so that they can take their places in society better equipped, and it is no part of that purpose to formulate a list of rules which defeat the very purpose of our endeavours.


Mr. Oito:: I intend to direct my remarks to the subject of the resolution on the order paper which is intended, as I understand it, to introduce a measure to establish a Canadian manpower immigration task force-no, it is to be an immigration council; I thought "task force" was the new phrase and that no one used "council" or "advisory board" any more.
This is a resolution to provide for an immigration council, advisory boards and local manpower committees and it is within this context that I wish to address my remarks to the minister, particularly in reference to the part which says "to provide also for the appointment of the members thereof, their remuneration, allowances and other expenses."
2452	COMMONS
Manpower and Immigration Council
I take it that these advisory committees will, in the end, be very similar to other such committees which advise not only ministers of immigration but ministers of industry, ministers of finance and other members of the government. Sometimes I wonder whether these bodies are really what they purport to be. We know there is always a considerable amount of trouble balancing the membership of these advisory committees by appointing appropriate numbers of representatives from unions, management and particular areas of the country, winding up, finally, with university types for whom I have a great respect, of course, and who seem to be acceptable to everyone.
There is nothing wrong with that, but committees being what they are, as most hon. members will know from their own experience, a powerful and experienced administrator is in most cases appointed as secretary; directly or indirectly he influences the committee until in reality what we have is a committee of one. I am sure this is not the intent of the resolution before us. I wish to applaud the minister's efforts in introducing new regulations affecting immigration.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
As you recall, Mr. Chairman, recently the minister told of the new procedure whereby, through a system of marks, the administrators will be able to judge people who are eligible to be immigrants. This is a very good system because it draws a fine line between giving the administrators a guide line and, at the same time, allowing them enough discretion to do a good job.
In that respect, and dealing with the formation of these committees, I wish to say it is essential that they have the advantage of research. Research, to my way of thinking, is not taking the figures of the bureau of statistics, figures which have been accumulated over a period of time, and then saying, "Well, we now have so many thousand plasterers employed in Canada. There is so much construction and so much demand for plasterers." These figures can also be applied to service industries such as the restaurant business. That is not research; that is the accumulation of facts.
True research goes a little deeper than that. Applied research means that facts are accumulated and then projected. It is not a question of our having so many plasterers or bricklayers employed in Canada and then saying there is only room for so many. True research means finding out the numbers of

DEBATES	September 25, 1967
plasterers and bricklayers that will be required in construction seven or ten years from now, and discovering the likelihood of the adoption of new methods of construction. The same applies to other qualifications and trades.
This will be an expensive undertaking. I urge the minister to make good research available to these committees. In order to do a first class research job their research facilities must be involved with all other phases of industry such as transportation, finance, the economy of the country, and the likes and dislikes of the consuming public. All these other factors enter into research. Research must take into account the current financial position and the likelihood of recessions. It will be an expensive and exacting business.
I know some of our government departments have instituted research branches, but whether these are truly qualified research efforts is another matter. It is very easy to say to people who are not doing anything and who know nothing, "Start a research department." That is the worst way to do things. I urge the minister to give serious consideration to the establishment of a good, efficient, knowledgeable research branch, one that will co-operate with other departments so that rather than being solely concerned with the department of immigration it will work along with the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of Finance. I am sure that in that way it would do a better job.
The results of research should always be made available to these committees so that they can advise the minister on what immigration policies should be. Given good research, these committees can make a concerted effort to advise the minister not only on what is taking place today but on what will take place in the future.
In that way the criteria which the minister has publicized can be changed. If these criteria are allowed to stagnate they will become firmly fixed in the administration and 20 years from now the department will still be following them because normally it is difficult for administrators to change their minds. In order to make our immigration policy workable these criteria will have to be changed from time to time in accordance with what is happening in the country, and what will happen.
At the time that the administration of manpower was merged with the administration of immigration, I had sincere doubts about the advisability of the merger because
September 25, 1967	COMMONS
it covered two completely separate policies, one dealing with immigration and one with manpower. I agree that they have to work together, but the question in my mind is which will govern which.
With all these advisory committees it seems to me there will be a tendency to take the easiest way and, of course, the easiest way would be to let manpower govern immigration policy. It would be easy to say, "We have only so many jobs available in so many trades, and therefore immigration will be cut down to so many people." That would not be proper immigration policy. Immigration policy has to be founded on other grounds in collaboration with manpower requirements, and in that way we will have a balance.
Recently I discussed this matter with some people who are very interested in immigration matters. They did not share my point of view at all. They thought there was only one criterion for immigration, and that was the number of jobs available. In other words, manpower should govern the whole sphere of immigration policy. If that were the case, then I suggest the minister should also have authority over birth control and other matters which can affect manpower.
In conclusion, I wish to say I was very gratified to note the criteria established by the minister in connection with immigration policy. Probably his department to some extent resisted these criteria, and I admire the way in which he has been able to establish them. This is the modem way to do things. I trust the bill will contain provision for adequate research to be made available to the advisory committees so that they can do a good job.


Mr. Pugh:: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to make a long speech but I wish to deal with two things which have recently come to light in connection with the cost of government. When the minister makes his concluding speech on the resolution stage I hope he will tell us how his department has been cut.
I raise this point because of the much publicized undertaking by the Prime Minister and other ministers that they are going to slash government expenditures, and also because of the recent recommendations made by the Economic Council of Canada, of which the minister is well aware.
The resolution refers to the establishment of councils, boards and committees. Can the minister give us any indication whether his original plan for the establishment of these bodies has been materially cut?
DEBATES	2453
Manpower and Immigration Council [DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
In other words, I am looking toward the efficiency of the act that we will bring forth in this house as a result of the passage of this legislation. I do not wish to repeat myself or make a long speech. I should just like to mention these thoughts. As a result of the original bill, has the minister had cuts forced on him, perhaps by public opinion, which finally have made their impression on him and on the government. Has this resulted in the Prime Minister making his statement? Second, have the minister and the government been influenced perhaps as a result of reading and studying the report of the Economic Council of Canada.
I should like to know whether, as a result of anything that might have taken place, the efficiency of the bill which will follow the resolution has been restricted to a point of no return. In other words, does the minister feel that what he finally is putting forth will be effective? Perhaps the minister would let us know what he contemplates having in the estimates as a total expenditure as a result of the passage of this resolution and the bill which will follow it? Thank you.


Mr. Haidasz:: Mr. Chairman, in rising to speak on this resolution to establish a Canada manpower and immigration council, advisory boards and regional and local manpower committees, I should like to commend the minister for providing the type of machinery which I believe will assist him in improving the policies of his department.
I support this measure and look forward to its implementation without delay. Since the establishment of the Department of Manpower and Immigration many desirable policies and measures have been put into effect to meet the recommendations of the Economic Council of Canada, to cope with the increasing importance of effective manpower development and the proper utilization of skilled and trainable people, to increase our productivity and to contribute thereby to the economic growth of our country.
Our unemployment figures today are the lowest in our history; our standard of living is the second highest in the world, and the increasing and unprecedented affluence of our society is the envy of the rest of the world. The manpower mobility and adult occupation training programs have contributed to this prosperity.
In social terms, the manpower policy seeks to provide our workers with the opportunity to meet the challenge of a swiftly changing
September 25, 1967
2454	COMMONS DEBATES
Manpower and Immigration Council technology. It also provides many immigrants with the opportunity to adjust themselves to our manpower needs. But, there still is a great need in Canada for skilled labour. The three tours I have made this summer to the northern and western regions of Canada have provided me with a good deal of evidence that our development could be improved further and faster if the necessary skilled labour were available today. The areas most in need of skilled labour today are in our far north, and especially in our mines. No doubt a review of the departmental policies would reveal to what extent these policies have been successful and what gaps still exist. Members of this house are hopeful that the council and boards which are to be established by the forthcoming legislation will assist in meeting any shortcomings and in filling the gaps.
In this great effort of our government to improve the living standard of our citizens, voluntary organizations in the past-and I hope this will continue in the future-have played a useful role. This has been a characteristic of the Canadian way of life. If past achievements are any guarantee for the future, it is safe to say that voluntary organizations in the field of education and counselling, of immigrants especially, will play a very helpful role in improving our society.
Basic to the success of the program of the department is the provision of adequate teaching facilities for the English or French languages and for the upgrading of the skills of the immigrant. I hope the minister soon will make a statement to clarify the future role of voluntary agencies which are doing a great service to our country. I should like to pay tribute to these organizations and the people behind them. 1 wish this evening to acknowledge the achievements of, and express my gratitude to Bev. Joseph Carraro of Toronto, the founder of "Costi" which is the term used in respect of the Italian Educational Centre. This centre was founded in 1961 and was granted a provincial charter in Ontario in 1962.
The president of "Costi" this year is Aider-man Caccia of the city of Toronto. "Costi" has offices also in Hamilton and Oakville. An average of 7,000 people each year receive training and counselling services at "Costi". Its annual budget is approximately $145,000. A provincial grant of $6,000 annually has been matched by the federal government for the past few years. This year, however, the provincial grant to "Costi" will be $8,000. I

hope the federal government grant will be given this year without any further delay.
The additional funds which are necessary to keep this worthy centre operating come from private donations, the Workman's Compensation Board and the Italian government. This centre is rendering services in the field of English language classes, apprenticeship training, upgrading of skills, rehabilitation and counselling, above all, to the special group of young people between the ages of 16 and 18 years. I should like to say that it is desirable that more federal funds be made available to such organizations.
I believe there are now in Canada 200 manpower centres of which approximately half a dozen are in Toronto. This evening may I draw to the attention of the minister the fact that there is a need to increase the professional staff in the Toronto manpower centres. There is still a great need for adequate translation services. There is also a need for sufficient people who have an inexhaustible patience and a great deal of sympathy for the poor immigrant who comes to the manpower centre for help. There is also need to tell Canadian industry it should not put too much stress on the necessity for immigrants to have Canadian experience.
I do not believe the policy or the philosophy of the Canada Manpower Act is so strict that the skills and education that the immigrant has acquired in his home country should be disregarded. When I interned at St. Joseph's Hospital in Toronto and at other hospitals I saw doctors, dentists and other skilled persons doing menial jobs. It is unfortunate that such skills and professional services are not used quickly and properly.
I hope these few remarks I have made this evening will reach the ears of the minister and that they will help him further improve his great program of Canada manpower centres which has contributed so much to our economy.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that now, when the bill on the Canada manpower and immigration council, together with advisory boards and regional and local manpower committees, is being introduced is the time we should draw to the attention of the minister, before things become too fixed in this new direction, those things which we discovered during the recess.
September 25, 19G7

I think we all welcome the idea of closer co-ordination at the different levels of government. As a matter of fact, I have constantly felt that the big thing we have to achieve in the near future is very, very close co-operation and co-ordination among federal, provincial and local levels of government, and that until we can achieve a workable partnership we will not solve or even begin to solve any of the major problems facing this country today.
Therefore, if this new bill results in closer co-ordination among the different levels of government and the different regional authorities, I think it will be very helpful and very necessary. On the other hand, I believe we must make sure that this bill will not represent just a piling of machinery on machinery and will not be just another factor in making an administrative traffic jam that will lead to confusion and chaos rather than coordination.
When the going gets tough and it is impossible to achieve co-operation among different levels of government, we have frequently seen the federal government, in despair, form a task force, a committee, advisory board or something else. This is a very, very convenient way to attract attention away from the main difficulty, without achieving what should be achieved. It merely has the result of piling trouble upon trouble in the way of administrative machinery.
I know the minister does not want this to happen. I may put it badly, but I know very well the magnitude of the job the minister is undertaking. In Vancouver a great many organizations and individuals are very much concerned about certain facets of the manpower policy. I wish to deal with just one or two of them this evening. Ottawa is about 3,000 miles from Vancouver, but when you live in Vancouver and want something done in connection with a major problem, Ottawa seems at least 6,000 miles away. I hope that the new legislation and the way in which it is carried out, which is even more important, will resolve this difficulty. I hope we do not find that the Canada manpower and immigration council is composed of people recruited largely from central Canada, with a few university professors or other people removed from the difficulties which local bodies face when carrying out this work. In this connection I should like to see a very close co-ordination between the authorities at different levels.
DEBATES	2455
Manpower and Immigration Council
This summer in Vancouver the members of parliament from the area had a great deal of discussion with the Vancouver Board of School Trustees and other organizations about the difficulties in connection with manpower. The Vancouver Board of School Trustees called a meeting of members of parliament for the Vancouver area, members of the provincial legislature and members of the city council. There were other people in attendance at the meeting, but these were the official people at the three levels of government. The Vancouver Board of School Trustees, as the educational body for Vancouver city, wanted to outline their difficulties in connection with manpower.
I wish to draw several of these difficulties to the attention of the committee because I consider it is the job of those of us who were at that meeting to draw them to the attention of the minister. As the minister is well aware, for many years the Vancouver Board of School Trustees has been working closely with the provincial government, with the financial assistance of the federal government, and has worked out a program of basic training for skill development, which is considered essential for vocational training and upgrading programs.
Admittedly, this program was quite selective and fell far short of meeting the full demands of the applicants. For this reason and others, the board welcomed the federal government's manpower program of support for the retraining of persons displaced by technical advances. The board commended the federal government for its proposals to increase the support of training and allowances provided in such cases. They made it clear that they welcomed this initiative on the part of the federal government.
However, we now find that in spite of the fact that this summer the board drew the difficulties to the attention of the federal government, the manpower training program has been reduced 50 per cent in the Vancouver area in terms of the numbers referred for training. Further, there is no assurance of any regular pattern whereby applicants will be referred for manpower training. The board just does not know what is going on in the Vancouver area and they are worried about it. They are worried because they can no longer plan properly; they do not have sufficient clear and definite information on which to plan. They established these basic training programs. They discovered from the 1961 census in the Vancouver area that 53
September 25, 1967

Manpower and Immigration Council per cent of the work force had grade 10 education or less; therefore, the basic training that developed under the former agreement was embarked upon.
The Vancouver Board of School Trustees, through the provincial government, offered to expand its basic training program and to organize an experimental centre designed especially to concentrate upon improving techniques and content for the classes. Space was available in a public building at nominal cost for this program, but it had to be abandoned because of the sharp reduction in manpower referrals. The Vancouver Board of School Trustees held that instruction in basic training should be available through the manpower division both on a full time and a part time basis.
The minister was good enough to write to me last June, when he said:
Under the occupational training tor adults program both part time and full time instruction may be purchased, and my department intends to purchase part time or night school training in the Pacific region. The nature and extent of services of this kind which will be purchased have not yet been decided; however, discussions are currently under way with provincial officials on this and other matters.
That letter was written on June 27, but by the middle of August the Vancouver Board of School Trustees, which has been responsible for carrying out this upgrading and training program, complained to us that they still did not know what they would get in the number of referrals. There is not any consistent pattern that they know of which will allow them to plan for the services. They say:
Unless manpower department provides opportunity for effective basic training, it is denying responsibility for a major problem area in the increasingly important field of technical skill development.
In addition to a reduction in training opportunities, the irregular nature of the referral procedure has already resulted in discharge of some staff members and the inability to guarantee staff appointments for periods of more than four or five months. In today's market, good instructors are not interested in this type of appointment.
Efficient organization of training programs depends on the ability of any training group to develop and keep a competent staff of technical instructors.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
They are worried because if they are to have a good staff and good basic programs they must know in advance how many people they are going to get. They contend it is not good enough in the first place to give financial assistance only to persons and that in order to have good programs financial

assistance must also be given to basic programs. Otherwise, programs cannot be properly planned and permanent instructors cannot be hired. I think this is a very important matter indeed. They say that the new legislation, based on purchase of services by manpower, presumes availability of training spaces, training facilities, professional staff, and an administrative organization ready to serve the demands of manpower. They explain:
This is a false assumption; there needs to be a basic organization of services available to guarantee this.
Their first complaint is that the services should be available not only to persons but to programs.
The second matter about which they complain is that it is not good enough just to provide full-time manpower training with facilities and upkeep. They say that for many years in Vancouver there have been people working part-time and training parttime, and funds should be provided for parttime training in night schools and elsewhere which would afford people the opportunity of doing regular work during the daytime. It is not only the Vancouver school board that has said this. Around the middle of July, I received a letter from the Vancouver Board of Trade which reads in part as follows:
The magnitude of the part time programmes needed in an urban area such as Vancouver, makes it quite unrealistic to attempt to provide direct federal support to individuals in such programmes.
They go on to point out that what we need to do is to support programs in night schools. They write:
We hold the very strong opinion that the government of Canada should not only support people directly, as it does under the "Adult Occupational Training Act" but should provide support also for programmes as was the case under the "Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act".
We are talking about saving money and providing incentives. As is pointed out by the Vancouver Board of School Trustees, greater incentive would be provided if it were possible to train these people who are working part-time than simply to say "we will support only full-time trainees". I think that here they have raised an excellent point.
There is another point which I should like to make and which we all discussed at this particular meeting held in Vancouver. I believe it has been touched on earlier today by previous speakers. Recently under the
September 25, 1967	COMMONS
manpower, division full-time classes in language instruction, for immigrants were organized in Vancouver, but for some reason or other the Vancouver board of education was directed to phase out these classes and was advised that manpower would not support a program of instruction in language that is, in English or French, for immigrants. I do not think there is much sense in bringing in immigrants to be upgraded in skills if we are going to phase out programs in the languages of this country which they need to use in obtaining jobs here. I know there are many people who immediately run into difficulties in obtaining jobs if they do not speak English or French. The Vancouver Board of School Trustees wants to know why in heaven's name they were advised to phase out these training classes in languages for immigrants. It does not seem to make sense.
These are some of the things to which I should like to have an answer from the minister because I know these people have been corresponding with the department and I know they are not dull of understanding. I know that when they say they do not know what is going on, they want to know; and when they ask for a definite answer, they mean business. I know the minister is reasonable and I hope he can give us a clear answer to these policies which do not sound too sensible.
I want to conclude my remarks on the subject of manpower training by saying that we all realize this is a tremendously difficult job but we hope that the new bill will provide for a close liaison not only with the local and regional people and the federal government but also, where possible, with the provincial government. There may be provinces in this country which do not want to co-operate in this program with Ottawa but ours is not one of them. In cases where the provinces wish to co-operate, I think we should work with the provincial people wherever it is possible to do so because every single thing we can do to upgrade and improve the skills not only of native bom Canadians but also of recent immigrants should be done.
Now, I wish to say one word regarding the immigration side of this matter. Most of what I wish to say I will keep for the time when we will discuss the bill. I do hope that the new regulations to be promulgated on October 1 will take account of the fact that Canada owes something in the way of assistance to people who are struggling desperately in other countries to survive economically.
DEBATES	2457
Manpower and Immigration Council I have in mind a young fellow from India whom I have tried very hard for nearly two years to bring into Canada. He has nobody in India but his old father who grows hardly enough vegetables on his poor little plot to feed himself. This lad has not been able to have much schooling because he has had to do hard, menial work. He has an uncle in Vancouver who has lived in British Columbia for many years and who is a naturalized Canadian citizen, as is his wife and his wife's sister. They are all here. This man is in a position to receive his young nephew, to send him to school here and to give him security until he obtains the kind of job which will be good for this country and good for this boy. I cannot for the life of me see why, in view of the misery, poverty and insecurity which exist in India, a bright boy who has had no opportunities over there and who has an uncle who is financially able and more than willing emotionally to bring the lad here, cannot be brought here. I do hope the new regulations will permit this to be done, not only on compassionate grounds but on the basis of the fact that in the long run this will help Canada and will help us to do our share internationally in trying to help others.
We welcome the bill but we also hope it will result, not in a piece of machinery ungeared to reality but in one that will make for close meshing among our different levels of government. I know all levels of government would be far happier if they could co-operate in this big job of manpower training.


Mr. Kindt:: Mr. Chairman, I have listened attentively to everyone who has spoken on this resolution and all of them have been asking the minister questions. I can understand the necessity for these questions because the wording of this resolution is insufficiently detailed. The ordinary member does not know whether in voting for the principle of the resolution he is buying a pig in the poke or is doing the right thing. I hope the minister will give to the house a detailed explanation in answer to the questions which have been raised as well as the ones which I propose to raise myself. I should like to know what functions will be assigned to the new manpower and immigration council. Is it to be a policy-making body? Is it going to advise the minister on matters which he should either know himself or which should be decided by those officials immediately around him? Or is the council to have a purely advisory capacity? If that is the case,

September 25, 19G7
C.N.R. Securities
would the minister tell us why great cost has been incurred to set up an organization to make decisions of an advisory nature which those officials around him should make? These are matters which I think should be clarified before we vote on this particular resolution.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I should like to ask whether the council is to be given administrative duties. Are certain functions to be set down in law that the council must carry out? I should also like to know whether this body is to deal with matters such as the training of Indians to enable them to take their proper place in society. What funds are going to be made available to enable Indians to take this type of training. Is there any program sponsored by his department for the training of Indians? I have 8,000 Indians in my riding and they are asking me these questions. So far as I know very few, if any, of them have been offered any opportunity to take a training course in these new technical schools which have been set up across the country, and I think this is a shame.
I think that these people must be brought into industry by training them in these schools. It is the duty of the government to open up their program to the Indians, to familiarize them with it, in fact to take them by the hand and lead them if necessary so they are able to find new trades, to learn carpentry and other skills which would be of value to them.
I should also like to ask the minister whether this particular council will deal with such matters as bringing in foreign agricultural labour. I remember a couple of years ago some people were brought to Canada from Jamaica, and it was stated at the time that they would return to Jamaica. I am wondering whether any more have been brought to this country during the past year or whether the technological improvements in tomato picking in the form of the new machines being employed in California, if introduced into Canada, would dispense with the need for bringing in this type of labour.
Who is going to advise the minister on these matters, Mr. Chairman? Would it be this council or is the minister going to make up his own mind? He will have to make up his own mind eventually. I should like some answers to these questions before we vote on this resolution.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall I report the
resolution?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
And Mr. Speaker having resumed the chair:


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether we are going to have any answers to the points I raised before we vote on this resolution? I think the minister is ready to reply if the chair would give him the opportunity.


Jean Marchand: I will give a reply on second reading.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Marchand thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-150, to establish a Canada manpower and immigration council.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize the Canadian National Railway Company to make capital expenditures and to supply the financial requirements of affiliated companies in amounts not exceeding, in the calendar year 1967, the amount of $264,800,000, and to make, in the calendar year 1968 prior to the 1st day of July, 1968, certain capital expenditures, by way of investing in the securities of Air Canada, not exceeding $135,000,000 and to make certain other capital expenditures and enter into certain contracts, prior to the 1st day of July, 1968, for the acquisition of equipment, additions and conversions not exceeding $94,000,000; to provide for the financial requirements of Air Canada in an amount not exceeding $122,000,000, either by means of loans from Her Majesty to the national company or by means of issues of securities of the national company, authorized and guaranteed as to interest and principal by Her Majesty, the cash proceeds by either method to be used only for the financial requirements of Air Canada, the capital needs of the national company itself being met entirely through the sale of preferred stock to Her Majesty and from reserves from depreciation and debt discount; to authorize Her Majesty to continue to purchase until December 31st,	1968, Canadian
National Company 4 per cnt preferred stock in an annual amount not excedding 3 per cent of the gross revenues of the company; to extend until December 31, 1968, the moratorium on interest on the loan of $100,000,000 to the company authorized by the National Railways Capital Revision Act of
September 25, 1967

1952; to authorize Her Majesty to make loans to the Canadian National Railway Company and Air Canada to meet deficiencies in operating reserves to June 30, 1968, any such loans to be repaid from revenues of the railway company and Air Canada or, if revenues prove insufficient, by subsequent deficit appropriation by parliament.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.


Mr. Walker:: Mr. Chairman, this resolution is that which usually precedes the introduction of the Canadian National Railways financing and guarantee bill. It is basically the same as in previous years, with the exception of the 1963 act which covered 1962 and 1963 and the 1966 act which covered 1965 and 1966.
The bill is intended to accomplish six main purposes, each of which is similar in form to those of preceding acts.
First, it is to authorize capital expenditures by the Canadian National Railways not exceeding $264,800,000 during the 1967 calendar year, including $67 million for investment in Air Canada. This level of expenditures compares to $192 million authorized previously for 1966 in which there was no amount included for investment in Air Canada. The bill also contains technical provisions authorizing Canadian National Railways to make expenditures not exceeding $135 million between January 1 and July 1, 1968 for obligations incurred prior to 1968, including $55 million for investment in Air Canada, and to enter into contracts before July 1, 1968 for capital expenditures not exceeding $94 million for which payment will not come due until after 1967.
Second, the bill provides for the continued purchase by the Minister of Finance of Canadian National Railway 4 per cent preferred stock through to the end of the calendar year 1968. This continues the practice of previous financing and guarantee acts; the 1965-66 financing and guarantee act extended to December 31, 1967 the expiry date of the authority granted by the Canadian National Railways Capital Revision Act 1952 for the purchase of such stock equivalent to 3 per cent of the company's gross revenue.
Third, and for the same reasons, the bill also will extend until the end of 1968 the moratorium on interest on the government loan of $100 million to the railway company authorized by the Capital Revision Act, 1952.
Fourth, the bill will provide for the interim financing requrements of Air Canada during 27053-1561
C.N.R. Securities
the first six months of the calendar year 1968 in an amount not exceeding $55 million.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Fifth, as in previous years the bill-if the house adopts the resolution and it becomes one-will provide authority for the government to make temporary loans to the Canadian National Railways and Air Canada to meet deficiencies in operating revenues up to June 30, 1968. Any such loan is repaid later from revenues of the C.N.R. and Air Canada or, if these prove insufficient, the loans are written off through parliamentary appropriation.
Sixth, the bill would provide for the appointment of the firm of Touche, Ross, Bailey and Smart of the cities of Toronto and Montreal, chartered accountants, as auditors of the C.N.R. for the calendar year 1968.
The nature of the provisions of the bill differs from those of earlier years in only one respect. The present bill makes no provision for enlargement of the C.N.R.'s authority to refund, which at present stands at $680 million and is considered adequate for the period covered by the bill.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, this resolution is routine. As the hon. parliamentary secretary said, there is little change, on the surface, from other years. I note that his explanatory remarks are almost the same as those of other occasions. I do not plan to dwell too long on anything this evening.
We have had considerable discussion in the last few years about the railways, Air Canada and the like. We have gone into the matter of the financing of the Canadian National and Air Canada extensively in the house and in committee. In this connection, may I say this evening that we are sorry that an old face, in the person of the former minister of transport, is not with us. It is difficult to feel sorry for him, when we know that he is reposing somewhere up there with a job that carries a salary of $40,000 a year.


An hon. Member:: Which he created
himself.


Richard Albert Bell: Is the hon. member lonely?


Thomas Miller Bell: Up to a
point; as was alluded to this afternoon in the remarks about the cabinet changes, the former minister of transport, with his broad interest in history, created history himself by

September 25, 1967
C.N.R. Securities
opening up this job and then accepting it. It is amusing to remember that when he left his position in the house he gave the impression that: "The changes and reforms in the Department of Transport and in the railways are now complete; my job is done; there is nothing left for me to do and so I shall go to greener fields."
I asked the former minister of national defence what he thought he would do, and he said: "I shall probably be a candidate at the next Liberal convention. I want a real challenge. I want a department that is all messed up, and where there is something for me to do."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Miller Bell: There is also the story that the former minister of national defence, having wiped out the navy-and some of us said something about this in a previous debate-learned that there were more ships in the Department of Transport, and so he decided that he had better get over to that department.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Miller Bell: Whether he unifies or disintegrates the department remains to be seen.


Mr. Byrne:: Does the hon. member want a skipper?


Thomas Miller Bell: We shall watch the changes which take place. Quite apart from personalities, though, one thing does worry me. A very active partisan politician, for whom many in the house have high respect, has been made head of a tribunal which is of a semijudicial nature. This tribunal will deal, day by day, with political problems in transportation throughout this country. I do not agree with this sort of appointment as a matter of principle, and I wish to register my objection this evening.
I do not intend to make extensive remarks about the financing of the Canadian National and Air Canada, as contained in this resolution. For many years we have heard that the Canadian National ought to be recapitalized. Attention to this matter has been paid in committee, but nothing concrete as yet has been forthcoming.
For some time I have felt that it would be proper for the Canadian National and Air Canada to make public their balance sheets so that a comparison can be made between

them and their competitors. Canadian National officials have always said that they want full control of their own financial structure. My interest in the Canadian National and its recapitalization has changed. I know that there are two aspects that must be considered. First, there are the unprofitable services that the Canadian National is called on to perform and, second, there is the old debt structure that was brought into being by the unprofitable railway lines and by the depreciation methods that were used in the 1940's. Though not all unprofitable services have been eliminated, they will be looked after by Bill C-231 when it becomes law in this country. The remaining problem has to do with the old debt structure. Whether it is proper for the Canadian National to wipe it out, at some expense to the Canadian taxpayer so that that railway can give a different impression vis-a-vis the Canadian Pacific, I do not know.
The Canadian National has reduced its deficit by $9 million during this past full year. The deficit is only-and I say "only" advisedly-$24 million. It is predicted that by 1970 a profit will be shown. I do not know whether it is better to show a profit every year or for a slight deficit to hang over the heads of the officials, to stir them to greater economies and greater efficiency.


An hon. Member:: And greater effort.


Thomas Miller Bell: Yes, and greater effort. The other matter I shall deal with is Air Canada. In this resolution we are being asked for a greater amount than ever before, if my information is correct, to meet the financial requirements of Air Canada. These requirements are brought about by the great expense of the new Boeings, Douglases, and supersonic transports. Personally, I feel that there should be some accounting by Air Canada officials before a committee. I do not suggest that Air Canada be made a public corporation. It ought to be owned by the government. It might be appropriate to set up a separate bookkeeping system so that we might get a truer, up-to-date picture than we now have and so that we might compare it with Canadian Pacific Airlines now that the two air lines are in competition.
We must look back to the days of the late C. D. Howe for the explanation of why Air Canada was tied to the Canadian National. The reasons were valid then.
If an investigation were conducted by some* one in the department, and by accountants or
September 25, 1967

those who have the particular knowledge to set up a full balance sheet for Air Canada, I think it might be well worth while. The various amounts under various headings ought to be set out. According to officials, the net debt fund ratio is not correctly shown in our figures. The figures we have do not give a proper picture of this air line.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I think it has been well run, and I speak as one who has served on the committee, off and on, for many years. However, we do not really know the profit and loss situation of this company. That is the word of caution I have to offer. Financing of the C.N.R. does not now loom as large in my mind, since the deficit has been reduced, as does the Air Canada situation.
We shall be looking forward to the bill. I do not think there is any point in expressing thoughts on this general financial resolution in greater detail tonight, except to point out that we shall have to demand from the new minister the same assurances as were given us during the passage of the railway bill, and on various other occasions in the course of debates in this chamber. The former minister of transport promised us that a new bill would be brought in to deal with maritime transportation; we were asked for support on the basis of a promise that something would be done immediately to meet these problems.
We are still waiting. We now have a new minister, and the promise which was made to us has gone out of the window. Members who come from the west were given certain promises with respect to railway passenger services and the discontinuance of certain lines. Where do we stand now with regard to statements solemnly made in this house by the former minister?
This change of office has come about, in my opinion, at a very bad time not only from the standpoint of national defence but also from the standpoint of transport arrangements. We want to know where we stand with regard to the various promises the former minister made. In Newfoundland, the railway indicated it was their intention to do away with passenger service. How does the former minister stand with regard to this? Tonight he is attending a testimonial dinner and he has taken the new minister with him. I wonder who is going to be telling whom to do what about transport?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, there is one particular matter about which I should like
C.N.R. Securities
to say a few words while this resolution is before us. If it is possible and appropriate for the parliament of Canada to provide sums of money for the C.N.R., as indicated in this resolution, it seems to me it is also proper and appropriate for us to make certain suggestions to the C.N.R. I think the time has come for the C.N.R. to be told that it has to improve the pension position of its retired employees.
I say frankly that I have refrained for some months from making pleas of this kind on the floor of the House of Commons because I thought it would be wise for us to concentrate our efforts on the case of retired federal civil servants. I made it clear, however, that as soon as we had won that battle I would be insisting that something similar be done for retired employees of the C.N.R. Hon. members who were here this afternoon when the hon. member for Carleton asked his question on the orders of the day will realize how I feel about this situation. It was made clear to us this afternoon that all the promises of last July that immediate attention would be given to the difficulties faced by retired civil servants were not worth the time it took to utter them in this house. Therefore, if I continue to wait until the case of the retired civil servants has been taken care of before I mention again the case of retired C.N.R. employees, many of those employees, like many civil servants, will have gone where they do not need pensions of the kind the people of Canada could provide.
I submit that the position of retired employees of the C.N.R. is analogous in every respect to that of retired civil servants. I submit that the case is becoming clearer and clearer as the months and the years go by that it is not good enough for us to expect people to spend all their years of retirement on the amount of pension they were awarded at the time they retired. We accepted the principle that there should be escalation of pensions after they had been put into pay when we passed the Canada Pension Plan and we have written it into the Old Age Security Act. I submit there are at least these two groups about which the government and the parliament of Canada could do something-the retired civil servants and the retired employees of the C.N.R.
Reference has been made a number of times today to the new Minister of Transport. I hope that on this score he will do a lot better than the previous minister. Despite all the plaudits which can be given to Jack

September 25, 1967
C.N.R. Securities
Pickersgill with respect to his role as minister of transport, on this issue he has been a complete flop. All he ever did was send letters or copies of Hansard to the president of the C.N.R.; there was no evidence of any pressure, any urging, no matter how hard we pressed the case in parliament.
I hope the new Minister of Transport is a little more aware of the seriousness of this problem and of the need for something to be done about it, especially in view of the fact that it seems appropriate for us to provide the C.N.R. with the sums of money mentioned in the resolution tonight. Like the hon. member for Saint John-Albert, I do not think it is necessary at this time to enter upon a lengthy debate in connection with transportation matters in view of the time we have spent on this whole subject during the last couple of years. Nevertheless, I do urge that the new minister give early consideration to this question. Better still, he should act on it with the least possible delay.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I wish to speak briefly on one particular point in connection with this resolution. A similar bill was brought before the house during the last session; I believe the parliamentary secretary mentioned tonight that it dealt with expenditures for both 1965 and 1966. Upon examination of that bill it was apparent that more than three-quarters of the expenditure for which parliamentary approval was sought had already been made. Indeed, some of this money had been spent over a year before the bill was passed and most of the rest had been spent long before the measure was introduced.
Looking at this resolution it would seem that the first amount mentioned, namely the $264,800,000 expenditure for the current year 1967, must also have been spent already since the calendar year is now three parts over.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
The point I particularly wish to make is that this method of getting legislative authority for expenditure of the Canadian taxpayers' money after that money has actually been spent is contrary to our whole theory and practice of government financing. The ordinary practice which has to be followed by every department is that the minister responsible presents his estimates, they are approved by the house and the money is spent on the basis of the estimates. If expenditures go over the amount which has been approved by the house, then those expenditures cannot be made.
This method of financing the C.N.R. and Air Canada is not consistent with the general practice which is followed and which should be followed. When the bill was up for discussion last session we had a considerable amount of argument over this point but no satisfactory explanation of this method of doing business was given. On this occasion, I would hope that on second reading the minister, or the parliamentary secretary if it is he who is piloting the bill, will be prepared to give a reasonable explanation for the continuation of this particular practice.


Joseph Phillip O'Keefe: Mr. Chairman, as a representative of the province that brought not only Labrador to this Canada of ours but also a railway, I think the only province that did such a thing, may I register the strongest possible exception to the C.N.R. plan to abolish passenger services in Newfoundland and substitute bus services for them. We are told that a bus service would be better for us. We are told that train passenger service is uneconomic. May I ask where in Canada is train passenger service economic?
I asked Mr. MacMillan in the transport committee if any thought had been given to upgrading the passenger service in my province. I remember him saying that thought had been given to this. Then I asked him had any action been taken and he said no. Maybe at a later date I will have an opportunity to talk about this at greater length, but at the moment I wish to register the strongest objection to the C.N.R. abandoning passenger train service in my province, particularly during centennial year.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. MacEachen thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-151, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways System for the period from the 1st day of January, 1967 to the 30th day of June, 1968, and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

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


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Order; house again in committee of supply, vote 1 of
the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs. This item will be found at page 572 of the bluebook, with the details at page 574.

September 25, 1967	COMMONS



DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, $5,702,200.
Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Chairman, as is the custom these estimates have been carefully examined by the standing committee on veterans affairs and therefore my remarks will be very brief.
I want to deal with only two items because of the widespread interest shown in them by veterans across Canada and by members of the house.
The Woods committee report will apparently be in my hands within a day or two, although not translated. It will be some weeks before the translation is completed. However, I hope to make arrangements with the chairman of the committee to enable the department and the Canadian Pension Commission to begin considering the report without waiting for its translation.
The second item is the study on pension rates which is not yet completed but which I am informed will be completed before very long.
As to the interim rates that I talked about last fall, I can only refer back to the question put by the hon. member for Kootenay West which I answered this afternoon. This is the main burden of my remarks this evening on these estimates. As I say, they have been carefully considered. Of course, I am available to answer any questions that arise out of consideration of them.


Mr. MacRae:: As the minister has said, Mr. Chairman, the estimates of this department have been considered by the standing committee. During the committee hearings the chairman of the Pension Commission, the chairman of the War Veterans Allowance Board and all the officials were most co-operative and helpful. I feel a good job was done in that committee, and I wish to commend the chairman for his fairness in all matters.
It was my intention on orders of the day today to read a telegram for the benefit of the minister, a telegram from the Nova Scotia Command of the Royal Canadian Legion. However, as mentioned by the minister, the hon. member for Kootenay West beat me to the punch on this question and I decided to defer reading the telegram until these estimates were being considered. It is of such importance and is so pertinent that I would like to put it on the record now. I do not know whether the minister received a copy
DEBATES	2463
Supply-Veteran's Affairs of it, but it will now be on the record for his perusal. It reads as follows:
The officers and members of Nova Scotia Command of the Royal Canadian Legion do hereby protest the long delay by the present federal government in not giving veterans a pension commensurate with toady's cost of living. We also protest the delay in increased pensions to widows and dependents and do demand immediate action to rectify this situation at the present session of parliament. Your participation and co-operation ip urgently solicited in this matter.
The telegram is signed by J. V. Brown, who is the president of the Nova Scotia Command, and by W. L. Huestis, provincial secretary. I think it speaks for itself.
I should also like to refer to the lead editorial in the last issue of the Legionary, which is the official organ of the Royal Canadian Legion. We members of parliament receive much material that we do not have time to read, but I feel every member of the house should read this editorial. It is well written and brings to the fore the plight of those men and women who, in time of war, offered their services to their country, so many of whom suffered grievously and so many of whom did not return.
As it has been in the past, the Royal Canadian Legion is headed by an excellent president, Ron MacBeath, of Moncton. He is giving the organization strong leadership and is not backward in pressing its just claims.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
On August 21 Mr. MacBeath sent a letter to the Prime Minister. I should like to place that letter on the record of the House of Commons. I feel it is that important. The letter reads:
We of the Royal Canadian Legion were greatly disturbed to find in the reports of your press conference on Tuesday, August 15, no mention whatsoever of action by the government to place war pension rates on an equitable basic formula or to at least grant interim increases immediately.
On four occasions the Legion has set out, in presentations to the government, why we think such pension increases are urgently needed and fully justified. We feel that war pensions should be equated to certain salaries in the government services, as they were in 1920. The interim increase of last September was totally inadequate because the comparable civil servant now receives $1,392 a year more than the disabled pensioner.
Recent Legion provincial command conventions have expressed bitter disappointment at the long delay in establishing an adequate pension rate.
On March 13, 1967, in response to a question concerning the extension of the 15% increase to dependents of disability pensioners, the Minister of Veterans Affairs said:
"First, the delay in adjusting the pensions of veterans is not because of the Woods Report; it is awaiting the report of another nature from
September 25, 1967

Supply-Veteran's Affairs another group in my department which is dealing specifically with pension rates.
Of course the minister has dealt with this in his earlier remarks. The letter and the statement by the minister continue:
I can assure the hon. member and the house that if the report does not come to hand in the fairly near future we shall perhaps have to consider making some adjustment in pension rates in the interim period. I am hoping the report will be to hand in time for this to be avoided, and for an adjustment to be made consistent with some logical basis."
Over five months have passed since the minister's statement, yet the government remains silent.
Mr. MacBeath's letter goes on:
It is highly regrettable that this seemingly insensitive attitude of the federal government does not enable the war disabled and the dependents of those who died to share fully in the glories of our centennial year.
The Royal Canadian Legion is being forced to the conclusion that the men whose sacrifices in war made our centennial possible have been forgotten. We would appreciate tangible evidence that this is not so.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that I hope the Prime Minister, the members of the government and especially the Minister of Veterans Affairs will take this letter of Mr. MacBeath's to heart, as well as the protests of the Royal Canadian Legion and the protests of the hundreds of thousands of veterans, so that something will be done for this very special class of citizen very very soon.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, under the circumstances I do not intend to take up too much of the time of the house. First of all, I must say I am sure all members of the house, particularly the members of the standing committee on veterans affairs, are interested to hear that the Woods Report is in the minister's hands. I trust that this report soon will be referred to the standing committee so that its contents can be considered as well as representations from the various organizations.
I must say that the minister's reply with regard to the possibility of an increase in pensions was disappointing. I am sure it will be disappointing to the members of the Royal Canadian Legion and other veterans' organizations just as it is to the members of this house and the members of the standing committee on veterans affairs who, I am very pleased to say, throughout the years have treated this question on a non-partisan basis. We have met together during the committee
[Mr. MacRae.l
sessions and have discussed various questions related to pension rates, war veterans allowances, the administration of the Veterans Land Act, and so on, in a completely nonpartisan manner. I believe this is indicated by the report the committee made to the house earlier this year when dealing with the question of the complaints of the Hong Kong veterans. I think that, generally speaking, the members of the committee were pleased with the efficient manner in which the officials of the Canadian Pension Commission dealt with this subject by reviewing all these cases.
I must say, however, that the minister's statement tonight was a great disappointment to many of us. I am sure it was a disappointment even to the chairman of the standing committee on veterans affairs in view of his strong plea before the house prior to the adjournment for an increase in these pension and war veterans allowance rates. The hon. member who just spoke quoted from an editorial in the Canadian Legionary of September. I will not repeat what he had to say. I do wish, however, to quote the remainder of that editorial which is entitled, "How Much Longer?":
To some these may seem strong words. They are, and justifiably so. If the Prime Minister and the Minister of Veterans Affairs will re-read the latter's statements in Hansard since the wholly inadequate and purely "interim" 15 per cent increase last November, they must understand why the Legion is frustrated, apprehensive and deeply disappointed.
There have been too many vague explanations and half-promises, and it is high time that action followed words. Obviously, the "logical basis" mentioned by Mr. Teillet has not yet been found and, as the "fairly near future" to which he referred has long since passed, the least the government can do during the coming session is to implement the D.V.A. minister's assurance that a further "interim" increase will be granted.
The fact that Prime Minister Pearson made no mention at his press conference of any such legislation being contemplated for the fall session is disturbing in the extreme. How much longer must our war disabled wait?
I am sure those sentiments have the support of a good majority of the members of this house regardless of party. I am sure the disappointment will be reflected in the minds of many veterans and their dependents across Canada at this time and all those in Canada who are interested in seeing that the veterans receive just treatment. I am sure all of us look forward to a later statement on this very important issue which we trust the minister will make in the very near future.
During my brief remarks I should like to make a reference to the visit by the members
September 25, 1967

of the standing committee on veterans affairs to Europe between June 26 and July 17 of 1966. This was the first time a standing committee on veterans affairs from Canada visited Europe for the purposes mentioned. In addition to visiting all the memorials, laying wreaths at these memorials and visiting the various battle fields, the members of the committee had some very interesting and important visits. In France we were paid a visit by the officials of the World Veterans Federation and heard a brief on the objectives and work of this organization. Later, we heard a brief presented by the regional administrator of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission at the headquarters of that organization in Paris. At this time we were informed of the work of the commission, some of which is done under difficult circumstances, and the improvements they intend to make in the various cemeteries and particularly around the war memorial at Vimy. Then, naturally, we attended the Canadian, Commonwealth and allied ceremonies marking the 50th Anniversary of the Battle of the Somme. We also had the opportunity to visit and discuss matters with the officials of the government of Italy, the government of France, and also with representatives of the appropriate government departments of Great Britain.
During these visits we were well informed of the practices and procedures followed by these other organizations. This information will be very helpful in the drafting of legislation in the days ahead which will affect the veterans and their dependents. In Holland, we had an opportunity to hear the representations of certain Canadian veterans who are resident there. The same thing happened in France and Italy. In London we heard from representatives of Canadian veterans in Great Britain. We visited the British Commonwealth ex-Services League Convention and had a briefing on their work throughout the world. We visited the headquarters of the British Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance for a briefing on the British war pensions system and allowances.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
In view of the money Canada has contributed, which I understand is about $500,000 a year-this is our quota to the British Commonwealth War Graves Commission-I am quite sure that our visit was welcomed by the commission, by the governments from which we heard representations and by the Canadian veterans in these various countries.

Supply-Veteran's Affairs I am sure the visits were well worth while and will be of value to the members of this house and the standing committee on veterans affairs when dealing with veterans' legislation in the years ahead.
I trust that in the near future the standing committee on veterans affairs will meet and will have the opportunity to listen to representations from the Royal Canadian Legion, other veterans organizations and that gallant little body, the War Pension Widows Association, which has appeared before the committee throughout the years. I hope that the result of our listening to their representations and the mellowing of the government's heart-I know the minister's heart is in the right place-will be that in the near future we will have amendments to the Canada Pension Act and the War Veterans' Allowance Act which will give justice to our veterans in so far as their pensions and allowances are concerned.


Mr. Bigg:: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to know that the Woods report is being studied in detail. It was a most excellent report. I have a suggestion to make which I think will help the minister and satisfy everybody concerned.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I might interrupt the hon. gentleman at this moment just to clarify a point. If I understood correctly, I believe the hon. member for Kootenay West said that I had the report on hand. I am expecting it momentarily; I do not yet have it on hand. I think that should be clearly understood. I apologize to the hon. member for interrupting him.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member mind if I apologized to the minister? I misheard the minister. It was quite unintentional on my part.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I know that the minister has the main body of the Woods report. At least, that is my understanding. Is that correct?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Yes, the evidence.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: The Woods report may have been delayed, but I am more concerned about the details of the program and the kind of justice we give to our veterans. I have a suggestion which I think may help the minister. I suggest that we make the payments to the veterans retroactive and that they be reasonable in accordance with what seems to be reasonable in other areas of our Canadian life. I suggest that we raise the veterans
September 25, 1967

Supply-Veteran's Affairs pension by 30 per cent and make it retroactive to last November, when we approved the increases in principle. Our veterans have suffered distress over the past few years. There has been a unanimous recommendation from the committee and all corners of the house, and we can undo some of the injustice done to these men by making the payments retroactive to last November. I am quite sure this would meet with the approval of the legion, the veterans themselves and all members of this house.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Chairman, I understand there is a disposition to endeavour to conclude this evening the discussion on the estimates of this department. Therefore my remarks will be exceptionally brief. Perhaps my understanding of the situation is incorrect, but that it what I was led to believe.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is quite incorrect.


Mr.   Palierson@: We do not have any representative on the standing committee on veterans affairs, but when I had the opportunity of serving on that committee I discovered that partisan considerations had no place whatsoever in the work and activities of the committee. Therefore, I do not have any reason to believe tonight that any matter pertinent to the welfare of the veterans has been overlooked.
However, Mr. Chairman, there are several observations I should like to make in connection with the two matters the minister raised this evening. First of all, I would refer to the Woods commission report and then to the interim increases. All members of the house realize that these matters have been raised on many occasions in the past. Members from all parties, and this includes our party, have asked the minister questions with respect to the date on which he expected the Woods commission report to be tabled.
In spite of all the questions asked we have been unable to obtain a satisfactory answer. I suppose this was because the minister did not know. I believe it is unfortunate that the commission report has been delayed for this long. However, we all recognize the fact that there are many problems involved in this question and perhaps it is better that the commission take a little longer and be sure of its ground before tabling the report.
In the meantime, the veterans have been wondering just what has been going on and what they can hope for when the report of the commission is tabled. We are happy

tonight to learn the minister expects to receive the report momentarily.
The other matter relates to interim increases. On several occasions the minister assured us that should the report of this commission be long delayed, further interim increases would be considered. During the summer recess I communicated with the minister, reminded him of the fact that the commission report had been long delayed and asked him to give consideration to the fulfilment of his commitment that consideration would be given to further interim increases. I was once again assured that this matter was under consideration. We have become used to this type of reply from many departments, but at least we are glad the matter is still under consideration and has not been forgotten.
The veterans are greatly disturbed about this delay. Reference has been made tonight to the attitude taken by the veterans organizations. The fact that the president of the Canadian Legion saw fit to write such a letter to the Prime Minister is indicative of the fact they are very disturbed about the whole situation. Therefore, I believe that in fairness to the veterans and in recognition of the promise the minister has made, further interim increases should be made without delay. Only this will prove to the veterans that the Department of Veterans Affairs, the minister and the government are concerned about the plight of the veterans.
There is just one other matter that I should like to mention. It concerns the effect on the pension levels of various other benefits that the veterans may receive. I refer to the income supplement payment and to compensation that may come from workmen's compensation boards, and so on.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
It is my understanding that these benefits which accrue to the veterans in recognition of their services and sacrifices are something that the veterans have a right to expect. They were promised that these would be recognized. I do not believe that any other benefit, such as income supplement, compensation or anything else, should interfere in any way with the levels of benefit that the veterans are receiving under the pension rates. These are the matters which I wish to call to the attention of the minister at this time.


Maurice Rinfret: It being ten o'clock shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?
September 25, 1967


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Chairman, I understood the house may be disposed to deal with these estimates tonight and I wonder if we might consider that idea. This was my understanding. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I thought if the house were disposed to sit a little longer so as to deal with these estimates it would help the work of the house. Of course, I leave it up to the house.


Maurice Rinfret: Does the house wish to give unanimous consent to sitting longer?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, no one has any idea how many hon. members may wish to speak. I notice there are two or three members rising on the government side. I think we have done a good day's work today and possibly we should call it ten o'clock at this time.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the government house leader what are the government's intentions concerning business of the house for tomorrow, and possibly Wednesday so that we can plan our work.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Tomorrow we will take second reading and committee stage of the bills which resulted from the passage of the resolution on the C.N.R. financing and manpower advisory boards. We will take the manpower and immigration advisory boards bill first and the C.N.R. financing bill second. If we complete these tomorrow at any stage, we will continue with the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs. If we complete that, we will take the Department of the Registrar General. I hope that on Wednesday we will begin with one of the resolutions that will be available then. There are three or four resolutions that will be available, one dealing with the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act, another with the Post Office Act, especially rates, and another with the establishment of the department of corporate and consumer affairs. I hope that the rest of the week will be filled with the consideration of these resolutions.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.
[Stage Direction]
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion WATER RESOURCES-OTTAWA RIVER-REQUEST FOR POLLUTION CONTROL
Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, a few days before we adjourned for the summer recess I attempted on orders of the day to bring to the attention of the Minister of Public Works, who is responsible for affairs in the national capital area, the condition of the Ottawa river with regard to water pollution. Mr. Speaker ruled at that time that the question was not one which was appropriate for discussion on orders of the day and this is the first opportunity I have had to raise the matter again.
However, I should say that a few days after I tried to raise the question in the house on orders of the day I said a few words on a local radio station on this same issue, the pollution of the Ottawa river. Within three days I had received more than 360 letters from people in this area urging that some action be taken by any level of government to end the very serious pollution which existed then, and which I believe still exists, in the national capital area. All of the letters urged that it was needful from the point of view of health and welfare and the prestige of our national capital for some real and immediate action to be taken by a senior level of government.
Since that time, Mr. Speaker, I understand that the federal government has acted to encourage the Quebec and Ontario governments to study this very serious local situation of water pollution in the Ottawa river. I also understand that in some other areas of our country the federal government has undertaken to spend large sums of money to help the authorities combat the singular problem of water pollution.
Water pollution and air pollution are, of course, matters far beyond the competence of any little local authority. I think that in this age it is obvious that these problems require very active, major and early action on the part of the more senior level of government in a planned and co-operative way with the local authorities.
In raising this question again tonight I have in mind the situation in that part of Canada from which I come, the lower mainland of British Columbia, where another major Canadian river flows, the Fraser river. In that area water pollution is also a very serious problem; the Fraser river is becoming almost an open sewer.
I should like to ask two questions tonight. First of all, what is the federal government
September 25, 1967

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion doing in the national capital area of Ottawa and Hull to fight water pollution? Second, what is the federal government doing in the many other areas of Canada where this same general problem exists to ensure that there should be a unified and effective effort made to combat this very serious modern problem?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for New Westminster asked two questions. The first was: What is the federal government doing in the Ottawa area to combat the very serious problem of pollution? It is doing several things. On behalf of the federal government, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Pepin) has offered at the recent meeting of the council of resource ministers, to pay most, and perhaps all, of the cost of a comprehensive study of the problem of pollution in the Ottawa river.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
The federal government has also offered, as it has in many other situations, to help finance the cleaning up of the river through the construction of sewage treatment plants.
For some years now the federal government has put up two thirds of the cost of the construction of sewage treatment plants erected by municipalities. These loans have also included a forgiveness clause whereby 25 per cent of this money was later forgiven or cancelled. This amounts to an appreciable subsidy or reduction on the interest rate on money available for this purpose.
An incentive is also contained in legislation which was passed in 1965. The budget of that year gave an incentive with the rapid writeoff for all new plant and equipment used for the treatment of liquid wastes leaving industrial plants. The municipalities on the Ontario side of the river have taken avantage of these provisions, both in respect of sewage and, to a lesser degree industrial waste.
On the Quebec side there has been less enthusiasm, despite pressure from provincial authorities for this to be done. In any case, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has written to Premier Daniel Johnson in Quebec and to hon. Mr. J. R. Simonett of Ontario offering to put up 100 percent of the cost of the comprehensive over-all study of the problems of control of the Ottawa river.
The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather) also asked what the federal government is doing to deal with similar problem situations elsewhere in Canada. It is


offering to pay for part or all the research involved in assessing problems in numerous areas. It is doing a great deal right here in Ontario. It is helping to build a research institute in Hamilton which will deal with problems on the great lakes. It is also offering to municipalities in other parts of Canada the forgiveness features on loans for cleanup plants for municipalities and rapid write-offs for industrial plant equipment.



TRANSPORT-INQUIRY AS TO PROTECTION AT LEVEL CROSSINGS

Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, it is painful to bring back to memory the anniversary of a tragedy which shook the Canadian people in 1966. I am thinking of the railroad accident that occurred at Dorion. A few days hence, a year will have elapsed since the calamity took place in the province of Quebec.
I should like to renew my request once again, at the risk of being considered a bore by the most indulgent parliamentary secretary to the hon. Minister of Transport, the member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) who has always been kind enough to take into consideration whatever requests I have made to him about the improvements to railway crossings.
I insist again this year, Mr. Speaker, because, with the introduction of turbo-train service, which trains travel at extremely high and dangerous speeds, I must ask to what extent the organization responsible for ensuring public safety at grade crossings has considered a much more imaginative policy than that already being applied. The operation of turbo-trains poses a most serious problem and creates considerable difficulties with regard to the safety of the public.
I should also like to know to what extent innovations will be considered in that field. I should like to know to what extent the suggestions and recommendations made by various organizations concerned more particularly with public safety have been taken into consideration.
In my opinion, the situation that must be faced, due to modern technology which makes available to the public those dangerous devices that are becoming essential, is one which, on the other hand, gives rise to problems requiring a solution.
September 25, 1967

That is why I am appealing once again to the government authorities. I take this opportunity to urge them to show a bit more imagination and to take into account certain recommendations which could be quickly applied, recommendations made by worthwhile organizations, constantly interested in public safety. So, once again, I am asking the new Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) who might take this opportunity, since he is taking on new responsibilities, to give this problem serious consideration and to invent solutions, if he can. I ask him also to make the most of the fact that the former minister, the hon. Mr. Pickersgill, who also showed special interest in these questions when they were brought to his attention, has now become president of the transport commission.
So, Mr. Speaker, counting on the dispatch and the attention of government authorities, I think it is important to show some imagination in the field of public safety in view of the fact that these turbo-trains will surely create problems that will have to be faced.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I think I must take this occasion to compliment my hon. friend for his tenacity in pursuing this question of safety at railway level crossings. He was concerned about this matter long before the tragic accident at Dorion and I am sure that since he raised this subject on April 18 of this year greater attention has been paid by the C.N.R. in its planning for the implementation of the turbo-train between Montreal and Toronto.
A great deal of consideration has been given to this matter by the officials and the research committee of Canadian National Railways throughout the last several years. The hon. member mentioned that the former minister of transport interested himself a great deal in this question and it goes without saying that in his new position as president of the enlarged transport commission he will have this matter foremost in his mind. I am sure that he, together with our new and energetic Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer), will make a combination which will solve this very serious problem.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
The introduction of high speed trains will undoubtedly bring additional hazards. I think I said the last time this question was debated that it is unthinkable that we should leave an unguarded railway crossing, or for that
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion matter an unguarded railway line, when trains will reach such high speeds as 120 or 150 miles an hour. I am sure that what the hon. member is doing will bring this more forcibly to the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), the government and the public at large, and again I want to congratulate him for his earnest attention to this matter.



PUBLIC SERVICE-LEGISLATION TO INCREASE PENSIONS OF RETIRED CIVIL SERVANTS

Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, tonight on the subject of increases in pensions for retired public servants I speak rather crossly but very deliberately. With other hon. members of the house I have tried to achieve my objective by quiet persuasion and firm argument, but unsuccessfully. I confess to you, sir, that my patience with the government's unbelievable procrastination with respect to increases for retired public servants, members of the armed forces and the R.C.M.P. is totally exhausted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Richard Albert Bell: On this subject my mood has shifted from expectation to exasperation, to indignation, and then to anger. This is not a matter of partisanship in any way whatever. On the record are all the efforts of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), of the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Richard), of other hon. members and of myself to compel action on the part of the government.
What I cannot discover, what I am unable to understand is how to get the members of this dawdling, supine, slumbering, pottering ministry to take a simple, ordinary, straightforward decision-yes or no. The answer the government must give to the unanimous, and I stress unanimous, recommendation of the special joint committee on the public service that there be increases in pensions for retired public servants and equivalent persons is just that-either yes or no.
If it is yes, then bring in the legislation; do it now, and we will pass it in 24 hours or less. If it is no, then treat us as common sense persons and stop beating around the bush with silly evasions about "active consideration," "immediate study," "deep concern," "in due course" and other such sophistries and platitudes which relieve no hardship, and believe me, Mr. Speaker, there are many hardships on the part of retired public servants.
September 25, 1967
2470	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
If the government deliberately and consciously intends to flout the will of a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons then let it have the courage to say so. At least, we will respect its honesty. We who believe in responsible and parliamentary government will then be ready to test the mood of this house. Any government which would so disregard the plight of so many of its former employees would, in my opinion, deserve ignominious and dishonourable defeat.
The unanimous recommendations of the joint committee presented to parliament on May 8, 1967, almost five months ago, were direct and simple. I read them as follows:
In the committee's view, the government should do what it reasonably can to protect and preserve, or failing that to restore in some measure the original purchasing power of the contributory pensions which, under the Public Service Superannuation Act, and similar enactments, it has provided for its retired employees.
With this consideration in mind, your committee recommends immediate action by the government, to up-date and extend the provisions of the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act (1959).
Then on the next page I read:
The committee recommends that any plan to improve the position of these retired employees ... should be capable of quick and early implementation in the form of legislation in the next session of this parliament-
That language is familiar to some members who are in the house tonight. In every particular the joint committee said "immediate," but the government's response has been the most fabulous procrastination of all time.
Where is my good friend, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith), whose most important role is that of the hon. member for Ottawa West? Where does he stand on this issue? He is the key to the whole situation. He is the minister of the crown whose views are basically significant.
I invite him to get off his complacent posterior, to stand up for the people he represents, to force an immediate and favourable decision from cabinet. If he cannot get a decision favourable to the public servants, active and retired, of Ottawa West, then he should resign in protest from the cabinet. Deliberately I mix every metaphor to say to the hon. gentleman from Ottawa West that he cannot any longer straddle the fence with an ear to the ground, grinding an axe, until the rust eats into his soul and while his *constituents suffer grave hardships.


Great Britain, France, the United States and most of our own provinces have succeeded in developing formulae to increase pensions of their former employees, without injustice to other citizens. What is wrong with us that we fiddle, faddle, dawdle, and delay? The time for final and decisive action has arrived.
Mr. Speaker, I have spoken in terms indignant and angry. These are the moods I feel. I am sick, tired, and fed up to the teeth with evasion and, beyond anything else, I want action. That is the reason I have spoken with emotion and directness. I say to the hon. gentleman who is to reply tonight, do not give us any more of this run-around, this business of active consideration, or all the other types of evasive action. I say to him, come to grips tonight with the issues-tonight, not next January, not next June, not two years from next June, but tonight.


Mr, J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, unlike the previous parliamentary secretary I find myself unable to congratulate the hon. member who has just spoken. I am unable to congratulate him for his intemperate speech.
When the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) earlier today asked this question of the minister and received a straightforward, honest reply to the effect that the government was giving the matter the most serious and diligent attention I was sure that would completely satisfy the house and him. However, we have just heard-I knew what would happen tonight and this was written before I heard the hon. member-that such is not the case in so far as the hon. member is concerned.
I served on the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the public service along with the hon. member for Carleton who made a very valuable contribution to the deliberations of that committee. The members of the committee worked in harmony. We had the same objectives. As I say, I served on that committee with the hon. member and I now tell him something he already knows; no hon. member and no government is more determined and anxious to work out a feasible proposal which can be spelled out in legislation for the benefit of superannuated civil servants than this Liberal government and its supporters.


Richard Albert Bell: Do it.


David James Walker: There is no government that is more determined to work out a feasible,
September 25, 1967

practical and helpful solution to this problem than the present Liberal administration. Surely, it is not necessary for me to remind anyone that this government has guaranteed to Canadians, including civil servants, that they will not receive less than $105 a month. No government has done as much for those in need as has this Liberal administration.
Mr. Speaker, pensions for superannuates are on the cabinet agenda. They have been
DEBATES	2471
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion discussed at length and with active concern. As soon as a decision is made on a suitable formula that is feasible, practical and helpful, it will be announced in the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was the answer we received on July 7.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.32 p.m.

September 25, 1967



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
September 5, 1967 The Rt. Hon. L. B. Pearson, M.P.
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Mike:
Some time ago, I discussed my possible retirement from public life with you and you were good enough to assure me that if I wished to be president of the Canadian Transport Commission when the time came to set it up, you would recommend my appointment.
As you are aware, the work preparatory to setting up the commission is now largely completed and it will be possible to proclaim part one of the National Transportation Act by mid September with the assurance that the commission can then begin to function immediately.
After a good deal of reflection, I have come to the conclusion that, if you are still of the same mind, I would like to become president of the commission. The position is one which I believe I can fill adequately, and which will give me the opportunity of continued public service for several years. While a demanding and responsible position, it would not involve the same pressures as there are upon a minister of the crown. Though my general health seems to be excellent, I have, as you know, found these pressures very great in the past three years.
I believe it would be in the public interest at this time to have a younger man assume the portfolio of transport and, happily, in the government and in the ranks of your supporters in the House of Commons, there are several who could fill that office as well as I can.
One of the main reasons I agreed to leave the public service and enter public life in 1953, was that I was persuaded by Mr. St. Laurent and Mr. Smallwood that I could make some contribution to a smooth transition of Newfoundland from its earlier status to a full integrated Canadian province. Not only has confederation now been almost universally accepted in Newfoundland, but there are happily several men active in public life today who could represent Newfoundland effectively in the cabinet.
My main reluctance, therefore, in leaving public life is that, in doing so, I shall be breaking that close association I have had with you, in opposition and in government, since you became the leader of the Liberal party. While we have not always seen eye to eye on every public question, I have never faltered in my conviction that our party made a happy choice for Canada in 1958. I have been proud to be associated with you and our other colleagues in the government of our country, and in the indispensable work you have done to strengthen and broaden the foundations of a united Canada, which I believe history will recognize as the greatest of your many public achievements.
Despite my reluctance to sever this relationship which has been a happy one for me, I feel that I should accept the opportunity for somewhat less strenuous public service offered by the presidency of the Canadian Transport Commission and, if you agree, ask you to accept my resignation as Minister of Transport as soon as it is convenient for you to have the commission established.
In doing so, I want to express my deep appreciation of your unfailing understanding and support of my efforts in public life as one of your supporters, and my gratitude for your friendship.
Yours ever,
J. W. Pickersgill
September 11, 1967. The Honourable J. W. Pickersgill,
Minister of Transport,
Ottawa.
My dear Jack:
I have already told you with what great regret I received your letter of September 5 indicating your desire to retire from the government and your willingness to accept the presidency of the Canadian Transport Commission, an appointment which I discussed with you some time ago.
While I know that this appointment is a most important and responsible one and will give you a further opportunity for public service, I cannot help but feel sad at the thought that it will mean your departure from the cabinet and from the political life of
September 25, 1967
[Stage Direction]
our country where you have played such an important role for so many years.
I don't suppose there is anybody who is in a better position than I am to appreciate the value of the contribution you have made as a member of the government; to our party when we were in opposition, especially in its parliamentary activities, and to the Canadian public service before that. No one knows better than I do, how much you have given of your great knowledge and outstanding talent; of your energy and your devotion, to the service of this country.
We have been colleagues for more than thirty years in public service and I have valued our close collaboration only less than I have the friendship that has grown up between us as we worked together.
My great regret at your departure, however, is reduced but not removed, by the assurance that our friendship will continue, as well as that close personal association which I value so much.
All the best in the days ahead,
As ever,
L. B. Pearson
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, September 26, 1967