1967-09-26

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Schreyer), to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely:
The critical situation facing Canadian wheat producers in consequence of the catastrophic decline in wheat prices; the absence at the present time of an international wheat agreement to provide an effective floor price; the sale of large quantities of United States wheat at prices considerably below the floor price stipulated in the proposed sixth international wheat agreement; the decline in orders for Canadian wheat in recent weeks; the increasing danger that the sixth international wheat agreement may not be ratified by reason of the government's failure to reach an agreement with Washington to maintain the price differential between Canadian and United States wheat until such time as a new agreement comes into force.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam kindly address the Chair and the house on the question of urgency of debate?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the fact that this question is of utmost urgency is best exemplified by the statement of Mr. Chas. W. Gibbings, president of the Saskatoon wheat pool, who said that the wheat producers of Canada now face a crisis greater than any they have faced in over 20 years. The fact is that we have been lulled into a false sense of security. Since April the price of wheat has dropped by some 22 cents a bushel. The farmers are not protected at the present time under an international wheat agreement. The fifth agreement expired on July 31 of this year; the new agreement, if it is ratified, will not be coming into effect until July 1, 1968. In the meantime the United States has been unloading wheat at prices as much as 8 cents a bushel below the floor price in the proposed new agreement.
In spite of this drop in price, orders for Canadian wheat have been declining. The most serious question of all which this house may have to consider is the distinct possibility that the new agreement, the sixth annual agreement, may not be ratified. The period for ratification is set for October 15 to November 30. With prices below the proposed minimum it will be difficult to persuade importing countries to ratify that agreement; yet if the agreement is not ratified the farmers of this country will be without any protection whatsoever, or without any effective protection.
Since this matter affects the whole agricultural economy, since what is involved can represent a serious decline in farm income and have widespread economic implications for Canada as a whole, I submit, Mr. Speaker, that a discussion ought to be held on this matter immediately.
It was said yesterday that the Minister of Trade and Commerce might make a statement on motions. I submit to Your Honour that a statement on motions merely permits a statement to be made by a member from each party. Such a procedure would not provide the opportunity for full debate. It would not give the minister the opportunity to close the debate, to answer questions and to give the house full information.
I think, therefore, this matter is of such urgent importance, not only to the prairie farmers but to the entire Canadian economy, that the business of the house ought to be adjourned to discuss it forthwith.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, may I say as a member of this party that we support the motion of the leader of the New Democratic party. The house may recall that yesterday the first question on orders of the day was directed by this party to the government benches, and it had to do with this very matter. Had we had a clear answer then the Chair and the house would not have been faced with a motion such as this. I say with the greatest respect to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that he was absent yesterday. Now that he has returned no doubt a statement to the house, on behalf of the government, will be forthcoming.
September 26, 1967

Urgency of Debate on Wheat Prices
I agree with the leader of the New Democratic party about the urgency of debate in regard to this matter. A statement on motions would be totally inadequate. As the leader of the N.D.P. said, we would have statements by a spokesman from each of the parties and that, as you will appreciate Mr. Speaker, would not be a debate. That would be merely responses to a statement.
The Chair will have no trouble in making up its mind about the urgent public importance of this matter. There is no problem there. We know that in the last four or five years grain sales have been higher than at any previous time in the economic history of Canada. I submit that the question Mr. Speaker will have to consider as to urgency of debate is similar to that put to him yesterday, which also dealt with urgency of debate.
May I quote, as others did yesterday from Beauchesne, page 90, paragraph 3 of citation 100:
"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.
This is a most important matter, which affects the economy not only of western Canada but of the whole country. We were led to believe-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member to remind him that we should not at this point discuss the urgency of the matter itself but rather the urgency of debate; why this subject should be debated today rather than, say, a week from now; why we should adjourn the business of the house to discuss this particular topic. This is really the point to which the hon. member should address his contribution at this time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I appreciate your bringing that point to my attention, Mr. Speaker. I was coming to that very point. Until now I have dealt with none of the facts relating to this subject except as they illustrate the urgency of debate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We had no opportunity to raise this matter earlier because the house has been closed for five or six weeks.


An hon. Member:: Eleven weeks.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Eleven weeks. Looking at the list of business before the house it is clear

that we shall have no opportunity to discuss this most important subject in the near future. Why is this matter so urgent at this time? In order to emphasize the urgency of debate it is necessary for me to answer that question briefly. It is urgent because until May of this year an international wheat agreement was in effect. On May 16, 1967, we were led to believe that this agreement would be continued. My hon. friend from Hum-boldt-Melfort-Tisdale put a question to the minister at that time in reply to which the minister said that an international agreement was in force and would continue in force until 1968.
Since the house adjourned it has become apparent that there is no international agreement in operation at the present time. This is why the subject is so urgent; this is why it should be discussed today and not left until tomorrow. Moreover, it has now come to our attention that not only has the price of wheat dropped by 22 cents in the absence of a wheat agreement, but we are losing our markets for Canadian grain. The United States has moved into our export markets, as a result of which we have lost two thirds of our sales to one country alone, Japan.
These facts must be placed before parliament and an explanation given by the government. We are dealing with an industry which in itself makes one of the greatest contributions to our gross national product. It is urgent for that reason alone. There is a crisis in the agricultural industry and there is an economic crisis developing as far as the whole country is concerned because of the special position which wheat sales occupy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Not only western Canada is affected; the industrial centres of eastern Canada are equally concerned, since this is something which involves the purchasing power of our people. I have never risen to speak on a more urgent matter since I have been a member of parliament, and I ask that the business of this house be adjourned so the whole question to which I have referred can be discussed fully, enabling explanations to be given of statements such as were made on May 15 when the minister gave the impression that the agreement would continue in operation. The agreement has now lapsed, and its absence will cost the farmers of western Canada more than $300 million if the situation is not remedied.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

September 26, 1967	COMMONS


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, it is understandable that following the summer adjournment there should be arising matters of public interest which deserve special attention in the early days of the resumed session. Yesterday there was a motion to discuss another serious matter affecting the welfare of Canadian citizens. A similar matter has been raised today.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
The normal order of business set down for today involves consideration of two important bills, and we are ready to deal with those today. But if it is agreeable to hon. members opposite, Mr. Speaker, in order to meet the problems posed by yesterday's question and the second one today, I would be agreeable to have the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce called tomorrow, which would permit a discussion of this matter.


Mr. Starr:: I rise on a question of privilege. The government house leader met me earlier and I wanted to know the business of the house for the balance of the week. He intimated to me that the government was prepared to bring forward the estimates of the Department of Labour, vote 35, so we could discuss housing.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not think there is any misunderstanding here. I did suggest to the hon. member that tomorrow I would be ready to call resolutions, and if that is the wish of the house I would be glad to do that. But if it is necessary and desirable to discuss the price of wheat, tomorrow I will call the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce, and on Thursday I would be happy to call the estimates of the Department of Labour so the problems raised yesterday could be discussed then.


Mr. Speaker:: Before calling on the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) who has risen, I might bring to the attention of hon. members that in view of the statement made by the minister I think the situation is resolved and I certainly would have no hesitation in making a ruling. But I see there is great anxiety on the part of the hon. member for Edmonton West to offer some advice to the Chair, and I shall listen to the hon. member.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that while there appears to be a patina of generosity on the offer of the government house leader, tomorrow there will be only an hour and a half to
DEBATES	2477
Urgency of Debate on Wheat Prices deal with the whole situation regarding the international wheat agreement. That is the level of consideration that the government suggests be given to the matter.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: We will sit tomorrow night.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Tomorrow is a Wednesday. May I also point out, Mr. Speaker, that these offers to call estimates will mean dealing with these matters during opposition time, matters that should be dealt with by the government, because the time involved will count against the days left to the opposition for the consideration of estimates. Therefore in making these so-called generous offers the minister is giving the house nothing.


Mr. Speaker:: I again bring to the attention of hon. members that in my view there is very little to be gained by continuing the debate at this time. I certainly do not wish to prevent hon. members who want to continue, but I remind the house that yesterday we spent 45 minutes debating whether we should have a debate, and we are engaging in the same type of debate today. If this is what hon. members want then I will recognize them. The hon. member for Rosthern.


Some hon. Members:: The same old gang.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, it is quite interesting to hear the cat-calls from across the way today. On this occasion we have a legitimate complaint in regard to the order of business of the house so far as this particular matter is concerned. There is no more pressing problem to be brought before the parliament of Canada than the loss of sales and the loss in price that have been occasioned by the lack of consideration given this whole matter by the government, and the cavalier manner in which it has been dealt with.
The urgency of debate on this matter is emphasized by the fact that for the first time in six years the carryover of wheat and other grains in Canada has reached 590 million bushels. That is a six year high, and points up what has taken place during the last few years under the present administration.
There is another reason why we should adjourn the normal business of the house. It is one that bothers everyone from western Canada. During the last few days we have seen a member of the Social Credit party cross over to the government benches-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
September 26, 1967
2478	COMMONS DEBATES
Urgency of Debate on Wheat Prices Mr. Nasserden: -a member of the House of situation in western Canada. We believe, Commons who was opposed to the bulk sales however, that we are involved in one of the to China-	most serious situations to have arisen in
many years. I should like to refer today to a Mr. Speaker: Order.	quotation-


Edward Nasserden: -which sales are necessary at the present time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I find it difficult to relate the argument of the hon. member to the point at issue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I shall not attempt to carry on further in view of the reception from the other side of the house. I will say this, however. I was one of those who praised the minister for his attitude with regard to these things when he indicated during the pre-recess period that all was well and that we would be able to maintain prices in the interim period until the next agreement was signed. We took him at his word. We thought he spoke for this government. In the meantime we have had this sorry tale to hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Okanagan Boundary.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: With respect to what you just said, Mr. Speaker, I feel there is one further point which should be brought to your attention at this time. In reading your decision of yesterday on a similar motion it seems to me that you stressed the matter of sudden emergency. I should like to bring to your attention that this matter of urgency does come under the heading of a sudden emergency. I believe the sudden emergency is the failure of the minister, through his United States counterpart, to state Canada's position clearly. You further stressed the fact that the whole thing might be a part of such a large subject that perhaps it should be held over for further legislation. But in this case I believe the emergency-the drop in the price of wheat and in wheat sales-demands that we have a full statement in the house and time now to debate the matter.


Mr. Lawrence Watson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I was very perturbed this afternoon to hear the members opposite shout "same old gang". In referring now to the urgency of the wheat situation in western Canada we feel there is no more urgent problem to discuss at the present time. This may not appear to be the case to a good many members of the government who are not familiar with the
[Mr. Nasserden.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must remind the hon. member for Assiniboia as gently as I can, and with all good will, that again we are having a discussion which is out of order. This debate is entirely against the spirit of the rules of the house. Standing order 26 provides for a debate if the matter is recognized by the Chair as being of such national urgency that it warrants adjournment of the ordinary business of the house. What hon. members are invited to do at the present time, for the guidance of the Chair, is to indicate whether it is essential that we should set aside the ordinary business of the house for the purpose of discussing this particular matter.
I point out to the hon. member that the statement has been made by the government that time will be made available to discuss this matter. The time allotted may not be as much as hon. members feel should be made available to them for the consideration of this urgent situation, but I must suggest to the hon. member for Assiniboia and others who might wish to follow him that we should make an honest effort to limit these contributions to the matter of urgency of debate and not consider the essence of the subject matter of the motion.


Lawrence E. Watson: I appreciate your remarks very much, Mr. Speaker. I will be very brief. I should like merely to quote a few figures to back up my belief that this is a very urgent matter. At the present time in western Canada we have no wheat quotas, and we are having one of the shortest crops in a good many years. In May of this year a statement was made in the house to the effect that the price of wheat was going to go up. o (3:00 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not like to interrupt hon. members, but there must be order in the house and we must attempt to run our business in an orderly way. It seems to me that the type of speech the hon. member has now embarked upon is exactly the same as he might make if the motion were accepted. Certainly at that time the hon. member would be addressing himself to the subject matter of this motion. I submit for the consideration of the hon. member and his
September 26, 1967

colleagues that the representations he is making are precisely those he would make when the estimates of this department are before the house as proposed by the minister. I should like to ask the hon. member to kindly confine his remarks to the question of the urgency of this debate at this time.


Lawrence E. Watson: Mr. Speaker, I do not feel I have had an opportunity to impress upon Your Honour and members of the house the real urgency of this matter. I should like to state that because we were led to believe last May that the price of wheat would go up, and because the price of wheat has actually gone down, the farmers of western Canada are facing a very urgent situation at this time. This is a matter which should be debated at the earliest possible moment.
I do not intend to take up any more of the time of the house, but I assure you that the members from western Canada will be anxiously awaiting a debate on this subject tomorrow.


Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, in view of my impression that you regard as reasonable the offer made by the house leader, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen), namely that this subject matter be discussed tomorrow during our consideration of the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce, I should like to say that I hope you are not of the opinion that there is no urgent need for debate at the earliest possible opportunity. The question of urgency does occur not only because of the magnitude of the matter, and this is very important, but also results from the limited time left before ratification of the wheat agreement negotiated last July and August in Rome, namely 14 days.
I might add that there would be no urgency of debate if in the past two weeks the government through its responsible minister had given some clear indication that it was prepared to take some special action regarding this matter. To assist Your Honour to gain some perspective of the urgency, let me point out that in the United States, where wheat production is of less importance to the economy than in Canada, the secretary of agriculture and his colleagues have convened emergency meetings, and the congress of that country has already enacted emergency legislation in respect of this particular matter.
Here in Canada we have had no such indication, only an admission that recent price levels in respect of wheat were "a bit soft". It is this kind of nonchalant treatment of a very
Inquiries of the Ministry important matter that impels many of us here to demand that we debate this matter within 24 hours.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about this matter, though they do not necessarily relate to its urgency. It is my belief that if the suggestion proposed by the house leader today should be followed the whole purpose of this standing order will be placed in jeopardy. The minister's suggestion and his remarks were not related to the point of order. It is my belief that the order of the business of this house should be decided in some other way than on the basis of standing order 26.
The motion of the hon. member today was made under that standing order, and if this motion is to be decided on the basis of the suggestion of the minister, then standing order 26 will not serve its purpose. I suggest that Your Honour should not accept this suggestion in reaching your decision in respect of this motion under the standing order. If we follow this practice, similar to the practice followed yesterday, in deciding the order of the business of this house I suggest we will experience a great deal more disorder than we have experienced up to this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will have sensed that in the opinion of the Chair an alternative has been offered by the government, namely an opportunity to discuss the very urgent and important matter raised by this motion during the discussion of the estimates tomorrow. I do not suggest that the time offered is in keeping with the time hon. members of the opposition feel they should have, but in view of standing order 100(3) of Beauchesne's fourth edition I feel I have no alternative but to reject the motion at this time.



ECONOMIC COUNCIL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In the past when an important committee has made a report to the government it has been normal practice to table that report so the distribution office could make copies available to members of the house almost immediately. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he will table the fourth report of the Economic Council of Canada in order that the

September 26, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry distribution office may make copies available to members, and will he do so this afternoon?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection whatsoever to tabling this report, though I should say that this is not the kind of report that is customarily tabled. However, I see no reason why the request should not be granted, and I will look into the matter.


Michael Starr: This is the normal practice. Could this be done this afternoon?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will look into this matter
right away.



WHEAT-SITUATION RESULTING FROM LACK OF INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that tomorrow is a short sitting day, though if there is unanimous consent perhaps we could sit tomorrow evening to discuss this matter of widespread interest regarding the price and marketing of wheat and its effect on farm income, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he will consider calling the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce this afternoon. I understand that we are to consider the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs, but perhaps it would be possible to substitute the other estimates in order that members would then have at least the major part of a day during which to debate what appears to most to be a very important matter.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it has already been indicated that two pieces of legislation are to come before the house this afternoon. I see no reason why we should not proceed with those bills and consider the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce tomorrow. If at the conclusion of the debate on those estimates tomorrow at six o'clock the discussion has not been completed, and the house leaders agree this afternoon to sit tomorrow evening, perhaps this would afford a further opportunity.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Perhaps I should direct this related question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Are discussions going on with the secretary of agriculture of the United

States regarding the maintenance of a differential between Canadian and United States wheat prices similar to that which obtained under the previous agreement, which it was felt would be obtained under the new agreement?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I think hon. members know I visited Secretary Orville Freeman in Washington. At that time I spoke to him and his officials about the minimum price that was agreed upon at Geneva. As a result of that meeting I think a stronger trend has returned to world markets. The price of wheat has gone up some 2J cents since that time. We are endeavouring to implement measures to maintain that trend in the price, and I will have more to say about this tomorrow.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which I think may help to clarify this matter. On June 5, 1967 as reported at page 1134 of Hansard, the Minister of Trade and Commerce left the impression that the old world wheat agreement was still in operation and would continue until July 31, 1968. I should like to ask whether there is an international wheat agreement in operation now and will there be any such agreement governing, controlling and stabilizing the price next year?


Robert Henry Winters: No, Mr. Speaker; and I think the record is clear in this regard.
The price provisions of the international wheat agreement have lapsed. When I was discussing the Kennedy round earlier this year I made it clear that there would be no agreement covering wheat until the new agreement is ratified next year. In the statement I made at that time I did deal with what I anticipated would be the price of wheat in the meantime. But I made it very clear that world conditions of supply and demand would govern, as indeed they do for most commodities.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in view of the ministers' reply I rise on a question of privilege. The minister was asked this question on June 5, 1967, by the hon. member for Hum-boldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp).
Mr. Speaker, this is a very important question and should be answered right now, for the simple reason that the farmers in the west have planted their wheat and are waiting to know where they stand in light of the new wheat agreement.
September 26, 1967	COMMONS
The answer given by the minister was as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I think I can answer this very briefly. On June 1 our ambassador in Washington did sign on behalf of the government of Canada a protocol extending the administrative articles of the 1962 wheat agreement until July 31, 1968, with provision for earlier termination in the event of a new agreement covering wheat-
I would ask the minister to explain what he means by those two answers.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether the minister would insist on replying to the argument raised by the hon. member for Bow River. This is obviously not a question of privilege; it is a form of argument which might be raised when this debate is before the house. I suggest that the matter be allowed to rest there until the minister has been given an opportunity to make a statement.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I think I should rise on a question of privilege, if I may, to clear that very point. While the framework of the international agreement was continued by that protocol, I made it clear at the same time that this did not apply to the price structure because we in Canada did not agree to a continuation of that low price structure.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that all these questions of privilege might be considered tomorrow.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Labour. Is it his intention to give a satisfactory answer to the many requests he has received from house builders associations throughout Canada, asking for an increase in mortgage credits to meet the rising demand of the public?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, that is not a question which I can answer on the orders of the day. I shall be glad to deal with it when the estimates of the Department of Labour come before the house on Thursday.
DEBATES	2481
Inquiries of the Ministry AGRICULTURE



LEGISLATION TO PROVIDE LOANS FOR AGRICULTURAL FAIRS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the statements made by the minister in western Canada some time ago and misunderstandings that have arisen from those statements, I should like to ask whether the government proposes to introduce legislation at this session covering loans for agricultural fair purposes.


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, there is no intent to bring it in at this session, but subject to the economic and financial dictates of the nation it is hoped that we can bring it in during the spring session.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MEMBERS OF UNDERGROUND MOVEMENT IN WORLD WAR II

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might have the indulgence of the house for one minute to point out that today we have as guests in Your Honour's gallery 14 valorous people, seven ladies and seven gentlemen, representative of 4,000 similar people from eight countries in Europe who during world war II suffered torture and risked death to help several thousand allied airmen escape from occupied Europe.
These people have been brought to Canada for three weeks as the centennial project of the Canadian branch of the Royal Air Forces Escaping Society. I believe the chamber would wish to acknowledge the presence of these noble people who have personally done so much to preserve the democratic freedoms we in Canada all enjoy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: On behalf of my colleagues of the House of Commons, I take great pleasure in addressing a warm welcome to these distinguished visitors.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fullon (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the

September 26, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry Registrar General was reflecting government position or policy last night when he referred to the possibility of introducing a split-level economy and preparing one set of rules to be applicable to large corporations and another to smaller corporations.


Mr. Knowles:: So what's new?


Lester Bowles Pearson: As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, the Registrar General said this was a subject worthy of consideration by the government, and so it is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. At what point will ministerial statements be accepted by the Prime Minister, and at what point will they be repudiated? I ask this question in view of the fact that this is the second occasion on which this suggestion has been made.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We believe in giving public opinion a chance to express itself on these matters.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the recently reported success of President Johnson of the United States in persuading the insurance companies of that country to invest $1 billion in low cost housing, does the Prime Minister intend to approach the life insurance companies of this country with a similar aim in view?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a matter the Minister of Labour would be glad to discuss on Thursday.


George Harris Hees: Then, Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Labour.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: will be glad to discuss it on Thursday, Mr. Speaker, but I would like-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Where does the buck stop?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister give consideration to speaking to the large financial institutions of this country to persuade them that they have a national duty to invest a sufficiently large proportion of their investment portfolios in housing to ensure that the housing needs of this country are adequately met?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. G. L. Chatlerton (Esquimali-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the increase in the interest rate on government loans it appears that in accordance with the government's formula, the N.H.A. interest rate will go up on October 1. My question is this. Is the government considering changing this formula for automatic revision of the N.H.A. interest rate?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to restrain his curiosity until Thursday.



POTASH-ALLEGED DUMPING BY CANADA ON U.S. MARKET

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. N. Ormiston (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for our genial Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the minister yet in a position to report on the alleged dumping of Canadian potash on the United States market, and if and when the report of the United States treasury department is available will he kindly report to the house?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, may I take the question as notice, and I will report on Wednesday.



COLUMBIA RIVER-ALLEGED DELAY IN FEDERAL PAYMENTS TO B.C.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that Hon. W. A. C. Bennett, premier of British Columbia, is publicly condemning the government of Canada for failing to pay the $12 million owed to British Columbia for completion of the Duncan lake dam July 31 of this year according to the agreement between the federal and provincial
September 26, 1967



governments with respect to the Columbia river treaty, can the minister inform the house of the facts with respect to this intriguing question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question might be answered tonight.



EXPO '67 INQUIRY AS TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR INDIVIDUAL LOSSES UNDER LOGEXPO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I trust it will not be answered on Wednesday; I hope to receive an answer today. The question concerns the problems that have arisen during the recess of the house with respect to the Logexpo situation, the dismissals that have been taking place and the charges of fraud that have been made. Has the government any intention, either alone or in co-operation with the Expo authorities, of reimbursing those who have lost money on reservations that have been made at Logexpo?


Mr. Speaker:: 1 think this question should be put on the order paper.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I think this question is still under consideration and being debated by the Expo authorities. Therefore we should like a government opinion on the question.



USE OF SITE ON CONCLUSION OF EXHIBITION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Dollard):: I wish to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Has the government reached a decision on the use of the Expo site after it is closed?


Mr. Speaker:: I think this question should be put on the order paper.



CENTENNIAL TELEVISION SERIES ON PROCESS OF PARLIAMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I too have a question for the Prime
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister. By way of preface may I remind the right hon. gentleman that before the summer recess he clearly indicated to the former leader of the opposition that arrangements would be put in motion to film the proceedings of this parliament as a centennial series on the part of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
May I ask the right hon. gentleman three short questions. First, where are the cameras? Second, what arrangements have been made to initiate the series? And last, why the delay?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this question is under consideration now by Your Honour, and I am sure you will be glad to deal with it at the earliest possible date, not later than Friday.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State or perhaps it is more a related question. In view of the considerable disquiet that has existed for many months now in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, I wonder how soon we may have the new Broadcasting Act brought before this house.


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that in order to alleviate all sorts of discomfort on that side the Broadcasting Act will be seen early next week-not on Friday, Thursday or Wednesday of this week, but perhaps next week.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the minister will be good enough also to assure all members of the house that such an important piece of legislation will be referred to the broadcasting committee after first reading.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is likely that the act will be referred back to the committee. As is known by hon. members, some six months were occupied with the question of broadcasting. It may very well be that the clause by clause study will be held in committee in substitution for the house, if that meets with the agreement of the house. However, since the matter has been gone into so exhaustively, and since the committee will be asked to deal with the question of E.T.V. almost simultaneously, it is expected that the

September 26, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry house will deal with a matter of such great importance without the legislation having to go back to committee.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A further supplementary question to the Prime Minister. I wonder whether the Prime Minister would give consideration to this matter with his colleagues in light of the interest of many parties who are directly involved with broadcasting and are anxious to deal with the specific legislation before the broadcasting committee when that legislation is brought into this house, if this is to be done next week.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to discuss the matter with the Secretary of State. However, as my hon. friend knows the committee has gone into this matter in great detail, and I believe witnesses have been called. It might meet the wish of the house to deal with the legislation in committee of the whole, but I will be glad to discuss the matter with the Secretary of State.


Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Since the right hon. gentleman and the Secretary of State appear to be settling most of the problems for the C.B.C., perhaps he can tell me today when they will be building that television station in Saskatoon.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to what I said on this matter yesterday, which I think was not very satisfactory to my hon. friend. However, I hope to make a more satisfactory statement before long.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of increases that have taken place in the cost of living, and in view of the amendment respecting this matter which was written into the Old Age Security Act in 1965, has it been determined that there will be an increase in old age pensions this coming January and, if so, by what amount?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that the question as asked is much too general in nature, and I do not think it can be asked at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: I wish to put a question to the Minister of Labour in reference to several grievances raised by the C.N.T.U. as a result of a ruling by the Canada Labour Relations Board.
Is the minister in a position to inform the house whether the government intends to introduce a bill to amend federal legislation on units of negotiations?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, during the summer adjournment I did announce on behalf of the government that it was our intention at the resumed session this fall to introduce a bill proposing certain amendments to the Canada labour relations act. It is our intention to do so, and we hope the bill will be before the house in the not too far distant future. Its contents will be disclosed at that time.



MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION COUNCIL


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-150, to establish a Canada manpower and immigration council.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, there is a very glaring deficiency in the bill now before us. I had hoped that the minister would speak first in the debate and indicate that this weakness would be cured. Since he did not do so I draw it to the attention of the minister of the house immediately so that we may deal with it when we consider the bill in committee.
The weakness is that there is no connection whatever between the operations of this new and somewhat sprawling bureaucracy being created by the bill and this House of Commons, parliament itself. This should be cured, and I hope that the minister will accept the cure when at a later stage I move on behalf of the official opposition that the new manpower and immigration council be required to report to parliament, the source of its power, the source of the funds which will keep it in
September 26, 1967	COMMONS
existence, on what it is doing and what sort of policies it is advising the minister to follow. In short, Mr. Speaker, I intend to see that we follow the orthodox practice in establishing a creature of parliament, namely, of retaining some control over that creation. This, to me, is a fatal weakness in the bill as it now stands. According to past and present practice, bodies such as this council which are set up in this way pass from our jurisdiction forever. Only indirectly would we be able to assess its work on the basis of whatever the minister himself chose to report to us.
In my remarks at the resolution stage yesterday I wondered whether the minister had cured some of the previous defects in operation and was bringing in legislation that could properly stand the scrutiny of parliament or whether it was one of those hit or miss efforts that would have to be endlessly corrected before the council could become viable. Alas, Mr. Speaker, my fears are realized. The bill does contain this very glaring omission, one that I think it is the duty and responsibility of each member of parliament to correct. Otherwise we whittle away large chunks of our authority, fail to represent our electorate properly and lose control over government and government bodies, e (3:30 p.m.)
We tend to leave more and more power to be exercised according to the discretion of ministers and ministerial advisers and less in our own hands. This is a weakness. At the appropriate time I hope to persuade the minister and the house that it is a weakness that must be corrected. Accordingly, to avoid the surprise of a last minute amendment I give notice that I intend to move an amendment at the end of the clause by clause consideration. In this regard I have in mind that part of the Economic Council of Canada Act which requires that body to lay its reports before parliament. The change to be made in this bill, in the clause to which I have reference, will strike out the word "economic" and substitute therefor the words "manpower and immigration". I have said this to give the minister and his advisers information about the type of amendment I shall be moving.
No small step is being taken through this measure. The minister tried to make it appear in his brief intervention that it was a small step. By failing to make a statement on second reading and by failing to answer questions which were quite properly raised by hon. members at the resolution stage, he tried to make it appear that it was indeed a small step.
DEBATES	2485
Manpower and Immigration Council
Here we do not have a small group of people, nor small boards or councils with unimportant functions. In this measure we have a body that will deal with the whole field of manpower and technology. One body is to advise the minister on everything over which he has power to preside. This bill will establish a council of 16 members; it will establish four advisory boards each having 12 members, or 48 persons in all. Under these two categories alone 64 persons are involved. In addition there are the regional and local manpower committees. Their number is not specified. Conceivably the sky could be the limit as to the numbers involved. This government has a reputation for multiplying bureaucracy. By this measure it could proliferate bureaucracy, through these boards or councils or committees that are to be set up, in increasing measure.
I also quarrel with the minister because nowhere are we given an idea of the costs involved. Under the British parliamentary tradition, at the resolution stage we ought to learn the dollars and cents that are involved. We should find out what will be a burden on the treasury. I hope that the minister may be cajoled into making a speech this afternoon and giving us this important information.
Another point worthy of consideration-undoubtedly this is in the minister's mind as the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) brought it to his attention yesterday-is that this measure may involve the downgrading of experienced employees who are already serving in the minister's department. I know from experience, and the hon. member for Carleton has mentioned this, that employees who were with the department in its national employment service days have been pushed into the background in the operations of the new department. These people may not be the best educated in the world and that is why they have been downgraded. Yet they have played their part. For 20 years or more, in some instances, they have dealt with the serious problems involved in finding jobs for Canadians. Surely their on-the-job training merits a more distinguished fate than that being meted out to them in the manpower offices across Canada.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: They are being treated ruthlessly.


Robert Jardine McCleave: As my learned and hon. friend from Cape Breton North and Victoria says, they have been treated ruthlessly. I think that is so. Morale in the department will suffer if such persons continue to feel that
September 26, 1967

Manpower and Immigration Council their functions are being usurped or if they feel they are being ignored. I hope the minister will come to grips with these problems of employees who have given long and loyal service. I hope he will make sure that, despite Bill C-150, the incentive of the personnel of the department to come to grips with the technological and other problems the department is facing will not be sapped. The minister and his department should not be absolved from their responsibilities because of the step we are taking this afternoon.
Another fault of the bill-this is almost standard and can be only partly cured by an amendment such as I have suggested-is that it gives an increasing measure of discretionary power. Discretionary powers increasingly appear in the legislation that comes before this house. More and more we are being asked to give our blessing to measures which give wide areas of discretion to ministers of the crown. This is a trend, I suppose, at this point in our history and one cannot completely reverse the tide. Nevertheless, the powers to be given to the minister and the council should be as specific as possible in order that all those serving in this proliferation of councils, boards and committees will know that the parliament of Canada is concerned about what they do and how they recommend that the taxpayers' money be spent.
Finally, sir, I have to say another word about the field of discretion. The minister is going to ask certain bodies to choose members for the council, the boards and perhaps the regional committees. I am wondering what the minister is going to do when it comes to picking certain people from his own province. Will he go to the Confederation of National Trade Unions or the Canadian Labour Congress? Will he send a letter to these bodies, flip a coin, or go to somebody else? I submit that the minister may find himself in a bind on this point.
I repeat, sir, that at the appropriate stage I shall move, seconded by the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Regimbal), that a new clause be added to this bill so that the council to which the boards must report will be required to lay a report of its proceedings before us. In that way we shall know whether the objectives of this legislation are being met. If I may also borrow a parallel from the Economic Council of Canada, which is not the happiest jewel in the Liberal crown but is a very useful jewel for Canada, I suggest that the council might publish studies and reports as it sees fit for the guidance of the public in the difficult and tremendous
[Mr. McCleave.l
problems facing us in the technological decades of the twentieth century.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe the minister had intended to speak at the beginning of this debate but was beaten to the gun by the hon. member for Halifax. Could there not be unanimous consent to let the minister speak now, while still leaving it open for others to speak afterwards should they wish to do so?


Mr. Speaker:: If that is the wish of the house, unanimous agreement is first required in order to dispense with the rule.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks now he does not close the debate.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Perhaps I should apologize to the minister for being slightly spryer in getting to my feet than he was.


Jean Marchand: The only thing it proves is that the hon. member for Halifax is probably slightly younger than I am.

Mr. Speaker, speaking on the resolution preceding the bill now before us, I said that the purpose of the bill is to reorganize the structure of the advisory councils which my department has inherited. The three current organizations which, on the whole, meet only part of the requirements of my department, will be replaced by a single council, the structure and membership of which will correct the failings of the existing organizations.
The legislation provides for the establishment of one main council to advise the minister in all areas under his responsibility. The council shall be made up of one chairman and of a maximum of 15 members appointed for a maximum of three years. Obviously, my hope is to select competent and representative people from their own environment. We shall consult representatives of the principal organizations and of the groups particularly interested in the aims we are seeking to achieve.
The hon. members will note that the role of the council is in no way restricted or limited. Its job will consist in advising the
September 26, 1967

minister on all matters pertaining to the efficient use and development of manpower resources in Canada, including immigrants and their integration into Canadian life.
I consider myself fortunate in that I can bank-and the same goes for the officials of the department-on the wise counsels of those Canadians who act outside the department. It will facilitate the drawing up of an efficient program to develop an ever greater awareness in management of the ceaseless transformations in manpower needs across the country.
The bill authorizes me to refer to the council any subject whose study is imperative and the council will, of its own initiative, express its views on the important matters it will study. The bill provides for the setting up of four specialized advisory boards which will pass judgment on the work of the department in its main spheres of endeavour, namely vocational training of adults, integration of immigrants into Canadian life, the co-ordination of rehabilitation services and manpower and immigration research.
Moreover, from time to time additional advisory boards will be appointed to deal with special topics falling within the scope of my responsibilities.

The advisory boards will have a chairman and a maximum of 11 other members represen tatve of the major interests concerned with these programs. The chairmen of the specialized advisory boards will also be members of the advisory council, in order to ensure an effective link between the work of the specialized boards and the council.
To ensure that advice on specialized matters is considered within the total framework of manpower and immigration policy, each of the advisory boards will report its conclusions to the council which will pass them to the minister with any comments it feels to be appropriate. The council may, on its initiative, refer matters to any of the advisory boards for their study and advice.
The regional committees now in existence are concerned with the functions of the Canada manpower division in each of the regions. Similarly, the local advisory committees are concerned with the work of the Canada manpower centres. The bill provides for the continuation of such regional and local committees for the purpose of advising and assisting the department in carrying out the functions of its manpower service.
DEBATES	2487
Manpower and Immigration Council
The effectiveness of a public advisory organization depends on providing adequate professional and technical support for their work. My department is currently establishing an advisory council and liaison branch, and a major responsibility of this branch will be to service the advisory council and the specialized advisory boards. It will also ensure that all parts of the department assist in and are informed of the work of the council and boards.
This is a very simple measure, but I believe it will help to increase the sensitivity of government programs and administration to qualified outside opinion. To do that is of special importance to a department dealing as closely with people and their problems as it is the responsibility of the Department of Manpower and Immigration to do. Now I would like to comment on a few of the observations which were made yesterday by certain members of the house.

Mr. Speaker, it has been said-I believe by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) or for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-that the number of retrained workers, had decreased under the new manpower training program. And we were given figures.
To give any weight to these statistics, I think it would have been advisable to compare them with those of the preceding years. The hon. member for Greenwood and the member for Winnipeg North would undoubtedly have realized that during the summer period there is always a decrease in the number of workers who follow those courses. There are two reasons for this: first of all because it is summer, and then very often provinces do not offer all the courses they offer during the winter and, second, because of the employment situation, of job opportunities.
Everybody knows that, in Canada, especially in the past years, summer employment has almost reached a peak, especially in certain areas such as Toronto. Now, every time you have employment, that is every time the level of employment gets close to the maximum, fewer workers attend courses. I can assure the hon. members that under the new program, not only there will be-and I hope we shall all be here next winter-as many workers attending classes, but I am convinced their number will be much higher than last year.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Therefore, the explanation is quite simple, Mr. Speaker, and I do not feel it can be
September 26, 1967
2488	COMMONS
Manpower and Immigration Council inferred from the fact that the figures have decreased in June, July and August that the new manpower and training program for workers is defective.
Now, I must point out, so as to complete the picture, that certain provinces have shown some reluctance with regard to the new manpower program. Not only was there opposition, but a degree of inaction was also deliberately provoked in some areas, probably to secure some negotiating power with the federal government. This was done not only locally, but the press was also used to show that much discontent existed, that the new manpower program, deemed unacceptable in some areas or in some provinces, would be a disaster for the country as a whole. This is not so, Mr. Speaker, and I believe that relations have now returned to normal.
On July 18, I held a meeting with the provincial ministers, and we agreed on practically all the most important details. In fact, the co-operation which was alluded to in this house yesterday, is an actual fact, and I am sure that it will continue to prevail.
It is obvious that, according to the new policy, Mr. Speaker, we no longer wish and no longer consent to take care at the federal level of tasks which fall under provincial jurisdiction. And I should like one day to see some logic in the policies or political theories advocated by the parties in this house during their conventions. There is nothing wrong in their talking about provincial jurisdiction or provincial autonomy, the two nations concept or the desire of Quebec to be in full control of matters under its jurisdiction, but I would rather they did not criticize the government when it adopts a policy which respects precisely those theories which are exploited more or less everywhere.
But I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that this new manpower program shall help the workers, and that more of them will profit by it.
The question of language training has been raised, Mr. Speaker, and we certainly do not intend to go systematically into academic or formal training. This field is under provincial jurisdiction, and if some people here want the government to enter this field, they should not only move to amend the constitution to put this under federal jurisdiction, but also have the gumption to do so openly, before the country. However, as long as the constitution remains unamended, we shall leave the educational field under provincial jurisdiction.
This, however, Mr. Speaker, does not mean that we are going to deny to the immigrants
[Mr. Marchand.l

the benefits of our laws as to the study of languages, especially French and English. Not only will these benefits not be denied them but we have moreover advised all our manpower offices to comply with any request that might be made to them, provided these requests conform to the aims of our manpower, that is, when the teaching of the language is necessary to enable the applicant to fill a job in Canada. In other terms, this means that all our policy is related to the employment market and to the workers' needs in finding employment; we want them to become able, from a professional or language viewpoint, to obtain remunerative employment in Canada. Therefore, immigrants who need one of the two languages to get a job can take advantage of our programs. For those who want to improve their knowledge of English or French because they live in a bilingual country with two official languages, that is the responsibility of the provinces, and I hope that they will fully assume this responsibility.
Therefore, there is no question of discrimination against immigrants.
Someone mentioned-I think it is the member for Timmins (Mr. Martin)-that some workers were excluded from the manpower training program. No class whatsoever of workers is excluded from our manpower training programs and that is true for miners as for others. However, it will be understood, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot agree automatically every time a worker requests retraining.
That program is designed to enable the workers who are unemployed to find employment and those who have an inferior job to improve their income and develop fully. That is the program's aim. Otherwise, tomorrow a million workers would say: Well, I am a carpenter but I would like to become a welder; or, I am a welder and I would like to become a maintenance man or a millwright. That would not make sense. Thus there must be a demand on the labour market and the individual must be in a position to benefit from our courses. There is no doubt that some workers will be rejected, namely a worker who has a steady job will not be accepted, except for serious reasons, for another course because otherwise it is easy to see what it would mean on the financial level.
In any case, therefore, I feel that this program is comprehensive and that the grievances aired in this house are unfounded, at least in that respect.
Yesterday, I heard members of the opposition express the most conflicting views. First of all, the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. September 26, 1967	COMMONS
Bell) rightly urged that the councils should be truly rooted in the population and that the department should not merely be a bureaucracy, but that the people be integrated in the administration of the Department of Manpower and Immigration. I agree with him but, on the other hand, one of his colleagues said that the minister is being deprived of his responsibilities and wants those responsibilities to be shifted on to intermediate bodies or to boards of his own making. Now, I should like to know what is really the policy of the opposition in that field.
As suggested by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave), a great number of persons will surely be called upon to sit on those committees. In answer to the hon. member for Carleton, I must say that if the people are to be really represented on those bodies, they must be sought where they are, in the localities, the small towns, in the various areas, and our advisory committees are set up in such a way that all those people may be represented.
I would then suggest to the hon. member for Carleton, and to the hon. member for Halifax, that they might meet to try to determine exactly what their aims are and to see whether they have anything in common as far as manpower policy is concerned.
When I said that this was a rather simple bill, I did not mean to imply that it is not important. Quite the opposite, it is important. It is important, but in substance, that is, as far as the thinking behind it is concerned there is nothing new. Not only is there nothing new but as far as the number of people is concerned, if this can be a relief to the hon. member for Halifax, I do not think there are that many more people sitting on our advisory committees than there were under the former legislation or even under the former government.
When we consider the number of people sitting on the advisory committee of the National Employment Service, the regional offices, the local offices, the Vocational Training Advisory Council, the National Advisory Committee on the Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons, if you add them all together, I hardly believe that we are adding very many people to what existed before. The only thing we are doing is that we are consolidating all these committees so that they may work together.
Mr. Speaker, those manpower problems cannot be kept completely apart. We have employment and training problems, the problem of mentally retarded or disabled persons;
DEBATES	2489
Manpower and Immigration Council there is also the problem of immigration and adjustment of immigrants in this country. All of them constitute a whole and we have been in a position to establish advisory committees which are brought together at a given time to discuss the manpower problem as a whole and not under its various aspects. I believe that is an improvement.
For the establishment of those boards, we took the advice-and this is not an unprecedented fact-of representative bodies.
The member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) seems to have discovered a problem with regard to the difficulty of choosing between a member of the Confederation of National Trade Unions and a representative of the Canada Labour Congress and he wonders what we are going to do. It has been done here, in Ottawa, for the last 25 years, under every government. When you want someone from the CNTU, you go to the CNTU; if, at the same time, you want someone from the CLC, you ask the CLC to appoint a representative. On the other hand, if you want someone from the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, you go to the officials of that association. Indeed, if that is the only problem the minister has to solve this year, I can assure you we will solve it rapidly. The member need not worry; there are precedents, the way is paved and I need not even strain my imagination to give him that assurance.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Now, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) raised an important question with which we are deeply concerned. However, at this time, I think the problem is solved and the information she has obtained was undoubtedly provided before July 18 last; at least, I suppose so because had she secured this information later than July 18, it would mean that the people who provided her with the information were not aware of the agreements arrived at with the provincial governments.
Let us say that on that date of July 18, we came to an agreement with the provinces, so that they will advise us what training they will be providing to the workers.
There is a list of agreements and, for our part, we have undertaken to fill a given number of places which have been determined through negotiation with the provinces.
So, if there is, shall we say, 50 places in one course, and we have undertaken to take over 40, we will be paying for these places whether they are occupied or not, that is to say we will be giving the school boards and
September 26, 1967

Manpower and Immigration Council the municipalities the kind of security that was being asked for yesterday and which they need in order to organize the courses.
So, this important problem is solved. Now, there might be a lack of communication between the province and the school boards. That is possible. But anyway, as far as we are concerned, communication has been established and this problem has been solved.
As for my friend from York East (Mr. Otto) he has raised problems concerning research and knowledge of the environment and he was wondering whether we would be on time with the necessary data concerning changes in the labour market.
As he will realize, there is an advisory committee specially dealing with research and we are trying to set up within the department-unfortunately, it cannot be done overnight, everyone will understand that-possibly one of the best research service in the field of manpower, so that employers may quickly know what the situation is, the workers may know what is the employment problem and whoever is giving the training may know what vocational training to give to meet the requirements of the market.
Therefore, all that is in effect; his remarks have been taken into consideration and I have every reason to believe that he will not complain about the results which we will have.
In general, the matter of cost has been raised. There are nevertheless certain customs in Canada. I know that the trade union people as well as leaders of the employers associations are used to the way of paying people attending meetings of advisory committees. That will be done approximately on the same basis, I think, with the adjustments that may arise from time to time. There is nothing new in that and I see no source of scandal or any other danger for the financial resources of the Canadian government. I do not think that is where abuses might occur.
As far as civil servants are concerned, there has been a change in that department. I apologize for talking a little about the policy of that department as a whole, but very few hon. members talked about the bill yesterday, they talked instead about the manpower and immigration policies, etc. There is no doubt that there were grievances and that some employees were moved.
Integrating the whole department has meant moving people and some were not pleased. Some people had to be transferred from one place to another. Some grievances were justified, others less so. We are doing

whatever we can and hon. members can rest assured that it is a problem about which I am rather concerned and that I try to deal with the real grievances, that is to find a solution.
Now, I should like to deal with a point raised by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) concerning this close link, or so-called close link, between the needs of manpower and immigration.
If the hon. member for Carleton has read closely the new regulations which will be in force on October 1, he will no doubt find that the immigration policy is linked in a certain way with the manpower policy, but not in an entirely, automatic or direct way. That is, a certain number of points may be allowed for future immigrants who have already secured employment or whose professional services are needed in Canada, but that is only a number of points and some people may come to Canada even if their services are not needed providing they get a sufficient number of points on other items.
While there exists a certain link, it is not isuch as to limit our immigration policy strictly to our manpower needs in Canada.
Everything will depend on how this policy will be administered. I think that our criteria, our basic principles are sound. Besides, I have every reason to believe that the people of Canada will be satisfied with this policy, if we have the wisdom to follow it properly.
Mr. Speaker, I have not probably answered all the criticisms that have been formulated, but I did at least answer some of them. I had taken notes, but they are so general-I know that it will be possible to complete them when my estimates are discussed because several topics already dealt with will be taken up again. Bill C-150 is obviously an improvement, Mr. Speaker. This bill has nothing revolutionary about it, nothing that is not already known to labour unions, employers' organizations, governments or the public at large. Everything involved is known already.
The last point the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Forrestall) has mentioned is that this council should report directly to the government. All depends on the character of the council. As we see it, this council will advise the department, and this in order that the population, the people concerned, may convey quickly their views to the department on the various problems that may occur, if the matter has to do with internal economy.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that if all the documents, all the reports made by the local or
September 26, 1967	COMMONS
regional committees, the specialized committees and the council were to be laid here before parliament, not only would this constitute an enormous mass of paper, but it could also paralyse the operations of the committees.
The employer and labour union representatives on those committees usually sit behind closed doors and their associations, the ones which they sent there, have full powers, rights, privileges to communicate directly with the government, with the members of the house, to make known their general policy. I think that nobody is being frustrated. This is a committee appointed to give advice and counsel to the minister and I think that from the moment you require all the reports to be tabled in the House of Commons, we are changing its character, and from that time on, there will be some rigidity in the reports, in the discussion, which will not benefit the Canadian people.
That is why we believe such a structure, which was always based upon those principles, is still worth while. It is acceptable, it is actually accepted by all union and professional organizations, and when something works well, I think that the hon. members, just like anybody else, would not be interested in changing it just for the sake of making a change. This fact is well recognized.
This is what I had to say, Mr. Speaker, about the criticism which has been expressed. In view of the important matters which will be brought to the attention of this house, even those with which the departments may be concerned, I hope that not too much time is spent on a bill known to the house and which, on the face of it, is quite imperative,
I think, and should be approved as quickly as possible.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg Norfh):: Mr. Speaker, when the minister first entered the house some of us regretted the fact that he did so on the government side, but because of his past record as a fighter for civil rights and as a leader of the working people in an important trade union in his province I think it is fair to say that he came here with more good will on the part of members on both sides of the house than any other minister I can remember in my experience in public life. We were prepared to listen to the minister, give him the benefit of any doubts we had and give him time to implement the very fine 27053-1581
DEBATES	2491
Manpower and Immigration Council expression of principles he enunciated during the early months of his attendance in the house. Let me indicate to the minister that we feel the speech he made today was partisan and obviously in defence of everything his department has done. He ignored all our legitimate questions and criticisms. If he does not intend to take any greater action than he indicated, then any honeymoon there may have been has ended.
My colleague the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) asked a series of questions which were directed to her and other members of parliament including Liberals from Vancouver. These questions were not directed to these members by the Social Credit government of British Columbia and I think the minister should realize that my colleague has no particular reason to defend that government. The minister ignored completely the questions she raised and no explanations have been given.
The questions I asked were not directed to me by the Conservative government of Ontario and I have no desire or intention to defend them. I received these questions from officials and others who work for the school board of Ottawa and the board of education in the city of Toronto. They made it very clear to me that they did not wish to become involved in a political battle and I respect their desire in this regard. I made it clear to them that I wanted the official information which they had presented to their boards of education and which is available to every citizen of Canada. That is the kind of information which I presented yesterday.
What did we hear from the minister in this regard? I suggest that all we heard was a defence of three-


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I never suggested the hon. member's figures were wrong.


David Orlikow: The minister did not quite
say they were wrong, but he did say I used figures for the wrong months and that had I not done so the picture would have been different. I will have more to say in that regard.
First of all, the minister again referred to the constitutional situation and suggested to members that if we were suggesting the bringing of education within the federal responsibility we would then be debating a different thing. None of us made that suggestion yesterday. When we were debating the changes in the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act, established by the
September 26, 1967
2492	COMMONS
Manpower and Immigration Council former government, which this government decided last year to get out of, we made certain proposals. Members of our party have Suggested time and again that we believe there is nothing in the constitution which prevents the government of Canada in cooperation with the provinces from participating in a technical and vocational training program.
It was our belief at that time, and it is still our belief, that it was a disastrous mistake for the government of Canada to get out of this field. However, this government made that decision. The minister spoke very proudly when he stated that the government intended to assume not only 50 per cent but 100 per cent of the responsibility for manpower retraining. He said this was the government's job and that it would be fulfilled. Yesterday I asked how the government intended to fulfil that responsibility.
The minister said that education was the responsibility of the provinces, and I agree. I suggest to the minister, as I have on a number of occasions, that as long as immigration is the responsibility of the federal government and as long as this government follows an aggressive policy of encouraging people to come to Canada from countries in which the native language is not English or French, it is the responsibility of the government of Canada to encourage every single one of these individuals to learn to speak English or French, depending on the area in which they live. This is not the responsibility of the provincial governments, local boards of education, or local school boards. These immigrants should be encouraged to learn to speak English or French as quickly as possible. In this regard the federal government should put its money where its mouth is and indicate to the provinces and local boards of education and school boards that it is prepared to pay for such education.
1 am sure the minister has the immigration figures at his fingertips. I do not have them with me but I am sure that this year there has been more immigration to Canada than in any other year since world war II. I note that the Registrar General (Mr. Turner) is as pleased with that situation as I am, but let me repeat that although more people have come to Canada from countries such as Italy, Greece, Portugal, Spain and Germany than ever before, the number of these people attending classes where they may learn to speak English or French has decreased. This is certainly indicated by the figures I received *from the Toronto board of education for 1967,

beginning to take hold-there were 830 applicants for retraining in Toronto. In June of this year there were 262. In July of last year there were 805 applicants; in July of this year there were 92. That is a reduction of about 85 per cent. In August of last year there were 995 applicants for retraining; this year there were 239. In September of last year there were 1,154 applicants; in September of this year there were 270. So when we were giving the figures we were not pulling them out of the air. We were not trying to doctor them or make the government look bad. We were giving the figures month by month.
I spoke about Ottawa. Let me put those figures on the record again. It should not take the parliamentary secretary very long to check my facts if he wants to do so. Privately I will be very happy to give him the name and telephone number of the person who gave me this information. At the retraining school in Ottawa in September of last year there were between 200 and 300 applicants for retraining courses. In September of this year there were between 30 and 40. That is a reduction of 85 per cent.
There is the situation, Mr. Speaker. We are not saying this because we are happy. We are not saying it because we will gain political capital out of it. We are telling the minister and the government these facts which have been brought to our attention in order that the problem may be alleviated. I know that hon. members on this side of the house will report on their own areas. Other areas have not yet been discussed but the figures there are just as bad as those for Ottawa which I have given. I am sure that when I can contact the proper person in my own city of Winnipeg I will discover that that city has just the same kind of report to make.
We are pointing out these facts to the minister because we have believed for years that the retraining of manpower and the upgrading of the skills of the work force of Canada are of the utmost importance. We thought the situation would improve when the reorganization took place, the department was changed and the minister was given, so far as this house was concerned, virtually a blank cheque to hire the kind of people with the skills that the old national employment service never had, the economists, statisticians and sociologists who are required in any modern manpower program. The minister has been very successful in building up his staff. When the government asked for and obtained the approval of parliament to pay the people who took training courses a living allowance,
DEBATES	2493
Manpower and Immigration Council we hoped this would permit them to continue to take the courses in their entirety without having to stop in the middle because they1 could not afford to continue, as happened so frequently in the past. We hoped the situation would change. The situation has changed but instead of changing for the better, as most of us expected and as all of us hoped, it has changed for the worse.
I genuinely regret that the minister, having being given the facts as he was yesterday- and I think we gave them in a very straightforward, factual way without any real criticism of the minister or his department-did not come here with answers which would reassure not only the members of the house but the people working in the field, the teachers and principals in charge of the schools who are not concerned about the natural and' to be expected wrangles and differences which take place among political parties but, want to see a job done. I say with all sincerity that I do not think the teachers, principals and counsellors give two hoots whether the program is being operated or financed by the federal government, the provincial government, the local board of education or the local school board. They are interested in seeing that the people who need assistance in up- ' grading their skills get that assistance. I tell, the minister and the government that these people are heartsick. They do not know what is happening. They do not know why it is happening. All they know is that a program for which they had a great deal of hope has turned sour.
I tell the minister that his explanation today is completely unacceptable to me. When we get to the minister's estimates, at which time we can discuss these matters in considerable detail, we will expect, indeed we will do more than expect, we will demand and insist upon detailed explanations. We do not want the excuses, the glossing over, the brushing under the rug that we got from the minister today. We want a hard, factual explanation from him and the department as to why the number of people who are being retrained in our manpower training centres has gone down so disastrously.


Mr. L. H. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say one or two, things in speaking to this legislation. I will be reasonably brief. The first matter arises from a question asked a few moments ago by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave). It seems to me that the minister missed the point of the question of that hon. member.
September 26, 1967

Manpower and Immigration Council The hon. member asked about the provision for and guarantee of some kind of close parliamentary, financial supervision over the work, operations and expenditures of this new council.
One infers from the remarks of the minister a few moments ago that the four advisory boards being established under the new council-perhaps there will be more than four; I know that part II of the legislation provides for the establishment of additional boards -will in fact be responsible at some stage of their annual operations for making their expenditures known and available to the scrutiny of this house. But the point of the question of the hon. member for Halifax, I believe, was that the over-all council that is being established by this legislation is the agency that should be responsible for making such a report.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Our suggestion, which was contained in the remarks of the hon. member for Halifax, is not that the four advisory boards report to parliament but that the council itself report annually to parliament. The council itself should be required to table its report in the house annually so that strict financial and supervisory control by the members of this house and the people of Canada over the expenditures of this new agency is possible. The people of Canada want to know where their money is being spent today, a fact that I should not think needed underlining in wake of the recent report of the Economic Council of Canada.
This, Mr. Speaker, was the essence of the appeal that was made by the hon. member for Halifax a few moments ago and which I feel has perhaps escaped the attention of the minister. I know that all members on this side of the house, or at least the members of this party, will welcome an answer to this question before we move beyond this stage of the proceedings on this legislation.
I think I am quoting the minister correctly, albeit rather loosely, when I say that he said that the entire program envisioned under this legislation will be linked to the employment needs of the country. This is a welcome announcement. However, I wonder whether the program will be linked even further to the social and economic aspirations of this country. In my view and in the view of many of us it would be helpful, and indeed very reassuring, if some provision could be made which would guarantee a kind of regional representation on this new Canada manpower and immigration council, a provision which

would guarantee that various regions of this country which at this time feel that they do not share equitably in immigration and in industral productivity exercises and opera-tons could aspire to a fair and equitable share of the progress that will no doubt be accomplished nationally in this country in the next few years.
This is not the first time in remarks I have made in this chamber that I have referred to the inequity of regional development in this country, to the fact that various parts of the country are given the opportunity, inadvertently or by design, to benefit to a greater degree economically and socially than other regions such as the prairie region which I represent and regions in the maritime provinces. Therefore I would urge that careful attention be paid to this aspect of Canadian life, both economic and social. I would urge that this new council or agency be specifically charged with the responsibility of obtaining and attaining for itself a fair and equitable geographic representation across the country.
I further urge that some attention be given to extremely close consultation between the new council and the various departments of industry in the provinces of this land, with a view to promoting industrial and economic well-being in individual provinces and regions.
The minister has said that the program is linked to the employment needs of the country. I suggest that the employment needs of the country cannot always be interpreted in surface terms or on the basis of job opportunities which are available or are lacking at the specific time of examination. There are certain known needs in this country. There is a very serious and urgent need for attention to be given to the lagging productivities and economies of specific regions which have not shared so far to their fullest potential in their just desserts and in the prosperity of the country at large.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that when the members of the council and of these advisory committees are concerning themselves with the manpower, employment and immigration problems in a given community or region, they could also take into account the future requirements and the future hopes and aspirations of that region. This can only be done if they work in close consultation with, as I have suggested, the department of industry in the province concerned. I do not think it is too much to hope in this day and age of enlightenment in Canada, this age of progress and relative prosperity, that we can think
September 26, 1967

ahead in terms of economic and employment needs in regions so that, although they do not perhaps exist at the moment, they can be met adequately and responsibly in the future. This is possible only if some preplanning and anticipatory work is done at this stage. This would mean that in a province like my own, the province of Manitoba, which aspires to supporting a substantial complex of light and medium manufacturing, we could look forward to a pool and well of personnel who would be available to perform certain jobs and staff plants and be able to supply the necessary muscle for industries and other productive enterprises when those enterprises presented themselves.
I think the over-all necessity in regions such as the one I am discussing, others similar to Manitoba, is for an enlightened view or attitude toward the future on the part of this council and all those concerned with manpower and immigration policies in the government of Canada. For it is a vicious circle, Mr. Speaker. When one region attempts to improve its status but lacks both the financial resources and the available manpower to do so, then the one lack feeds the other. In those circumstances a province finds itself in the position of being unable to attract industry because it has not got the manpower and at the same time unable to attract manpower because it has not got the industry. In such a situation, Mr. Speaker, what is necessary is a close and dedicated exercise in co-operation among the provinces, this new council and the advisory bodies which will be set up and which will function under that council, in order to provide for future expansion and to anticipate the future ambitions of regions such as those to which I have referred. I hope that the minister incorporates the same philosophy in the work of the council and of his department.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
There are one or two aspects of the conflict with private industry and business to which I should like to refer at this point. I share the anxiety of the hon. member for Halifax who spoke of the proliferation of bureaucracy which is exemplified in the establishment of agencies such as this. I think the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacDonald) put the case well yesterday with his references to the sovereignty, if you like, of the individual, individual responsibility and the desire of most men and women to care and provide for themselves, and the general attitude prevailing in the country at the present time in relation to big government paternalism. I
DEBATES	2495
Manpower and Immigration Council think there is a tendency in the establishment of agencies such as this toward a climate of paternalism that is more negative than positive in its effects on Canadian enterprise. I would therefore call on the minister to take pains, through his department and through this agency, to co-operate in so far as it is possible and to the greatest degree possible with the private employment services which operate in this area.
In my own city there is located the head office of one of the main private employment agencies of North America and perhaps of the world. Two or three other private employment services also have offices there. I am therefore familiar to some degree with the anxiety which these private companies have felt since the new Department of Manpower and Immigration was organized several months ago. I raise this question. To what degree will the activities of such private agencies be inhibited or to what degree will their freedom be encroached upon by this extension of governmental manpower responsibility and manpower authority?
The private employment agencies, as I am sure the minister would agree, have performed a considerable service in supplying necessary manpower, womanpower and muscle for businesses and industries across this country. One is moved to ask now what the role of these private agencies will be. What will be their future role in an economy which to a greater extent with each passing year, it seems, becomes more and more a guided and managed economy, an economy in which the government has an increasingly large and authoritarian influence and in which the private enterpriser, the private entrepreneur, has, unfortunately, a correspondingly diminishing influence. I wonder whether an attempt has been made on the part of the officers working under the minister to work out with these private agencies a system whereby the private agencies may contribute to the role that the minister envisions his department may perform to improve the manpower situation of the country.
I hope my remarks in this area do not give me the appearance of having been suckled on a creed outworn. In the view of many, particularly in this party, this creed is not yet outworn. A creed that speaks out for an asks for the encouragement of private enterprise at this stage in the development of the Canadian economy is a timely one.
We hope, as the hon. member for Prince suggested yesterday, that this new program is not one of regimentation, authoritarianism
September 26, 1967

Manpower and Immigration Council and control. We hope that there will not be regimentation of those persons who will be seeking direction and guidance from the officers of the new offices that are to be established. We hope that any direction to be manifested under this new body will be the kind of direction that will benefit the country as a whole and lead to new opportunities for those individual regions of the country that at the moment lag behind economically. In that way those regions may enjoy their fair share of the national prosperity.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, those of us in this house who are not on the government team quite often enjoy finding flaws or weaknesses in our legislation. Those who devised our parliamentary system, and who wanted it to include an opposition were probably justified in asking the opposition to watch over the measures taken by the government in order to protect the interests of the people who send us here. However, quite often, by dint of opposing the government, a complex seems to develop against all measures proposed.
It is a disease to which we, the independents, are more immune, at least this is so in my case; indeed I must distinguish between the three independents who are in this house, because I have been sent here by my constituents in an effort to co-operate with the government which was elected on November 5 or November 8, 1965-had it been the Conservative government, my attitude would have been the same-to make suggestions as freely as can be done by anyone who does not have to follow the party discipline, who does not have to obey instructions to vote for or against any measure; it is in that frame of mind that I should like to make a few brief remarks to the minister.
I shall, at the outset, make a few laudatory remarks. His earlier statement with regard to the co-operation which he has established between the federal and the provincial governments on matters of education-to use an expression unknown in my time-is groovy. The minister is on solid ground. In short, I consider it as conventional and I think that it will be recognized and supported by the leaders of every province in particular by those of my own province who intend to retain their rights over education, even at the adult level.
And the minister's statement was so clear and straightforward that it might help clarify also any ambiguity which resulted from all

those discussions on semantics in which we have indulged for some time, without any efforts being made to define the words so as to be absolutely sure that we understand one another and that we are talking about the same thing.
I should also like to add another remark which I think the minister will enjoy. I had the opportunity in my own city, in my riding, particularly during the last three months, to witness the operation of the new manpower office where there are thirty or thirty-five employees. And I will tell the minister that our office at home, in Trois-Rivieres, is operating with extraordinary efficiency. It is under the direction of competent people who fulfill their role with the kind of zeal I would call missionary.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I was personally struck because for the 20 years I have been in public life, I have had the opportunity to deal almost constantly with the problem of unemployment and I believe that in those 20 years, this is the first time that I find a truly efficient organization doing something to improve the fate of the jobless. I am mentioning my own area but I suppose the same thing occurs elsewhere.
I should nevertheless like to make a few suggestions to the minister. I would like to call to his attention a weakness that is often noticeable on government committees dealing directly with the public. It is not more noticeable at the federal level than at the provincial or the municipal levels; in fact, it occurs in almost all committees dealing directly with the public on such human, urgent and basic problems as livelihood, for instance.
On several occasions, I have noted that on the long run, the members of those organizations become indifferent, so to speak, tired of listening to sad stories all day long; they are sometimes annoyed at finding that the applicants-our constituents-are not always properly attired and are not always duly considerate of those officials who are doing their best, and we happen to learn that the latter fail to meet the most elementary requirements of what I would call human relations. Because of their indifference, they quite often treat their customers as intruders. They forget sometimes that they are dealing with human beings entitled to some consideration, and they sometimes treat them in a cavalier way. Others, having had a thorough explanation of the legislation, go out of their way to try to find in the acts some fine points which would preclude a solution to the problem of the applicant, instead of exerting every possible means to help him.
September 26, 1967

Therefore, I think that private enterprise has tried to meet that difficulty in having its employees attend courses in salesmanship, self-achievement, human relations, because it knows that if it treats its customers inconsiderately it will lose them to its competitors. On the other hand, the official in municipal, provincial or federal undertakings comes to think that he is appointed for life; he is sure that he will not lose his customers because he operates in an exclusive field, and too often he fails to meet basic responsibilities in the field of human relations. It is obvious in several places; in fact, I have noticed it in unemployment insurance and in welfare offices. I am not saying this, Mr. Speaker, to blame anyone, much less the people in my own riding, since I have just praised them, but I know that happens quite frequently and that is why expressions like "bureaucrat" and "red tape" and all the others which discredit the public servant before public opinion were invented, although in some cases they are justified because the public servant becomes bored, of course, especially when he has to listen to tales of woe all day long.
And now I should like to make a suggestion to the minister-I do not know under what department it could fall, but I think that it should be a service which could have repercussions in all departments-that some human relations courses should be established, which these civil servants would take at least every second or third year; thus they would not tend to act as robots and forget that they are dealing with human beings who have their own pride, their own sensitivity and who, after all, constitute their clientele, in short, with the voters and taxpayers who pay the civil servants their salaries.
Government services or branches too often lack this basic tact. I think we should try to correct this as much as possible.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I often wonder why we always link manpower with immigration.
It seems to me that these are two fields of activity, each of them very broad. I do not deny that there can be some relationship between the two-for instance, for the rehabilitation of immigrants, I am sure there is-but these are two fields of action which are very broad. I will even go further, and though it is none of my business, I will tell the minister that it is too big a burden for him.
Yesterday I heard people praise the late Hon. Guy Favreau. I had read all kinds of comments in the papers, listing the various tasks which were heaped upon Hon. Guy 27053-159
DEBATES	2497
Manpower and Immigration Council Favreau, and which might have had something to do with his early demise.
We happen to know that the present minister has had health problems in recent months. I wonder if wanting a solution to the manpower problem as well as the immigration problem, two major problems, is not too much to be expected from one man, in addition to what is evidently asked of him, which matter is not official here in the house.
I wonder whether two departments are not indicated because integrating immigrants is quite a job, in that it means teaching them the rudiments of Canadian history, and at least one of the two languages of the two founding peoples, and then watching over them for a few years to help them solve their problems because they may be a bit confused and somewhat like exiles in another land.
The same goes for the manpower problem. It is rather complex. I suggest to the powers that be that two departments should be set up as soon as possible.
Moreover, I see in the government a large number of brilliant young members who would be delighted to accept the responsibility of a ministry. And they would be pleased I believe if there was a diversion. They would like to display their zeal, their ability to deserve eventually some promotions. In my opinion, there would be sufficient work for two ministers and perhaps the present Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) would then avert the fate of others. I apologize if I seem a little gloomy, Mr. Speaker, but once again those are things of which I can speak as an independent member, but perhaps everybody could not do the same.
Mr. Speaker, I see in this bill that the following is stated in connection with the powers of the boards:
The Advisory Board on Adult Occupational Training shall consider and report to the council on any matter within the minister's responsibilities in relation to adult occupational training in Canada.
Now, I would like to call the attention of the minister to one problem which is not being examined enough, I believe, and it is the one concerning people who are too old to find work in manufactures.
And when I say "too old", the minister knows as well as I do, and my colleagues also, that old age begins fairly early nowadays. From the age of 40 or 45, one already finds it difficult to get employment in plants. On the other hand, some people from 60 to 65 years old become pensioners on account of
September 26, 1967

Manpower and Immigration Council certain requirements on the part of collective agreements, pension plans, people who are still full of vigour and have experience, who could be useful to this country and who could add to its productivity but whom we condemn to unemployment and inaction, to idleness, with all the evil results that can have on a man's mind and body.
And I would like to see included in the instructions which will be given to this board, one calling for an examination of all questions coming under the jurisdiction of the minister in the field of professional training of adults; I would like to see included an instruction recommending them to take special care of those labourers belonging to the 40, 45, 50, 55 years old or more group, who are still able to work but who, for all kinds of reasons I have no time to indicate here, like automation for example, are unemployed, c (5:00 p.m.)
I believe tentative experiments have been conducted in this field: people aged 60, 65 and 70 still enjoying a good health and with considerable experience have been successfully working at their jobs, with the result that they can give useful service to their country. In my opinion, we should give those instructions so that this board would deal with this particular problem.
I would like to mention, among others, the duties imparted to the Advisory Board on the Adjustment of Immigrants, and I quote para. 2 of clause 20 in Bill C-150.
The board shall examine any matter pertaining to the minister where adjustment of the immigrants to Canadian life is concerned and shall report to the council on the aforesaid matter.
I wish to point out a special case which occurred in my own constituency, of which the minister has at least some knowledge, and I imagine that it might very well occur elsewhere.
In my constituency, there was a young immigrant, and in fact he is still there, who come to this country as a student. He attended a course in electricity, at the end of which he had to have six months' training on the job, as required by provincial legislation; otherwise, he would not get his licence as an electrician.
Now, the immigration office has refused him the right to work. I have been involved in this matter for about four or five months now, and I have yet to find out what went wrong, Mr. Speaker. Yet, it seemed so simple to me. I thought at one time that perhaps 
the immigrant had not clearly explained his position at first; at another time, I thought that the immigration official was so conscientious that he could not grant this student the right to work on account of something he had found somewhere. However, it seems that this six months on the job training period is part of the skill that he sought to acquire here, and if he is sent home without being allowed to work during those six months, he will not be able to leave with some diploma, some certificate of qualification, in brief, any certificate that would allow him to return to his country and be able to show that he is qualified. In any case, there is no lack of jobs for him, as several employers have requested his services.
I mention that case, Mr. Speaker, even though it is a special one that could have been settled in private, because I imagine the same thing could happen in other ridings, in other areas, and I suppose that this advisory board will see to it that organizations providing at least some right of appeal are established, if certain officials prove to be over-zealous.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it may not be in order to raise the following matter, but I crave your indulgence, since it deals nevertheless with unemployment and manpower.
My riding is faced with a problem which must probably exist elsewhere and which results in several persons being unemployed. Such unemployment could be remedied with greater latitude; I am now speaking of the so-called designated areas. In order to be designated, I know that areas must meet several criteria.
Now, in my riding, those conditions are drawn up bearing in mind that the area is urbanized, first of all the city of Trois-Rivieres itself and the vast surrounding district. In Trois-Rivieres itself salaries are quite high, because we are amongst the largest producers of newsprint in the world. On that basis, it is claimed that the area cannot be declared a designated area.
Now, here is what happens: certain industries could settle around Trois-Rivieres, for instance, at Yamachiche, Pointe-du-Lac, Baie-Jolie, Saint-Etienne, and even at Sainte-Marthe-du-Cap which does not lie within my riding but in which I am interested as is my colleague for Champlain (Mr. Matte); but it seems those districts cannot be recognized as designated areas.
If this were achieved, there are a number of concerns which would like to operate in those localities. This would absorb a fair
September 26, 1967	COMMONS
amount of manpower and would reduce the cost of unemployment insurance while helping the manpower staff to place a rather large number of those who will need their services.
I think that instead of setting up standards for a whole constituency, there should be a readiness to subdivide the constituencies and to study each case on its own merit and then decide that even on the outskirts of a prosperous city, industries could be allowed to benefit from all the advantages accruing the designated areas and to establish themselves at least a few miles from the limits. I am thinking in particular of Trois-Rivieres which is at a great disadvantage today because industries which normally would settle there are going very far away.
Without being an underdeveloped area for the time being, I believe, we are nevertheless suffering from an intolerable wave of unemployment.
Mr. Speaker, the question was raised a while ago of requiring the committee to report to the government or parliament. I feel that additional work should not be placed on parliament, which is already sitting nine or ten months a year, and the way things are going, sometimes eleven and soon, twelve months a year. I am satisfied that this committee should report to the minister and it is safe to say that we will be getting the report just as we are getting those of all the committees. We will surely have the opportunity to criticize when the departmental estimates come before us. I feel it would not be practical and that it would only be an opportunity to play politics to discuss every year the internal operations of an organization like the manpower council.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I repeat that my remarks were made in as constructive a way as possible and that, on the whole, I find that the setting up of this commission is an excellent thing; indeed it has already shown its usefulness even before it came into being through the offices that had been set up. The results will be better known one year from now and we may have the opportunity to make further improvements but, for the time being, I congratulate the minister who directed the drafting of this legislation in which is reflected his long years of experience with labour organizations and which was helpful in securing practical legislation.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks on Bill No. C-150 will be very brief. First, I must say, that under the present circumstances, I am in favour of the bill which
Manpower and Immigration Council establishes the Canadian council on manpower and immigration as well as the boards connected with it, the advisory boards, and finally the regional and local manpower committees. Besides, those committees existed already. It is simply a duplication, I think, of the committees which existed before which were called unemployment committees and which have become manpower committees. Therefore, in the present circumstances, we cannot object to the principle of the bill.
Of course, if we were not dealing with a central government which continues to take over all provincial powers, taxation powers, we would say: since the field of education is a provincial matter, let us leave it to the provinces. But, since the federal government gets the lion's share of taxes in the provinces, some expedient must necessarily be devised in order to give back to the provinces a few crumbs.
Mr. Speaker, the minister has given us a masterful outline of his bill, and he is certainly qualified to do so, but he did not manage to convince and dazzle those who know how to get down to bed-rock. I believe that even if we have every reason to be satisfied with this bill, it certainly offers food for thought with regard to the future of education in the provinces.
[DOT] (5:10 p.ra.)
I have always been told that whoever pays the piper calls the shots. This bill allows the provinces to have their say in the sense that they will rent the classrooms and the government will pay the rent, but the government will be the one to decide on the methods used and the courses taught. In other words, the federal government says: if you do as you are told, we will pay. That is the level at which it is said that the federal government encroaches upon the powers of the provinces, particularly in the field of education.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, this bill contains something which is thought provoking for, in the present circumstances, it will certainly be of some benefit to our population.
The council will include 16 paid members, four advisory boards, probably composed of about 60 members, as well as regional committees. I see there quite a large army of advisers to the minister because that is what they are called.
I am sure the minister will be well advised with all that well-paid army-even though I do not know what salaries will be paid. But, as always, that will be decided by the government or the minister. The salaries will be
(2500	COMMONS
Manpower and Immigration Council determined and all those' people will be .handsomely paid. I do not want to seem naive, but I wonder who will appoint that well-paid group.
In his speech, the minister put partisan considerations aside-as always, I must add -but if you look at the bill closely you will find that it is full of political undertones.
A Canada manpower and immigration council, consisting of a chairman and 15 members, that is 16 members in all, is established. The chairman is appointed to hold office during pleasure for a term not exceeding three years. The members of the council, other than the chairman of the council and the chairmen of the advisory boards must be appointed after consultation with such representative organizations as the governor in council deems appropriate.
All that fine print, after the word consultation, means that politics will have power of veto over the appointment of the chairman and the other members of the council.
We have the same thing here in the case of the advisory boards, all four of them: the advisory board on adult occupational training; the second, the advisory board on the adjustment of immigrants; the third, the advisory board on the co-ordination of rehabilitation services for disabled persons and the advisory board on manpower and immigration research.
Let us have a look at the appointments and be honest with ourselves. I do not hold it against the minister; that is how things have always been done in the house. In the final analysis, the appointments are always political. It is all very well to say that consultations are taking place, but we know what is going on in our ridings. This is nothing new. In my opinion, all commissions previously established, even the unemployment insurance commissions, the former employment and guidance services provided for the unemployed, are so many fine opportunities for a political party to find good positions for its supporters and to run everything.
I would be very happy if once and for all, a new procedure could be devised in order to free those boards from politics and enable them to work conscientiously.
Some of them, even though appointed by the party in power, are conscientious. As a matter of fact, they are staffed by honest people. But others take every opportunity to indulge in what is called petty politics. The first condition for any kind of work to be

DEBATES	September 26, 1967
accepted-and I saw this myself-is that it bears the hallmark of the party.
I mention this to the hon. minister although he is well aware of the situation. I am saying that we want this to stop. Let us look for another method. Today, we have the present minister, things will be different tomorrow, partners will change as well as employees and this will have repercussions throughout Canada. And the province of Quebec is far from being an exception, as the hon. minister knows well enough.
I know that as far as appointments are concerned, there is a lot of work to do. This protection must be eradicated from our laws.
All those who were listening to the hon. minister this afternoon for the first time thought the act was wonderful. But beyond the words of the hon. minister-and he is quite convincing-when the concept of the law is considered we still have this same fear that a skilled person will be passed over and an incompetent person appointed. I know that the hon. minister is aware of this. I know that he is interested in this matter and well aware of the situation, because inefficient people are appointed over the heads of qualified people, as the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) said a while ago, people who are completely devoid of tact, who have no social notion whatsoever, and who assume responsibilities for such delicate matters as social welfare laws which we are advocating today.
I should now like to say a word about the committees, especially the adult vocational training committee. This is all very well, we are all quite pleased. This commission now bears a new name for it used to deal with the training of unemployed people. When I was the chairman of the school board in my region, I was the first to set up and implement the first training courses for unemployed people. The terms of reference of the commission have been modified year after year. It is still not perfect-at the start it was not perfect but it was a beginning-it is still not ideal, there are abuses still, but I am sure that the more we amend the law, the more hardship those who need it will suffer.
I noticed it again last year, when senior citizens 62 years of age were being taught grade 3 and 4 French. Between you and me, it would have been just as well to pay them a salary for staying home quietly in their rocking chair.
We, the legislators, just seem a little ridiculous because the effects of our legislation
September 26. 1967	COMMONS
cannot be felt immediately and when we go back to our constituencies and discuss the matter with our constituents in order to learn about the impact of that legislation, sometimes we feel like laughing in view of the possible effects of the legislation.
Insofar as the adult vocational training is concerned, I think that something should be done with regard to the number of courses. Someone might say that guidance in that respect is a provincial responsibility, but since it is done, an overall view of the matter could still be taken. For instance, in my area, instead of holding all the classes in Chicoutimi, some should be held north of the lake so that our people should not have to travel over a long distance; in fact, that would be possible since there are groups of 25 to 30 adults who could attend those classes, and who are now forced to go out of their way in order to do so. I think the attention of the minister should be drawn to this state of affairs, in order to prevent ridiculous situations of this sort. Imagine a worker forced to travel 50 miles to attend his classes, when it could be taught in Saint-Felicien, in Dol-beau, in Roberval, in short, somewhere near so as to accommodate all those interested and save them an unreasonably long trip.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word here concerning the regional committees. As elsewhere, many do their best and others do not. It reminds me a little of the last elections and of the $50,000 or $75,000 which the government had given to the Economic Development Council which was managed in part by the regional committees and which had used this money for purely political ends in the lower Mistassini region. But the minister is not responsible for this, since he did not even know about it.
That is to say that close supervision will have to be exerted so that the purpose of the legislation may be achieved. I am sure that this object would be achieved if less emphasis were placed on political considerations. Even though we do not speak about that any more, parties are still playing politics. The Liberals argue that they do not play politics, but every initiative taken by politicians is politically oriented, and I think this is very bad, when a bill is introduced and especially when people entrusted with the administration of that legislation are people appointed for political considerations, who are often anxious to work for the party concerned.
DEBATES	2501
Manpower and Immigration Council
It is hoped that this bill will achieve its objects and will be to the advantage of the whole working class.

[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to delay unduly the passage of this bill to establish the Canada manpower and immigration council. I listened with interest this afternoon to the comments of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) as he outlined some of the responsibilities of the council and the advisory boards which can be set up under this bill. It seems to me that some of his remarks could readily be related to problems that come entirely within the authority of the provincial governments. The government has a role to fulfil but I personally believe it can best strengthen confederation if it legislates within its sphere of authority and does not unnecessarily interfere with the rights of the provinces.
There is one aspect of the bill which is of
great concern to me. I refer to the right granted to the minister to set up from time to time additional advisory boards as he deems appropriate to deal with any subject within his responsibilities. On the one hand we have heard that the Prime Minister (Mr. Perason) is concerned about government expenditures and is asking the cabinet to curtail unnecessary spending. This is understandable when we consider that despite our present high taxes we still have a budget deficit estimated to amount to some $740 million. Yet here we have a bill which gives the minister carte blanche to set up additional boards whose chairmen must be paid and whose members will be paid a per diem allowance for each day he or she is absent from his or her ordinary place of residence. How many boards are to be established?
Clause 12 of the bill states:
(1)	The minister shall establish
(a)	an advisory board on adult educational training;
(b)	an advisory board on the adjustment of immigrants;
(c)	an advisory board on the co-ordination of rehabilitation services for disabled persons; and
(d)	an advisory board on manpower and immigration research.	"	. .
(2)	The minister may, from time to time, establish additional advisory boards as he deems appropriate to deal with any subject within his responsibilities as minister.
This would indicate that these boards with 12 members each will have a total of 48 members. In my view this is not the way to
I.s uvO . j
September 26. 1967

Manpower and Immigration Council cut down government expenditure; this is not the way in which to curtail government bureaucracy. Let me put my thoughts on record in this regard.
There are 48 appointments to be made which will put these people on the government payroll. This bill is too broad in its scope and the minister is being given powers which I believe to be too wide. Surely the minister has sufficient staff at the present time to advise him on all matters affecting the utilization and development of manpower resources in Canada, including immigrants to Canada and their adjustment to Canadian life, without adding to the number of people on the government payroll. We already have too many officers, if I may use that term, and not enough crew. We already have too many people cutting bait, as we would say in Queens or Lunenburg Counties, and not enough out fishing. I believe that upgrading of our manpower and the retraining of individuals in other skills in order to take advantage of technological changes in our country is necessary, but I caution the minister that overexpanding his department unnecessarily, which could increase the load upon the taxpayers, might create more problems than this measure is designed to solve.
Private enterprise is obviously concerned about the growth of government boards in recent years. There is obviously an overlapping of responsibility between government and industry, and it might well be that the government could utilize the facilities established by private enterprise before expanding into this field of greater control and direction of our economy.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo South):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that at this time we have reached a watershed in the debate on manpower. I felt reasonably confident that the minister although he was not in a position to say to the house that all the problems involved in manpower and retraining have been solved, at least was keeping a reasonably open mind about them. We had expectations that he would examine the suggestions we were making and that he would come up with some answers. Certainly no one is better qualified to find those answers and to carry out the objective of a meaningful manpower policy in this country.
In asking myself what is happening at the present time and why a loss of confidence is taking place I can only believe that the government is floundering because of its inability to solve federal-provincial problems. Much of


what is going wrong with the manpower policy seems to be the direct result of the attitudes adopted in respect of federal-provincial relationships. The government seems to be trying to create a no-man's land between what is federal jurisdiction and what is provincial jurisdiction.
We can understand that there is a substantial problem in respect of the province of Quebec but we do not know how extensive that problem is. We do not know what the local approach is to such problems. We do know that in the other provinces of Canada this difficulty does not exist to the same degree. There does not seem to be a problem in respect of the other provinces working with the federal government toward a meaningful program.
9 (5:30 p.m.)
The attempt to segregate in regard to retraining is disastrous and meaningless. To ask the provinces to assume some narrow definition of education as their responsibility, while the federal government assumes some narrow definition of retraining as its responsibility, simply cannot work. There are a number of reasons for this. We know that in some of the provinces of Canada the effect of retraining and upgrading, whether it involves academic re-education, skills or any other type of education, will contribute to the migration from those provinces to other provinces of this country. In any country this sort of thing takes place. Some provinces are developing at a slower rate than others. Changes are taking place, whether they be in people moving from agriculture to industry or from one industry to another. In effect, by asking some of the provinces of Canada to accept this narrow definition the government is asking them to pay for the export of their people to the advantage of the provinces that receive them later. It just is not an acceptable solution.
The minister is certainly well aware of the fact that when these new regulations in respect of manpower training came into effect the province of Ontario was decidedly unhappy with them. In his speech today the minister suggested there was resistance to the program on the part of the provinces, that they were assuming a bargaining position. But the bargaining position between the federal government and the provincial governments is one that is hurting the very people who need this assistance. The inability of the federal government to come to grips with this problem and solve it will frustrate what is otherwise an opportunity for the development of a first class program.
September 26, 1967

I am sorry I had to rise and take more of the time of the house today in order to say these few words. I want to use some of my time to read to the minister an article from the Kitchener-Waterloo Record. I would not do this if I did not think it was important to bring it to the minister's attention, to reiterate what has been said in other areas of the country and to point out to him the seriousness of the problem, and that his somewhat cavalier attitude today that everything has been resolved and everything is under control is not warranted because this really is not the case.
The article points out that in the Kitch-ener-Waterloo area, including Galt, Hespeler and Preston, more immigrants settled last year than in any other Ontario city. I think this refers to the city of Kitchener and excludes some of the major cities such as Hamilton and Toronto. The article in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record goes on to say:
This influx of newcomers, however, has created serious problems. Many immigrants are having difficulty learning the English language and consequently are employed at jobs not using the skills for which they were brought to Canada.
The article says in part that we have made very careful rules about the kind of immigrants that are acceptable to this country and qualifications regarding skills are contained in those rules. This is one of the great things for which we are looking in immigrants. Yet when immigrants come to this country, as the article documents, they are set to menial tasks. If this is the policy of the government, if we really want to set immigrants to menial tasks, surely if we are to be logical we should bring in unskilled immigrants for unskilled work, or if we bring in skilled people we should provide them with a sufficient opportunity to practise those skills which are essential to the economy of this country.
Mr. John Zaritsky, who is a young reporter for the Record, has done an outstanding job. I should like to read his article because I think it is very important in pointing up the difficulties that are being created by the present attitude of the department in respect of the manpower program. The article starts by saying:
Sandor N., a recent Immigrant to the Twin Cities, spoke not only for himself but for many other immigrants in his application form to attend night school English classes when he wrote:
"I leave in Canada and here everybody speak in English. This language is very important in my work. I am working in office as draftsman. If I no speak English, I cannot work. I am leaving in here Canada three mound ago."
DEBATES	2503
Manpower and Immigration Council
The spelling and the syntax are Sandor's but the message is clear: Sandor needs to learn English quickly if he is going to practise his trade as a draftsman.
It's unlikely however that Sandor will learn fast enough, no matter how hard he studies. For, in the opinion of A. A. Yunker, an English language instructor at the adult education centre, it will take immigrants like Sandor "at least two or three years" to learn English adequately.
It's doubtful Sandor can afford to spend "two or three years" learning English without it being a personal hardship. More likely his language deficiency will force him to give up his present job and get another one as a labourer or something which doesn't require an ability to use English.
Unfortunately, Sandor is not alone in this predicament. There is Bert, a young Dutchman who was an electrician back home. Bert now works as a porter in a local hotel while he learns English.
Jaroslav M. attended university for four years back in his native Czechoslovakia. Jaroslav now is working as a labourer in a local factory.
John D. is another immigrant who attended university in his native Korea. For two years he specialized in biology and animal husbandry. He is now doing factory work.
Seigfried S. was a welder back in Germany. Today he is working on construction in the Twin Cities.
Henry R. was a school teacher in South America for two years before he came to Canada. Today he's a labourer in a local factory.
Pilar G. is another former teacher. For nine years she taught high school in Spain. The only work she does now is baby-sitting.
Hans K., a qualified plumber with a grade 12 education in Germany, is a labourer. Also a labourer is Jaszai M. who attended university for one year in his native Austria.
An air-conditioning engineer prior to immigrating to Canada, Jorg B. is now a mechanic. Chow T. completed secondary school in China but today he washes dishes as a kitchen helper.
Paolo P. was a mechanic back in Italy. He is presently employed as a labourer.
Anna P. worked for five years as an editor of a sports magazine in Poland. Prior to that, she was an office manager. Today she is looking for a job.
Another Pole, Edward M. was a bookkeeper and accountant. He now is a lab technician. Another bookkeeper, with seven years experience, Horst Z., a native of Germany, now does factory work. Also doing factory work is Erika Z., formerly an office clerk in Switzerland.
Dieter K., a baker for six years in Germany, is now a metal polisher. Ioannidis A. worked as an electrician for 12 years in Greece; today he is doing factory work.
Klaus P. was an IBM operator in Germany. He now is a machine operator in a local factory.
All the names listed are immigrants to Canada. Most of them have arrived in the Twin Cities within the last six months. They arrived with different and varying degrees of skills from countries around the world.
September 26, 1967
2504	COMMONS DEBATES
Manpower and Immigration Council
But most, because of an inability to speak and understand English, are not now able to work at the trade or occupation they were trained in.
Usually they have been forced to take lower-paying low-skill or labouring jobs. And all have expressed a desire and willingness to learn English.
Mr. Yunker and the staff at the adult education centre sympathize with these immigrants. Mr. Yunker, with 12 years experience teaching English to immigrants, knows how tough it will be for them to learn English.
He knows that many of them will attend the two and a half hour classes three nights a week tired and hungry after working 8 to 12 hours.
"A lot of them don't have time to go home after work. They come here right from work in their work clothes without having eaten supper. It's pretty rough to concentrate under those circumstances."
The article continues:
The advantages of day school classes are numerous. Students spend four times as much time in classes than in night school. There is more continuity between lessons. Day students get less discouraged because they are progressing rapidly.
And because the immigrants are "exceptionally conscientious and well motivated," they learn quickly.
Since its inception, the program has proved to be very successful, said Mr. Yunker. He cited numerous examples of immigrants who, having completed the five-month course, were able to get good jobs which they couldn't have held prior to taking the English classes.
And the costs for such a program are more than made up for by the economic benefits which occur when an immigrant works at a skilled trade or profession.
"If these people are brought to Canada for a purpose, then our job should be to put them into that field as soon as possible. The sooner we get them into the proper field, the sooner they'll be an asset to the country."
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
But since March 21, the local manpower office, which must refer immigrants to the adult education centre for day English classes, has not sent one immigrant to the centre.
Mr. Yunker and the staff at the centre can't understand why.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that neither can the rest of the country. The article goes on to point out another difficulty that immigrants to this country are encountering. It is documented in this way, and I quote from the Record again:
A few months ago, an immigrant arrived in the Twin Cities. There was nothing unusual or special about the immigrant, he was just an average sort.
The immigrant, a man in his early 20's, was full of ambition and was willing to do anything to build a future in Canada for his wife and two small children.

And although he didn't speak or understand English, the immigrant did succeed in finding a job in a local factory shortly after he arrived.
Two and one half months later, disaster struck. The immigrant got caught in a punch press he was operating. Both of his hands had to be amputated.
Company safety officials investigating the unfortunate tragedy believe the accident was caused in large part by the immigrant's inability to understand English.
These things happen, Mr. Speaker, and have happened in this country before. We all know of instances where French Canadians have gone to work in factories where the signs were posted in English and, not understanding the English language, experienced similar difficulties. We are very much concerned about this problem today. As a matter of fact, we are paying a terrible price in national unity today because we did not anticipate and do something about the problem 20 or 30 years ago when it should have been tackled. Let us not make the same mistake with immigrants who come to this country. Surely we have learned something from our history.
I realize that the minister does have some difficulties. I do not know what they are exactly but he must not be complacent about them. I suggest to the minister that he not only investigate further the articles to which I have referred today but that he look at the remainder of these seven articles which document the experiences of immigrants in the twin city area. It does not make very pleasant reading. I suggest that unless something is done about this situation our whole manpower and immigration policy in this country will be seriously jeopardized. We will also lose that great degree of sympathy which now exists for the work that has been undertaken in this direction.
I suggest to the minister that he rethink this problem, that he not be tied to the idea that because one province feels it cannot go along with a certain program every other province in Canada must take the same medicine. Surely such an approach is not the answer. There must be some way to satisfy the natural and legitimate aspirations of a province which is different, one which has different objectives and outlooks from other provinces in Canada, without forcing the provinces which wish to co-operate with the federal government in a combined program to adopt a similar stand. This to me does not seem to be the way to get a good manpower policy or to strengthen confederation. This to me seems to be an abdication of the responsibility of the federal government in this field
September 26, 1967

and a very convenient way of saying that the provinces are trying to gain a bargaining position with the federal government. I hope that the minister will not think I am so naive as not to recognize that a certain amount of jockeying does take place not only among the provinces themselves but between the provinces and the federal government. We recognize that as a fact of life. But again that is not the issue.
We think that the federal government has not provided leadership in this field, that it has been somewhat irresponsible in bringing immigrants to this country and not following through in a way which is clearly within the jurisdiction of the federal government and certainly within the area of its moral obligation. This applies not only to retraining; it applies to housing, to the kind of promises which are made, the advertising which takes place and the recruiters that we are sending to other countries in the world. We are not being fair. I suggest that it is time for fairness in this country and time for leadership on the part of the government in the whole field of manpower and immigration.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: If the
minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I will start by answering the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Saltsman). I do not think I said-I was speaking French at the time and there might have been some slight difference in the English translation -that everything in my department was perfect, that there were no frictions or defi-ciences at all, because I know that there are. We cannot make changes of the magnitude of those we have made without encountering some trouble somewhere or making adaptations.
This new program came into effect only on April 1, 1967, not five years but six months ago. In the field of adult training, we are still operating under the old agreement for another year, so I think it is a little soon to state in the house that this program is a failure simply because during the last five or six months it did not correspond exactly to what hon. members had in mind. So many things had to be changed that I am ready to accept that there are some well-founded grievances concerning our training program.
I do not know how many times I will have to repeat this, Mr. Speaker, but may I say to the hon. member for Waterloo South that if it is true that a skilled immigrant cannot use his
DEBATES	2505
Manpower and Immigration Council skill in Canada because he cannot speak one of the two official languages, then that person is entitled to apply for a course under this retraining program. If this policy is not adopted by any particular centre then it is not following the instructions which have been given to it. This is our policy, and we are ready to assume the expenses incurred and to pay allowances if such an immigrant needs language instruction before he can use his skill.


Max Saltsman: Tomorrow we will put it to the test.


Jean Marchand: Yes. If hon. members want me to repeat that in French so that it is very clear I am ready to do so. However, I think we have a good translation service here. As I say, this program is not perfect. Probably no one will ever produce a perfect program of this sort. But I think it is a sound program and that it will achieve the objectives that are outlined in the legislation.
I do not think that the problem of federal-provincial relations at this stage has anything to do with the development of this program. I think that all our differences were settled at the last conference which was held in July, and I have every reason to believe that the program will go down well with all provinces, including the hon. member's province. I know that in Newfoundland they are happy. Hon. members may say that they have to be happy anyhow but nevertheless they are happy. That is so in many other provinces. In Quebec we have formed a consultative committee for training adults, and everything will be all right. I think within a few months the program will take shape. It will not be perfect; one must remember that. There will still be grievances. We shall have grievances all the time, but it will really become the program that I thought it would be.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Concerning the private agencies may I say that it is not the purpose of my department to kill such private agencies. But I do want our placement offices and our Canada manpower centres to do an efficient and good job. If the private agencies cannot compete it means that they do not have the spirit of private enterprise. We are not going to kill them. That is not our intention. They have their roles and I think some of them are useful to the country. I am sure they can compete very successfully with our Canada manpower centres. As a result they will continue serving. We do not intend to destroy them but we do want
September 26, 1967

Manpower and Immigration Council efficient manpower centres to give the service for which employers and employees are waiting.
With regard to expenses there is an amount in my estimates of $120,000 for the council and the advisory boards. This is the limit. We cannot spend more money than that. If we want more we must come back to the house and explain why. So there is no limitless provision in the bill which would authorize the minister or anybody else to spend any amount of money.
We have indicated in the bill that we want authority to set up special boards. Let us look at it this way. Suppose we have problems with the mobility grants program; you and I may agree that we should have a special board to deal with them within the limits which are indicated in the estimates. I do not see why, because there are certain provisions giving certain powers, it should be said that the government has a blank cheque. That is not so. We are limited and if I want to set up new boards I must take into account the amount of money that is left in the authorization given by the house. There is no such danger as the hon. member sees. Everything is under control. The Auditor General has the authority to supervise and look into these expenses as well as other expenses.


Mr. Nielsen:: After the money is spent.


Jean Marchand: It is the usual procedure. If the hon. member wants to change the Whole structure of government I have no objection. Perhaps we shall be in agreement.


Erik Nielsen: The minister will be welcome.


Jean Marchand: In any event, I do not think there is any specific danger concerning finance.
Someone else spoke about regional problems. There are regional problems; that is why we divided Canada into five regions. Each region has the maximum autonomy. We have taken into account the specific problems of each region of Canada.

I thank the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) for what he said about the bill and the department. Old people, at least those we call old people, are a problem and I think that within the framework set up by this bill it is possible to study and give special consideration to that problem as well as to that of young people, and to all the special

problems which arise in the field of manpower.
Now, about training, I must say that most of the difficulties

I fail to recall the case he mentioned-stem from the fact that training comes under provincial jurisdiction as well as all the professional associations and associations, and it happens that immigrants have difficulties not because of us but because of the regulations concerning training or membership in professional associations.
Now, with regard to the member for Ro-berval (Mr. Gauthier) who fears political appointments, Mr. Speaker, I feel that those who know the bill and all those who have held the post I am now filling know full well that it is impossible to pull political strings. A while ago, it was pointed out to me that it was a good place for friends. Indeed, it is a very poor one, in fact the worst one of all. If the C.L.C. is to be represented, it will not accept that we appoint its representative; the congress will do so themselves. The same applies to the Confederation of National Trade Unions, as well as to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. It is really not the place for patronage. If there is any place where it is impossible to have patronage this is it, this is the type of representative council; free organizations in our land will not allow the government to appoint their representatives. This is not true under this government any more than it was under the former government.
However, I think the hon. member for Roberval, who is not here, unfortunately, is mistaken. Those who believe that the growing number of councils will give the government more opportunities for patronage, do not understand the workings of such bodies, and I think that if they consulted with the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr), they would not doubt the veracity of my statement.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, we are faced, I think, with a bill that may not be altogether perfect but that provides the utmost guarantee under the circumstances and improves on what was previously available. In my estimation, the house should approve it, and after a while, we could see if it fulfils our hopes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Is the
house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
September 26, 1967	COMMONS


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Tardif in the chair.
On clause 2-Definitions.
The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Shall
clause 2 carry?


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Maurice Rinfret: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.



ECONOMIC COUNCIL


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, may we revert to motions in order to table the fourth annual review of the Economic Council of Canada, as requested by the Leader of the Opposition?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the minister have leave to table the document now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock the house will proceed with the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, before you call any of the items may I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to an anomaly on the order paper with respect to the items under private bills. I do so because there is one entry which is perhaps in error. If there is an error it may well be we shall need to look more closely at the listing of the other items in order to find out whether there are errors in regard to them as well. I notice that item 8 under date of July 4, 1967 is listed as follows:
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
Second reading of Bill S-15, An Act to incorporate Seaboard Finance Company of Canada-Mr. Cameron (High Park).
This is followed by an indication that the bill is printed in both English and French. If Your Honour will now look at item 11 under
DEBATES	2507
Two Entries For Same Bill the same heading of business you will find there under date of July 7, 1967, the following.
Second reading of Bill S-15, An Act to incorporate Seaboard Finance Company of Canada-Mr. Cameron (High Park).
Again there is an indication that the bill is printed in both English and French. This, Mr. Speaker, is a company which failed to secure a charter last session. Perhaps it wants to have two tries this time in the hope that one of these bills will get through.
I cannot believe that it is in order to have the same bill, and this is obviously the same bill, listed twice. I draw this matter to Your Honour's attention so that something may be done about it.


Mr. A. J. P. Cameron (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Skeena is perfectly correct. An error has occurred. Accordingly, I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury):
That as Bill S-15, an Act to incorporate Seaboard Finance Company of Canada, was received irregularly in this House on July 4th last, the entry in Votes and Proceedings for that date, as well as item No. 8 under "Private Bills" on today's Order Paper in relation thereto, be deleted.
I think this will correct the error to which the hon. member for Skeena has referred.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for High Park needs leave of the house to move this motion. Does the house grant such leave?


Frank Howard: Before leave is granted may I make a suggestion? I have no objection to the motion but as the hon. member who moved it is entitled to speak first on it I wonder whether in doing so he could explain to us how this error arose in order that we may be fully apprised of the circumstances.


Alan John Patrick Cameron: I am sorry, but I do not know how the error occurred. I noticed when I read the order paper yesterday that the bill was set down twice. Mistakes of this kind do occur occasionally, though we know that the branch which deals with private members' bills is very careful in what it does. This is one of those unfortunate errors which do occur and I would ask the house to give the necessary leave to present this motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house give leave to the hon. member for High Park to move this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed
2508	COMMONS
Two Entries For Same Bill


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It would appear to the Chair that there has been a slight clerical error which could be corrected by the adoption of this motion.


Frank Howard: of the bill, the hon. member for High Park, has incorporated in his motion a reference to July 4 as being the incorrect date. But when he was asked to explain the irregularity he said he did not know the reason.
Perhaps this July 4 date came out of the air. Perhaps somebody placed it in the hands of the hon. member for High Park who, without explaining the reason why that date was chosen, simply by declaration in his motion says that the bill was received irregularly on that particular date.
I submit that before we make a decision about this matter we are entitled to know specifically why that message was received irregularly on July 4 and we are entitled to know if in fact it was received irregularly on July 4. Votes and Proceedings, which is our guide here in the absence of any other formal explanation or guidance, is clear. I do not intend to read it again but it indicates clearly that the house received a message from the Senate on July 4 with respect to Bill S-15 indicating that it had been passed by the Senate and asking this house to concur, which is the standard and formal way of doing business between the two houses so far as bills are concerned. Then on July 7 the house received an identical message from the Senate without any indication from the Senate that the previous message was incorrect.
I am not casting any reflections on the integrity of the hon. member for High Park with respect to this matter but I simply say that to ask the house upon his words, as expressed by way of this motion, to make a decision that it received something irregularly on a certain date, without any substantiation therefor and without any communication from the Senate, would in effect be saying to the Senate: You do not know what you are doing. I say there may be great validity in that on more than one occasion but in effect by adopting the motion we would be saying: You, the Senate of Canada, a portion of this legislative body, the parliament of Canada, which by precedence if nothing else has a higher standing than the House of Commons, made a mistake on July 4, 1967, with respect to a particular bill. We do not have any intimation from the Senate that this is the case.
Simply being presented with a motion declaring we received something irregularly on a particular date, without any formal communication between the two houses, leaves us in the position that we should either reject the motion and leave things as they are until
Two Entries For Same Bill the situation is cleared up or we should amend the motion to wipe both of the items off the order paper because one of them is irregular. I think our proper course is to amend the motion to include both dates and put the Senate back in the position of doing the thing correctly.
Accordingly I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron):
Strike out all words after the word "last" and substitute the following:
"and the same bill was introduced on July 7 and appears as item No. 11 on the order paper for September 26, the entries in the Votes and Proceedings for the dates of July 4 and July 7 as well as the items Nos. 8 and 11 under "Private Bills" on today's order paper, in relation thereto, be deleted."
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we have only one copy of the amendment in written form because we did not know what the formal motion would be. I hope you can read it. Perhaps we may dispatch the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands to assist you to interpret it because it is his draftman-ship, but the essence of it is that both items on the order paper, Nos. 8 and 11 under the heading "Private Bills", be deleted from today's order paper, and also the entries in Votes and Proceedings for July 4 and July 7. If this amendment carries it will leave us in the position of not casting any reflection on the work of the Senate with respect to this irregularity, and the next communication we get from the Senate will put the matter back in its proper perspective.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The motion moved by the hon. member for High Park dealt particularly with the entry in Votes and Proceedings of July 4. The amendment which the hon. member for Skeena now proposes goes beyond the original motion and deals also with the entry in Votes and Proceedings of July 7. It is the opinion of the Chair that the amendment goes beyond the scope of the motion.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
Let me read to the house citation 203(3), page 171 of Beauchesne's fourth edition:
An amendment setting forth a proposition dealing with a matter which is foreign to the proposition involved in the main motion is not relevant and cannot be moved.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, before you make your ruling, if I may I should like to read again what you have read:
An amendment setting forth a proposition dealing with a matter which is foreign to the proposition involved in the main motion is not relevant and cannot be moved.
September 26, 1967

Two Entries For Same Bill
I submit that if anything is germane or is in complete comport with the motion it is the amendment that has been moved, because the motion deals with a specific bill and deals with the date upon which it is claimed, simply by the hon. member for High Park and nobody else, that it was received irregularly.
The point of order on which I rose related to the fact that there are two such entries, one on July 7 and one on July 4. My point of order which I raised at the outset dealt with each of them. You did not rule on whether the point of order was valid. My point of order referred to the two dates on the order paper and when the hon. member for High Park moved the motion the motion contained in it a reference to the irregularity of the reception of a certain item on July 4.
I submit that without any formal communication between the other place and this house one cannot accept, on the simple statement of one hon. member, that something was done irregularly. Because each entry, that of July 4 and that of July 7, is germane to the other they thereby cannot be foreign. Therefore the citation which you use as the basis for your forthcoming ruling, I submit, cannot be supported. If there are any items which can be connected one with the other they certainly are the two dates, because they deal with exactly the same bill. There is nothing at all foreign to them.
I believe the only course to follow is to accept the amendment. I implore you to consider taking that course and giving the house an opportunity to permit the other place to make the decision it might wish to make under its rules. I say this without casting any aspersions on the other place.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair has examined the amendment as proposed by the hon. member for Skeena and also the motion moved by the hon. member for High Park. It is the opinion of the Chair that the amendment introduces a question that was not contained in the original motion and the Chair therefore rules that the amendment is out of order.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, it is an unusual circumstance to be asked by a private member to rectify something when we are not fully aware of the implications of it. I believe this matter warrants some consideration and therefore I was very surprised by the ruling of the Chair in relation to the amendment. I too, like most other members, read the duplication on the

order paper. I presumed that it was a duplication by the printer. However, when we checked we found that the dates of the two entries did not coincide. We then realized that there were really two entries. This in itself probably would raise some question, but when we received the motion of the hon. member for High Park, which indicates there was an irregularity in respect of one of them, I am surprised that Your Honour did not decide that there had been an irregularity, not on the part of our staff and not because of a misprint or a typographical error, and that the error must have occurred somewhere else and the logical thing to do would be to remove both items and have the other place make the decision whether or not this bill should be on the order paper at all.
If the bill was introduced irregularly once then the whole bill may be irregular, and it would not be unreasonable for someone to get up and say it was irregularly introduced the second time. I believe that by not allowing the amendment you may have further confused the matter and have cast some aspersions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have listened to the hon. gentleman for a few moments. The Chair is of the opinion now that the hon. member is entering into a criticism of a ruling by the Chair. I would refer him to standing order 12.


William Arnold Peters: I did not intend to criticize the ruling. I only wished to mention the situation in which it now leaves us. It places us in the position of having to discuss a motion referring specifically to one bill which is being introduced while we have on the order paper a second one which is identical except for the very important fact that the date is July 7 instead of July 4.
The fact of the matter is that many members must wonder, unless there is a reason given for the first introduction being irregular, why the first one is improper and the second one legitimate. Therefore I should like to move an amendment which would remove both bills from the order paper. I assume it is open to me to move such an amendment. The effect of the amendment would be to remove the second one from the order paper as well so that the responsibility will clearly fall on the other place to decide whether or not one of these motions should be in Votes and Proceedings and which one. Otherwise, if we vote for the amendment of the hon. member for High Park we are saying there is something incorrect in respect of the first private
September 26, 1967

bill entry and nothing wrong with the second one. I have heard nothing which indicates to me that this is so, nor do I have any knowledge that would lead me to believe this is so. For this reason I should like to move the following amendment to the motion of the hon. member for High Park:
That all the words after the word "that" be removed and the following words added "Bill S-15 be deleted from today's Routine Proceedings and Orders of the Dag, and from the record of Votes and Proceedings concerning Bill S-15".
I presume this amendment will be seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge).


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Certainly not. I am opposed to this amendment and all this blather over nothing.


William Arnold Peters: It will be seconded by the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Germa). The purpose of this motion is to eliminate any responsibility or any criticism which may fall on the officials at the table in respect of this matter, because I believe they are without blame. I believe that probably in the confusion of the last day they accepted the orders as they were received from the other place. Therefore any responsibility for this matter should lie solely in the hands of those in the other place. By the removal of this entry at this time we will be able to eliminate anything that would cause anyone to intimate that the officials at the table were at fault in this matter.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
I would think there might be a good argument against accepting my amendment if we were dealing with an early entry on the order paper which therefore had precedence over a number of bills. The sponsor himself has removed the first entry as a result of his amendment and my amendment relates to the last item on the order paper. In any event, if the other place properly returns the bill it will not lose its precedence on the order paper and, therefore, there will really be no change and no loss of precedence.
We seldom have any difficulty with entries on the order paper, and if there has been any irregularity in the past the sponsor has withdrawn the entry. I do not remember any such irregularity as this in the past, but if there has been something wrong with a private member's entry it has always been withdrawn and re-entered at a later date.
It is my hope that the officers at the table will be supported in respect of this matter by

Two Entries For Same Bill the acceptance of my amendment for the removal of both these entries in order that they can be re-entered in the proper fashion after a decision has been made by the other place as to whether or not this bill has been properly passed, and decided a date upon which it shall be received. I hope members will support this amendment in order that this unique situation can be clarified.
The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) obviously has failed to see the principle behind the amendment, but in order to allay his fear that there may be some lengthy discussion on this matter I hope all hon. members will agree that all proper entries have always been taken in order. Certainly, our officers at the table have won the respect of all members of parliament in this respect. I think the easiest way to solve this matter would be to re-enter the bill after consultation with those who sponsored it in the other place. I urge hon. members to support my amendment.


The Deputy Speaker:: The motion moved by the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Cameron) deals with an entry in Votes and Proceedings of July 4 and item number 8 under private bills. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) is phrased in such a way as to constitute a new question. Since it is a new question in the opinion of the Chair, it cannot be considered as an amendment to the original motion moved by the hon. member for High Park. Again, I must rule the amendment out of order.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words but being a bit of a simple soul I have not been able to recognize the principle of this matter.


Frank Howard: There is not any; it is a life insurance company.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It is obvious that this duplication is a simple clerical error on the part of someone on the staff. I support the motion of the hon. member for High Park with a view to correcting the situation. I feel this is the sensible thing to do in order that this house will have the opportunity to get on with the debate on the bill in question without wasting anymore time than we have now wasted on this matter.
During the 22 years I have been in the house I have seen various members of the staff with long service replaced by younger men. In my experience very rarely has the
September 26, 1967
2512	COMMONS DEBATES
The Excelsior Life Insurance Company staff of the House of Commons in this house, for Votes and Proceedings, or the staff of the Queen's Printer, made mistakes or errors. I look upon this very rare error as a tribute to their ability and care in correctly reporting the proceedings of this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I must rise to defend the officials of this house because by no stretch of the imagination can the blame for this error be laid at their door. What my colleagues have been trying to point out to this house is that the error was made in the other place, and that the other place should clearly correct this mess. The attempt we have made to amend the motion of the hon. member for High Park was made with that purpose in mind, namely to place the blame where it should be placed and that is with the other place. Obviously our staff did not produce this entry without a communication from the other place. If that communication was incorrect, which it obviously must have been, then that is where the blame should lie, not with the staff of this house.


The Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before I go any further perhaps I should remind the house of standing order 6(7) which states:
No vote shall be taken between 6.00 o'clock p.m. and 8.00 o'clock p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays or between 1.00 o'clock p.m. and 2.30 o'clock p.m. on any day upon which a morning sitting of the house is held. When any vote is postponed under the terms of this section the same shall be forthwith disposed of at 2.30 o'clock p.m. or 8.00 o'clock p.m., as the case may be. The house shall be deemed to have reverted to private members' business for such time as is necessary for the taking of any vote postponed from the time provided for private members' business.
Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Howard: If it is carried it certainly is carried on division.
Motion agreed to on division.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to standing order 39A, to inform the
[Mr. Herridge.l
house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) Commonwealth Relations-inquiry as to meeting of Prime Ministers; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), Public Service-legislation to increase pensions of retired civil servants; the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Brand), Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Saskatoon-inquiry as to station construction.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough) moved: the second reading of Bill S-8, respecting the Excelsior Life Insurance Company.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is identical to the one introduced in the house last session, passed here, considered in committee, reported out of committee, discussed again in the house but not passed before the end of last session. Since it is the identical bill and was fully discussed in the previous session, I am sure my hon. friends will agree there is little purpose in delaying further the passage of this bill, which has been recommended by all the public officials who have examined it.
I would not presume to say there will be no further discussion on the bill, but if there is none perhaps there will be consent to have the bill referred to committee without further debate.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I am very much afraid that I cannot accept the invitation of my hon. friend, the sponsor of the bill. I think his words were that there would be little purpose in delaying further the passage of the bill, which has been recommended by all the public officials who have examined it. This statement bears some examination, because if it were to be permitted to go unanswered it would leave the impression that the employees in the public service of Canada who deal with these matters are favourably disposed to the proposals put to us by Excelsior Life Insurance Company. I am not saying they are against them, but I think the record should be balanced out to indicate the position of those employees in the department of insurance who have examined this bill. Their position is that of carrying out the provisions of the law as parliament has already determined them. They are not in a position to express any opinions publicly, certainly not officially, about the broader aspects of the bill and the impact upon the economy
September 26, 1967

that Excelsior Life Insurance Company and others in a like position may have.
The position of the New Democratic Party has been enunciated on a number of occasions. It is a position that goes beyond the narrow confines of the statutory requirements of the Insurance Act. It is a position that, with respect to companies such as Excelsior Life Insurance Company, is identical with that of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Gordon), a former minister of finance. Our position is on all fours with the announcement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) of this country on a nationwide television broadcast earlier in the year. I refer to the position with respect to Canadian ownership of Canadian industry.
We believe that if the Prime Minister of Canada is able to take to the air and the medium of television to enunciate clearly the position of the Liberal party, the Liberal government and himself on the question of foreign ownership, it behooves us in this parliament to give him every ounce of support that we can to attain his ends, because he is obviously having a great deal of trouble in the cabinet over his declarations.
Where there is a split in the cabinet over a matter of public policy, we want to be on the side of the people in healing that split. We believe we are on the side of the people in supporting the Prime Minister 150 per cent, if that is possible, in his attempts to get through to the reactionaries in his cabinet and party the necessity of Canada owning its own means of production and distribution, and particularly of Canada being able to own and control such financial institutions as insurance companies. This is the crux of the situation with respect to the bill before us.
We have great respect for Mr. Humphrys, but the fact that he and his department have passed favourably on the bill does not touch upon the larger question of public policy with which we are now concerned. It is confined to the interpretation and administration of the law in all its narrowness.
We know by the public declarations of the Prime Minister and the President of the Privy Council where they stand on this matter. We want to stand with them. We wish everybody in the house would stand with them so that the opinions of the Prime Minister of this country may become the law of Canada in a general way and apply to all these companies. It is true that the bill in respect of Excelsior Life Insurance Company was introduced during the preceding session. It was then called Bill No. S-26.
DEBATES	2513
The Excelsior Life Insurance Company
The house then took the position that the bill should be referred to a committee, and accordingly it referred the bill to the miscellaneous private bills committee. As I read the record, that was on Thursday, February 2, 1967. On February 14, 1967, the committee started consideration of the bill. The bill was referred to a committee in an attempt, as is always the case, to obtain an elucidation from the officials of the company in respect of its proposals, why it wants to do what it seeks to do, how it is going to conduct its affairs in the interests of Canada, and related questions.
There appeared before the committee officers of the company, Mr. Fraser M. Fell, Q.C., who was listed as the parliamentary agent, and Mr. M. Kenny, who was then and I presume still is, the president of Excelsior Life Insurance Company. These gentlemen together with Mr. Humphrys, the superintendent of insurance, and the sponsor of the bill, proceeded to give the committee certain evidence.
The sponsor of the bill is acting out of a sense of public duty as a sponsor. He has no intimate relationship with the company. I am sure he has no favouritism toward it, but is simply as a member of parliament attempting to the best of his ability to perform his duty and carry out his responsibility in piloting through the house a bill which for one reason or another he has been asked to sponsor.
I say this simply to indicate that I shall make no reference to the evidence given to the committee by the sponsor of the bill. The important information relating to the structure of this company was contained in evidence given by Mr. Humphrys, Mr. Fell and Mr. Kenny, the president of the company. I will start at the beginning because this is a rather long and involved story. The beginning of this story starts with Mr. Humphrys who was the first, shall we say, formal witness called before the committee. He outlined some of the history of the company, its powers, when it came into existence, and so on.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
In order not to distort what Mr. Humphrys said, I should like to place on record his remarks which are to be found at page 50 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence No. 4, of the miscellaneous private bills committee for February 14, 1967:
The federal Insurance acts could Impose certain restrictions on it, in the sense that the company voluntarily agreed to comply with the federal law, but the federal parliament could not grant any powers to the company, since it drew its powers from the provincial legislature. It could operate
September 26, 1967
2514	COMMONS DEBATES
The Excelsior Life Insurance Company
within its provincial powers, really the narrower of its provincial powers, or the restrictions that might be imposed by the federal statute. But if the federal statute were changed to expand the powers of federal companies, this did not necessarily expand the powers of the Excelsior Life, because they still had to live within whatever powers it drew from the provincial legislation.
Then he goes on to say this:
Now, over the years this has created a certain number of difficulties for the company, and I might just illustrate a recent one.
As an aside, Mr. Speaker, I should underline the fact that Excelsior Life Insurance Company, as I recall it, is incorporated under a statute of Ontario. What this bill is seeking to do is really not to incorporate the company under the statutes of Canada but to continue it as a federal company as if it had been a federal company ever since its inception. This is a unique situation. Up until this time all insurance companies which have applied to this parliament in a similar set of circumstances for incorporation have applied to be incorporated as federal companies. But not so Excelsior Life Insurance Company; it wants the parliament of Canada to say that Excelsior Life Insurance Company shall be deemed always to have been a federal company since its inception.
As I say, the situation is unique; parliament is being asked to say by law something that is not so in fact. I believe that the incorporation should founder on that fact alone, notwithstanding that the highly respected Department of Insurance has indicated its support of that particular proposition.
This is simply an aside, Mr. Speaker, because Mr. Humphrys stated that the fact the company was incorporated in Ontario and could not operate fully under federal law had created certain difficulties over the years. This situation, undoubtedly prompted the company to become a federally incorporated company, and not because of any sense of duty or responsibility to the Canadian economy but because of its own particular sense of its role in society, which is to make a profit.
Mr. Humphrys went on to say this:
In 1965-
Incidentally, this was probably the year that Excelsior Life Insurance Company applied for this continuation as a federal company; the bill was referred to the committee on Thursday, February 2, 1967, and presumably the year before it had applied to the Senate. So not too long a period of time had passed after a certain action was taken, as

appears from Mr. Humphry's remarks which I now wish to relate. He said:
In 1965, the federal insurance act was amended to permit companies to invest in mortgage loans up to 75 per cent of the value of the property.
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, this is apropos the discussion during the question period today and also yesterday as to whether some of these insurance companies would put some of their savings into housing loans in Canada at a reasonable rate of interest so as to assist the housing market, instead of holding back their investments in order to keep the interest rate up.


Colin Cameron: Not savings, capital.


Frank Howard: continuation as a federal company is that under federal legislation the field of mortgage loans is more lucrative to the company.
We will have an opportunity on another day to go into the foreign ownership aspects of this company, Mr. Speaker, but before we reach seven o'clock let me say that 70.9 per cent of the shares of this company are held in the United States. It is our hope that the example set by another company which desired to become Canadian owned and to extricate itself from foreign ownership within a certain period of time will be followed in this case; but I will leave that thought till another day. May I call it seven o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: The hour allotted to private members' business has now expired. The house will now resume the business interrupted at six o'clock.



MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION COUNCIL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-150, to establish a Canada manpower and immigration council-Mr. Marchand-Mr. Batten in the chair.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Order; house again in committee of the whole on Bill No. C-150, to establish a Canada manpower and immigration council. It being seven o'clock I do now leave the chair.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
On clause 2-Definitions
Maurice Rinfret: Shall clause 2
carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 3-Council established
Michael Starr: I wish to ask the minister a question and I apologize if he has already answered it. There is a provision here that the Canada manpower and immigration council shall consist of a chairman and 15 members to be appointed by the governor in council, and each of the chairmen of the advisory boards established under part II. Is it the intention of the minister to have representation from each province also on this board? How will such a provision be applied to the 15 members who are to be appointed?
DEBATES	2515
Manpower and Immigration Council


Jean Marchand: I do not believe, Mr. Chairman, that we can have a representative from each province. The 15 members are on the council, and if the chairman and each member of that council were to represent a province that would mean that there would be no representatives from labour organizations, and none from employers' organizations. I think we must keep a certain flexibility in mind. The hon. member will understand that many associations and regions wish to be represented. We have made the terms general because I do not see how we can give everybody proper representation.


Michael Starr: I understand that. Can the minister give us some idea of the type of representation he expects to have on this council? From what area is it to come?


Jean Marchand: I think the labour movement should be represented; employers' organizations should be represented. Since the presidents of the boards will be members of this council there will be, to that extent probably, regional representation. Consumer organizations should be represented as well as organizations which usually represent vocational training advisory councils, for example.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 9-Meetings
Michael Starr: There is a provision in clause 9 for the members of this council to meet at least twice a year in Ottawa. If they wish to meet somewhere else they must get the approval of the minister or, should they find it necessary to meet more than twice a year again they must obtain the approval of the minister. Of course they may meet more than twice a year at the request of the minister.
Could the minister explain why he has not left this matter to the initiative of the board, rather than having it at the pleasure of the minister?


Jean Marchand: One reason was underlined by a colleague of the hon. member this afternoon. There is a financial implication. This board has 15 members and if they decide to meet ten times in different places in Canada, that will be reflected in the estimates. We must keep some kind of control over this activity. I know that no minister will prevent such a board from meeting; unless he has a serious reason, he will not be able to resist for very long such a representative board.
September 26, 1967

Manpower and Immigration Council
But if, for no specific reason, they want to meet more than twice a year, or if for no specific reason they want to meet in Vancouver because it is winter, I think the minister should have the authority to say, "You are not going to do it."


Michael Starr: Has the minister ascertained the cost of having the council meet at least twice a year in Ottawa or somewhere else? Has he determined, also, the cost involved with respect to the four advisory boards? Has he been able to ascertain the yearly cost of maintaining this council and the advisory boards?
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Jean Marchand: This is really an estimate we are making. Perhaps the council will meet twice a year, and the board four or five times. I do not know; I cannot say offhand. I will try to make a calculation and give a figure later on.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.
On clause 12-Advisory boards established [Translation]
Mr. Regimbal:: Mr. Chairman, we have suggested on several occasions, both in the course of our remarks at the resolution stage and during the debate this afternoon, that it might be advisable to provide for continuing con-sulations between the department or the council and provincial authorities.
As mentioned earlier, it would be advisable to maintain such a contact, since it is impossible to do so under the constitution of the council itself.
Would it not be appropriate, for instance, to allow for a provincial participation within the committees?
I believe the minister mentioned that he met with provincial ministers at a meeting held last summer. But is such a meeting, held only occasionally, as required, or before the bill is implemented, sufficient to clear up any difficulty experienced by the provinces in the matter of interpretation or co-operation?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I feel that the sector in which we may meet the most difficulties or problems with the provinces is that of the training of workers, that is in manpower as such.
As we know, the federal-provincial agreement provides, at the request of the provinces, for the creation of an advisory board

to advise the two governments in matters pertaining to manpower needs, orientation of the courses, etc.
The province of Quebec has set up a board, as has also the province of Ontario. The other provinces, provided they so request it, may also set one up and we shall be pleased to co-operate. Let us say, therefore, that in the most controversial sectors, co-operation can be arrived at through the boards.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does clause 12 carry?


David Vaughan Pugh: The first four paragraphs of subclause (1) have to do with advisory boards, and I have several questions to ask on this subject. Is each of these boards to be a separate entity, or, in other words, will there be an "intermix" of those who are appointed to serve on them, with the result that one man might be serving on two or three of these bodies?
Then again, subclause (2) reads;
The minister may, from time to time, establish additional advisory boards as he deems appropriate to deal with any subject within his responsibilities as minister.
Has the minister any idea what further boards may be constituted?
I have a further question to ask with regard to the regional aspect of these proposals. Does the minister contemplate setting up regional boards, for, let us say, the prairies, the Pacific coast, central Canada and the Atlantic provinces? I am wondering why the bill should contain this "catch-all" in subclause (2).


Jean Marchand: There is nothing in the law which prevents a member of one board being at the same time a member of another. As we know, this is not a full time job; the boards will meet only a few times a year, and service on one would not be incompatible with service on another. However, it should be remembered that these are specialized boards concerned with training, immigration and research. It is not our intention to set up other regional boards in addition to those mentioned. We shall have regional and local boards as provided for in another part of the bill. We shall come to that later.
As for the provision that the minister may set up special boards for special purposes, suppose, for example, we had serious problems in connection with one particular aspect of our program; we might find it necessary to set up a special board to give us advice. If
September 26, 1967

automation were creating a lot of disturbance in the employment field we might feel it necessary to set up a special board to study the situation and advise us. This is what we have in mind.


David Vaughan Pugh: Has the minister considered the procedures by which qualified people are to be appointed to these boards. Has he sounded out possible members? Provision is made for four boards to be constituted right away, each with 11 members and a chairman, so there are a fair number of appointments to be made I presume, indeed I hope, that those concerned will be fairly busy people. It seems to me that the whole thing is likely to be top-heavy, a little unwieldy.


Jean Marchand: As indicated in the bill, nominations will be made after consultation with the social and economic bodies which are concerned with these matters. Take rehabilitation, for instance. As hon. members know, there are many private associations in Canada which are concerned with this question and it would be senseless to constitute an advisory board upon which these people were not represented. This is the way in which we shall proceed in all cases, because there are many private associations of all kinds in Canada. Usually the most representative association will be the one chosen to recommend persons to be nominated by the minister.


Mr. Johnston:: Is there any particular
definition of "adult" as it appears in 12 (l)(a>?
Would this board serve as a co-ordinating body between provincial occupational training which would be under the regular school system and the federal adult training program? If you read clause 20 and clause 12 together it seems as though this scheme would be quite independent from the provincial educational programs.


Jean Marchand: The definition of adult education is the one contained in the training measure adopted by the house. I think the line is drawn there as precisely as it can be drawn.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I do not not know if the hon. member heard what I said in French in answer to a *question. We have agreement with the provinces on consultative boards concerning training and adult education. Two such boards are already constituted in Quebec and Ontario in order that we may more closely follow what is happening in the labour market and there-
DEBATES	2517
Manpower and Immigration Council by know the kind of courses that should be taught. Any province which feels the need for contact with the federal government can ask us to set up such a board, and we will agree to it.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 19 inclusive, agreed to.
On clause 20-Advisory Board on Adult Occupational Training.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak very briefly on this bill. I must say that I do not take quite as dim a view of this legislation as do some of my colleagues. I support the principle and purpose of the bill because for years members of this group have advocated this type of legislation with respect to vocational training and immigration. The record will prove that.
I also support the bill because I have great confidence in and respect for the minister who will administer the legislation. It is entirely experimental legislation. The minister has said that no doubt defects will be found in the bill. I am sure that as a result of experience amendments will be made to this legislation.
For many years I have supported the ideas which are covered in this legislation, and I have no doubt it will be improved in the future. We must remember that throughout the years all parties in this house have drafted various proposals for the building of the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, proposals which, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs might say, have had to be revised in the light of all the circumstances. I am certain this bill lays a foundation upon which, as the result of experience, very sound legislation will be erected, legislation in which the public will have an interest because of their own participation.
I am particularly keen on the local advisory committees composed of people close to all the circumstances. Some of the biggest difficulties with legislation have resulted from centralized administration by people who did not understand local circumstances. I have always been an advocate of participation by local people in any legislation of this type. Therefore, I am pleased with this provision in the bill, and I must say I am also pleased with the attitude of the employees of the minister's department who are in my own constituency. They have done quite a lot of voluntary work in connection with training of the disabled and in connection with meeting certain unusual circumstances. I wish the
2518	COMMONS
Manpower and Immigration Council minister every success in everything he undertakes to make this legislation succeed in the years ahead.


Mr. Groos:: Mr. Chairman, I shall also be very brief. I would not like to let this very important bill, which I support wholeheartedly, go through without making a brief comment to the minister, apart from congratulating him on introducing it. As the last speaker said, we all realize that it may not be perfect, and that it is in the nature of an experiment.
I am particularly interested in the proposed advisory board on the co-ordination of rehabilitation services for disabled persons. Although the appointees to such a board will serve without remuneration except for compensation of their reasonable expenses, I hope the minister will make sure that among the appointees will be persons who themselves suffer some disablement. I believe that only a person who is disabled sees all the problems of the disabled in the their true light, and I would not like the advisory board to be without the benefit of such advice.


Mr.   Johnsion@: Mr. Chairman, the word "adult" appears in clause 20 again, and another question arises out of the minister's answer to the question that I asked him on clause 12. When the retraining bill referred to was before the house, considerable anxiety was expressed about the age limitations connected with the word "adult." From consultation with high school councillors I have found them very concerned about occasions when they have been unable to place drop-out students in adult training courses because of the restrictions in the act. Has this problem been brought to the minister's attention with any frequency, and is it something the advisory board on adult occupational training would consider?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, this matter was debated at length in the house when the retraining act was before it. It was also discussed with the provinces, and I think we know now what is meant by the word "adult" in this bill. It means somebody who has left school for at least a year and who has been connected with the labour market during a period of three years. If we can help a school drop-out who has been out of school for a year, but who has not been attached to the labour force for three years, we will do so by paying only for the training course. He will not be given the other allowances. I think Hansard has recorded all the answers already

DEBATES	September 26, 1967
because this point has been thoroughly discussed, and it is one that has been accepted by the provinces.
Those who do not fall within the definition are the responsibility of the provinces. This does not mean that those young people are not taken care of now. They are taken care of, or are supposed to be taken care of by the provinces, but not by the federal government.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order, although in effect it is more a point of information. When the minister justifies the lack of definition of "adult" in this bill, by suggesting it has already been dealt with in a bill previously passed by the house, I for one find this insufficient. I am sure there are many bills on the statute books which have their own definitions of what may or may not be an adult. I do not see anything in this bill which says we should be guided in that respect by reference to the previous bill. I am not an expert on all the legislation on the statute books, and so would ask for the guidance of hon. members who are experts. I believe we are deluding ourselves by accepting a definition which is not implicit in the bill before us.


Jean Marchand: As the hon. member knows, I am not a lawyer, and I do not intend to become one.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: We are together on that.
e (8:30 p.m.)


Jean Marchand: I might be inclined to believe that the hon. member is probably right and that the utilization of the word "adult" here will not have the same consequences as the definition of adult in the training act, which provides for payment of allowances. However, I do not think the boards will be so concerned about the definition of adult, because they will give only advice to the minister. Therefore, personally, I am ready to concede that even if we receive a recommendation in respect of a group which is not covered under the strict definition in the retraining act I do not think it will matter much.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 21-Regional and local manpower committees.
David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Chairman, I am wondering whether there is a conflict in this clause with clause 11 which gives the council certain very definite duties such as advising the minister,
September 26, 1967

and so on. Clause 21 provides that the minister may establish such regional and local manpower committees as he considers necessary for the purpose of advising and assisting the department. Where is the tie-in between the regional and local manpower committees and the council itself? Because of the wording in clause 21, it seems to me that these various regional boards will report to the department or the minister. This would appear to be an assumption of the powers of the council. Could the minister explain this?


Jean Marchand: It is clear, at least in my mind, that these local and regional committees will have to work with the local manpower centres. If they wish to make a recommendation concerning the policy of the department, they will have to make their recommendation to the council. The council will study the recommendation and advise the minister accordingly.


David Vaughan Pugh: Would it not be better then, in clause 21, to say that they should report to the council or to the department? The bill states they will report to the department on such things as they are required to report on.


Jean Marchand: I think what I have attempted to say is that they will work differently. I think the local centres will be represented on the committee by advisors or representatives. So, locally they agree to work together. If they wish to make a recommendation which concerns, for example, rehabilitation, this recommendation will have to go through the special board which is concerned with rehabilitation. After that it will go to the council and then to the minister. So, the whole structure will be fully used.


David Vaughan Pugh: What the minister has just said makes sense, but I think it will be unworkable because the first paragraph of clause 21 says they will report to the department which would suggest that they report to the department alone.


Jean Marchand: Of course, it depends on what we call the department. There is the branch which is called the local manpower centre which is integrated in the department. There is no doubt that there are many problems which have to be solved locally. They do not have to be solved here in Ottawa. They can be solved between the committee and the local manpower centre. They work together with the department. If the recommendation is of a general nature I think it will be handled locally.
DEBATES	2519
Manpower and Immigration Council


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I regard this particular clause 21 as almost the most important part of this bill because it brings us back to facing the reality, I hope, of the concern I expressed in my few comments yesterday. Before making a couple of specific remarks about this clause, I should like to say that I think both the minister and the department have moved in the right direction. They may have struck a few rocky shoals in their first few months of operation and they may have encountered a few frustrations, but I trust these will be worked out in good faith as the months go by and that more effective work will be achieved by his department.
One of the increasing fears which all of us have, because it has been a reality in some instances, is the tremendous power of bureaucracy and often the loss of reality as a result of the mass of monolithic institutions of government or big business. In this case we are dealing with government. I am not quite as concerned as my colleague the hon. member for Okanagan Revelstoke with the problems which may relate to the passing on of advice to the minister or his officials in Ottawa. I think our major responsibility will have to be in dealing with the local situation and ensuring that good advice and assistance be given to the local regions and in general.
There are, however, difficulties associated with these things. I think we may be coming back to this problem in the future when we deal with the minister's estimates and other matters. I hope, in the context of this particular clause, that the minister will assure us there will be a provision for close liaison with the provincial governments. There have been a number of examples of inadequate liaison or poor communication. I think we should overcome this. It would seem to me that in this clause of the bill it would be natural to have a provision that key people in the provincial government administration be linked up with the manpower officials so that there can be an effective co-ordination of responsibility to ensure that we will not remove the benefit of the good experience which has already resulted from the work and good judgment of these officials.
I do not wish to sound petty or hypocritical, but the other thing which concerns me is the fear that when we set up something like this it will become a haven for tried and true political friends. I expect it is quite natural for any government to be anxious to reward those who have served the party in good faith or to choose people simply because they are well known to a select few. In the matter of
September 26, 1967

Manpower and Immigration Council the local committee particularly, 1 hope the minister and his officials would make sure that people who have had intimate experience with this kind of activity would be chosen from the communities. I know we have had officials with a good deal of experience in problems of chronic unemployment and the upgrading of educational opportunities and so on, but very often people who have something very valuable to contribute are passed over perhaps because they are non-partisan or because there are other people who feel they have a right to be rewarded in this way.
I plead that we not use this particular agency as a means of rewarding people for good political service. We should endeavour to obtain people who will provide the most effective contribution possible so that the whole program will go forward. If we make this clear now, then I think in the future there will be a realization that regardless of the party in power we should have people who have the most to contribute.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I wish to reassure my friend that I do not believe the situation which worrys him is going to arise. If we want to set up special committees it is important that we do not work along political lines. This would not be possible; it would not work. I do not believe this has been done either under the Conservative government or the Liberal government. If representatives are required on a national level it is necessary to confer with the labour movement, the employers' association, the consumers association and so on. The only way to do it is to ask these associations to recommend somebody. It would not be right for me to say that a certain person is to represent the Canadian Labour Congress, for example. I do not think the government of Canada could do this and I am sure if it were done the C.L.C. would complain about it. There is only one place where there could be political influence; that is in the nomination of the presidents.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
There could be some influence there because the president is nominated by the government, not necessarily following the recommendation of the private organization. I do not think you should be afraid of these boards becoming political instruments because of this set-up. This has not been true in respect of other governments and it could not now be true for the reasons I have given you.
I was president of the C.N.T.U. for a while and I would have liked to see the government try to designate a man to represent the
[Mr. MacDonald (Prince) J
C.N.T.U. without consulting us. That would not be possible. This might have been attempted, but I am sure the appointed individual would not have been successful. This man would be denounced just as one individual who was appointed to the unemployment advisory committee was denounced. I remember this very well. There was a protest and the situation was corrected. This does not really seem to me to be a serious problem. If there is a problem, surely it is not in respect of this part of the bill.
As far as co-operation with the provinces is concerned, I think you are right. We should seek whatever co-operation we can get. The difficulty is that one cannot force co-operation on someone else. Both parties have to be in agreement. As far as we are concerned, not only are we going to ask for co-operation, we hope to receive it. These programs cannot work without co-operation on the part of those who are interested and involved in these programs. However, one cannot force co-operation. I am reminded of the words of Voltaire. He wanted to build a society in which everyone was free. Someone asked him what would happen if someone decided he did not want to be free. Voltaire replied that he would be compelled to be free. Certainly, we hope for co-operation but we must rely to some extent on the provinces themselves.


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, I should then like to ask the minister what criteria he intends to use in the selection of the chairmen of the various commissions.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, what criteria? We will appoint the most competent men we can find.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 22 agreed to.
On clause 23-Appropriations
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, clause 23 reads as follows:
The minister shall make available to the council or a board, or any regional or local manpower committee such information within his possession or otherwise available to him as the council, board or committee reasonably requires for the proper discharge of its functions.
I quite agree with the terms of that clause, but because this is experimental legislation which has the support of everyone in the house, at least in principle, and because there
September 26, 1967

will have to be amendments made from time to time as experience is gained, I would ask the minister to report to the house fairly regularly on the operations of this legislation in the various regions of Canada in order that members can perform their functions equally as well as the council and the board or committee.


Jean Marchand: If I am still here when the estimates of my department come before the house, I will be pleased to make a full report each year of the activities of these boards when we are considering the expenditures in relation to the advisory boards.


Mr. Valade:: Mr. Chairman, I was under the impression that we had adopted section 22. If such is the case, I should like to ask the minister to enlighten us on that part where the minister is authorized to provide technical assistance from outside the public service. The minister might tell us what he intends to do in this regard. Is he making reservations which would come under the minister himself in regard, for instance, to the hiring of casual employees to help the civil servants?


Jean Marchand: May I ask, Mr. Chairman, what is the clause referred to by the hon' member?


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, it is clause 22, because I thought that we had not passed clause 22, page 7, where it is said:
The minister may provide the Council, or anv board established under this act, or any regional or local manpower committee, with such professional technical, secretarial and other assistance as they may require, but the provision of such assistance otherwise than from the public service of Canada is subject to approval by the Treasury Board.
Well then, what has the minister in mind by this rather different procedure?
DEBATES	2521
Manpower and Immigration Council Mr. Valade: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to press the minister on this point, but I want especially to call his attention to the term secretariat. The secretariat is certainly not a technical, professional or informative assistance about certain criteria, certain qualifications of the case to be settled. The secretariat involves a staff able to assist the minister in the performance of duties for which civil servants are responsible, under the bill itself.
There seems to be a conflict of authority or jurisdiction here.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I do not believe there is any conflict. Here is a board, oi several boards that will be operating throughout the year, including the main board of which the chairman will not necessarily be employed full time but who may have to come to Ottawa quite often. We may have to hire a part-time secretary, because we may not be prepared to let one of our own go and he might not be willing to wait for a secretary to be free and so a board or a committee might at a given moment sit outside Ottawa, in accordance with the powers provided; it might be more useful to hire a secretary in Quebec, for instance, if the board is sitting in Quebec. This is to give us sufficient power to do this kind of thing.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Mr. Asselin (Charlevoix):: I should like to know from the minister whether, after the establishment of these advisory boards, rules will be adopted by the cabinet to' allot responsibilities to these advisory boards What rules are to be adopted by the cabinet in regard to these various committees?


Jean Marchand: I may say that when the committees are set up, they will receive terms of reference according to the act and, obviously, the department will have the responsibility of submitting such terms of reference.


Jean Marchand: This, Mr. Chairman, is what we have in mind. If at a given time,' the council, one of the committees or one of the boards experience special problems which require some research, or let us suppose that at a given time, there is a problem involving older or disabled workers about which the department has no information and which requires special research, then, we may make available to the council the person it wants to hire, but only with the approval of the treasury board. This is therefore to provide assistance when our departmental staff is unable to do so.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask another question. Will these advisory committees have to travel across the province in order to obtain information and report to the minister, or will we have a permanent office here in Ottawa?


Jean Marchand: As the hon. member for Charlevoix knows, the act provides for the creation of several committees. There is a grand council which will have its office in Ottawa. There are specialized boards which will also have their offices in Ottawa, and then there are all the regional offices, the regional and local committees which, of course, will not be located in Ottawa. Their
September 26. 1967
2522	COMMONS
Manpower and Immigration Council offices will be in the region to which they are assigned. The headquarters of the grand council and those of the boards will be in Ottawa. The members of the council and those of the commissions will be able to travel according to their needs but, as I told the Leader of the Opposition earlier, only with the proper authorization. Naturally, you cannot allow 25 or 30 committees to travel all over Canada without authorization.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, I understand and I would accept the explanations given by the minister if he would lay down that condition for the council itself. But, I am somewhat concerned especially when I refer to the provision in the bill whereby the minister may provide not only the council but any board or any regional or local manpower committee established, with professional or other assistance. There I can see the danger of a multiplication of assistants in the public service, because the minister requests the authority to extend those technical advisers, that professional or secretarial assistance, even at the local and regional level, and if the minister would give us the assurance that the expenditure incurred for such professional or technical assistance would not be unreasonable, I might be prepared to accept his explanations, but I see that once again we might have to ramify, extend and project secretariats and agencies which would be a duplication of the work already done and of the responsibilties already assumed by civil servants. If the minister agreed to provide the secretariat's technical and social assistance to the council itself, I would agree, but when he tells us that this situation can occur in all the local committees, at all levels,
I feel that the government might incur expenditures which will further increase the present deficit.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, obviously, when the terms are rather general, any conclusion can be arrived at, including the one my hon. friend has just drawn. However, there are several barriers, of which the first is the estimates of the department. You will note that $120,000 are provided for in the budget for the advisory boards, which include all per diems to be paid, all allowances, all travelling expenses, including secretarial expenses. If ever we go beyond that-at the present time there is only an overall limit- but the treasury board has also set a limit -we can then come back to the house for supplementary estimates. If perchance there should be the abuse the member fears, you


will be aware of it and, hackles up, will be ready to criticize us, and rightly so.
Then, in any case, we agree: the idea is to have the authority at any time, whenever a regional committee holds an important meeting, and no secretarial staff is locally available, to hire such staff on a temporary basis to help the committee operate effectively.
Now, I think the house is pretty well able to act at all levels, and if it should happen that abuses are committed, you would spot them so fast that you would have time to correct them before they led to disaster.


Georges-J. Valade: I apologize if I press the
matter, Mr. Chairman and I recognize the merits of the minister's argument. However, the minister did not tell us how the staff for this additional secretariat will be recruited at the local level, not under the national council, but at the local and regional levels.
If the minister reserves himself the authority to appoint the additional staff along with the employees of the public service, and if these appointments come under his direct authority, for this is the essence of this clause, I wonder how the minister can allay the suspicions of political patronage.


Jean Marchand: I am grateful to the hon.
member for wanting to protect me, but I feel that you should give me credit at least for common sense if not for good faith. If a council in Vancouver must hire a stenographer for three days, I will not step in to find out who he or she is and where they got him or her, so long as I am given proof that such a step is necessary.
You might say: Is it not possible that at some time abuses might occur? Might they not choose the wrong secretary? It is quite possible, I cannot give you any guarantee, that is to say I cannot put in the legislation anything that will put your mind at rest because you seem to fear a lot of things, but nothing much can happen.
Moreover, control is automatic. There are in these committees people from every association, responsible people; I think that even though we would like to do certain things allowed by the legislation, our people would not agree.
Therefore, I do not think, Mr. Chairman, that this clause should keep one from sleeping soundly.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, as a matter of fact the purpose is not to protect the minister
September 26, 1967

himself, but to establish a principle, so that the legislation would not give way to any favouritism, not that the minister could give instructions to that effect, but the door is still open because of this section.
And I wonder why the minister did not take any other steps so that the council itself would approve or recommend the hiring of such staff, subject to his approval; that would prevent the minister from making the choice, because he would be open to this kind of criticism in the future. We know by experience that there was a certain nonchalance inside the Post Office Department in this respect. We would like to protect the minister against such experience.


Jean Marchand: Well, that is very kind of you sir, I will try to avoid taking any unnecessary risk in regard to this clause and protect myself.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 24 agreed to.
On clause 25-
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I have just a short question. A question arises in my mind in connection with the repealing of these sections of the Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act. I am going back to clause 20. I wonder whether the new advisory board will now, on the co-ordination of rehabilitation services for disabled persons, carry some responsibility for retarded children and adults' work, which in this whole process has been moved around a bit. I wonder whether this board will be advising the minister on the advancing work that goes on in the whole field of retarded persons.


Jean Marchand: I think they will have the same jurisdiction as before. It is the same group of people we want to cover under the new set-up. I do not understand the purpose of the hon. member's question. Is he afraid that there will be a limitation which does not exist under the present law?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I am asking this question for information and to find out whether the new advisory board will indeed be responsible for retarded persons' work.


Jean Marchand: They can make recommendations for all groups of persons which fall under federal jurisdiction.
Manpower and Immigration Council Mr. MacDonald (Prince): There is some confusion here, Mr. Chairman. Maybe this is not the time and place to clarify it, but there is some confusion whether responsibility for the rehabilitation for retarded persons falls within the realm of the manpower department or the department of health. I see that the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare is sitting behind the minister. Perhaps there is time for an instant conference on this question. I think it is something that needs to be clarified because there is confusion abroad as to where responsibility is exercised in these matters.


Jean Marchand: There is no doubt that we in the Department of Manpower and Immigration have a responsibility concerning retarded children. I gave an address in Quebec a few days ago and mentioned what we were doing for retarded children. But of course, this is related to the employment of retarded children. The health aspect of retarded children falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of National Health and Welfare.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: The minister is saying that where it is related to a matter of employment it will come under his jurisdiction, and hence under this new advisory board under the act that we are considering; is that correct?


Jean Marchand: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I move an amendment that a new clause be added, namely, clause 26. I send it to the table and I shall read the same. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes, that Bill No. C-150 be amended by adding thereto the following:
Clause 26 (1) The chairman of the council shall, within three months after the termination of each fiscal year, transmit to the minister a statement relating to the activities of the council for that fiscal year, including the financial statements of the council and the Auditor General's report thereon, and the minister shall cause such statement to be laid before parliament within 15 days after the receipt thereof or, if parliament is not then sitting, on any of the first 15 days next thereafter that parliament is sitting.
(2)	The council may prepare and cause to be published a review of medium and long term manpower and immigration prospects and problems.
(3)	The council may cause to be published such studies and reports prepared for the use of the council as it sees fit.
September 26, 1967
2524	COMMONS
Manpower and Immigration Council [DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I will speak very briefly to the motion if I may, Mr. Chairman. I think it is essential in our parliamentary process that in setting up creations such as that which is set up by this bill there be some connection between the parliament of Canada and the particular bodies that have been established. I have made that point before.
Second, Mr. Chairman, I think the minister need not fear this process because the action of these boards will help him to educate the public to our manpower and technological needs. It should not inhibit the members of the council, because even though there may be disagreements among the members themselves, what they present to the public is surely the consensus of their views.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment which, from every aspect, seems very reasonable and designed to protect the rights of parliament and democracy.
Prior to adopting such a resolution, I believe that we must try to see what effects will follow the proposed procedure.
First of all, there is that whole part of the report of the chairman of the council concerning finance; there is indeed much exaggeration. There is exaggeration because this report must be delivered by the minister here in the house. When the item of the estimates relating to the advisory boards is considered, the members will be able to get all information they wish, that is, for instance, how much someone has received as fees on travel expenses, the whole having been checked by the auditor general, according to the regular procedure of the house. Then, questions may be asked in the house and the minister will report. The chairman of the council, who is not a fulltime civil servant, will have to ask our department what expenses have been made, that is to say he will have to ask the department, in fact, to make his report to the House of Commons; this means that we keep control-for the boards are dependent upon the department, in short; they are integrated within the very structure of the department. So, I cannot see the necessity for this outside control since such control may be maintained from within.
In fact, we are trying now to subject the proposed council to the same requirements almost, as we have for the Economic Council of Canada, which is an independent body with power to spend money, which has its own budget and is not dependent on any


department. In that case, I well understand that a report may be required similar to the one this amendment seems to require from the chairman of the council.
All this part seems to guarantee the rights of supervision of the House of Commons but in fact it guarantees nothing at all and simply weighs down the legislation through a repetition or, if you prefer, it is an embarrassment through a duplicate procedure, since the same ends can be achieved by other means.
Now, this is a minor issue as far as I am concerned, but there is a major point, and I would like to deal with it for a few moments.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jean Marchand: I think it is a very important point, Mr. Chairman, and I should like to be heard in the house on this.


Erik Nielsen: Take half an hour.


Jean Marchand: These boards, as we know, are advisory bodies and they are also representative bodies, for people are sent by their association to take part in a certain way in the implementation of the legislation, as the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) said very well, or endeavoured to say, this morning.
Since I have myself been a member of those boards-I was appointed when the official opposition was in power-I worked with them and I can say that the atmosphere is not one of conflict or competition between management and the employees as that which pervades other organizations; each member is really making an effort to make sure that the legislation is implemented fully.
But as soon as those persons-especially the representatives of labour movements or of employers' or other associations-will become aware that their activities could be reported to the House of Commons, then the position and the character of the councils are changed, in that those people will feel compelled to take positions consistent with the requirements or the wishes of their own association.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: There are not now.


Jean Marchand: What I am saying is very important, Mr. Chairman, and has nothing to do with what is going on behind me.
September 26, 1967



Mr. Chairman, since I have convinced the opposition, I shall say no more. But I feel it would be extremely serious to accept such an amendment, because, for one thing, it is partly useless and secondly, which is serious, it destroys the very nature of advisory councils.
I therefore think that the committee should reject the amendment.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister a question. How different is this procedure in respect of the council from the procedure under the unemployment insurance advisory board legislation?


Jean Marchand: I think that the advisory board makes recommendations mainly on financial matters.


Michael Starr: No.


Jean Marchand: It can go further than that, but usually they only make recommendations when there is a consensus. The labour organizations are directly represented on the board, and that board is much more balanced than this type of board. It is the duty of this advisory board to advise the minister and even the House of Commons, and in that case I think the procedure is normal.
There are also financial considerations. If, for example, the level of benefits is raised, that is an important matter for the house. The other board does not have such financial responsibility, and that is why the procedure is different.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Michael Starr: They do not raise the level of benefits.


Jean Marchand: No, no; but they can recommend it to the house-


Michael Starr: Can these people recommend benefits?


Jean Marchand: Through the minister, to the house.


Michael Starr: Can this board recommend certain aspects?


Jean Marchand: I think it could. I think that these advisory boards are very well integrated into the structure of the department and to accept this amendment would be to destroy
DEBATES	2525
Manpower and Immigration Council the value of these boards. I will tell my hon. friend something that is very simple. Supposing that tomorrow I nominated a chairman, or supposing that this government nominates a chairman-


An hon. Member:: Why not nominate the hon. member for Timiskaming?


Jean Marchand: and then, suppose that another party is in power here; this chairman may decide to embarrass the government with this council. That is not the purpose here. This body is to help the minister, not to fight him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jean Marchand: Yes. That is the purpose. The purpose of this body is to help the minister so that the law is properly applied. That is why I believe this amendment to be bad. It will not do anything. If it does something, it will be to the detriment of the good administration of the law.


Mr. Benson:: Question.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the committee ready for the question?
Amendment (Mr. McCleave) negatived: yeas, 41; nays, 70.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I declare the amendment lost.
Shall clause 1 carry?
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be
read a third time?


Michael Starr: At the next sitting of the house.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, may we have the unanimous consent of the house to proceed with third reading?


Mr. Monteith:: No, let us stick to the rules.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Unanimous consent of the house is required for third reading at this time. Does the house give that unanimous consent?


Michael Starr: At the next sitting of the house.
September 26, 1967
2526	COMMONS DEBATES
C.N.R. Financing and Guarantee Bill CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS	The third point the hon. member raised
PROVISION FOR CAPITAL expenditures, was that Air Canada's net debt fund ratio is issue of securities, etc.	not correctly shown in available figures.


Edgar John Benson: 
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberi):: In
an effort to be helpful we have checked over here and we find there is some agreement-I am certainly not speaking for everybody- that this is a routine measure and that there is little change, if any, from what has been done in other years. It has been customary to allow second reading without extended debate.
I wish to say quickly, though, that there are some on this side who are experiencing problems which they might have raised on this occasion, but they are willing to wait for the debate on the budget or some other occasion before doing so. As I said yesterday, we are not happy with the changes in the ministry. But I will leave it at that for the moment.
If the minister would look up the proceedings, he would find there was some agreement that Air Canada should be given a fully separate status, independent of the C.N.R. I know there have been full bookkeeping disclosures and proper balance sheets issued. What appeared in Hansard was misunderstood. I am merely of the opinion that in these days when the company is dealing in hundreds of millions of dollars and is in direct competition with C.P.A., it should produce a full balance sheet comparable in every respect to that of the C.P.A. That was my point.
I might add that provided no other questions arise I am willing to agree to second reading of this bill, and I say this as an indication of our co-operation.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: raised my objections last night to the present method of providing legislative approval for expenditures which are, in effect, government expenditures, because in my opinion it is a wrong approach. Nothing the minister has said this evening has changed my views in that regard.
I have brought this matter up in previous years; I did not raise it yesterday for the first time. I had hoped that this method of financing the C.N.R. and Air Canada would have been changed by now so as to bring it into
DEBATES	2527
C.N.R. Financing and Guarantee Bill line with the normal method of government financing. In every other case where government expenditures are made an estimate is put before the House of Commons and authority for the expenditure is sought. After all, the primary job of the House of Commons is to grant money to Her Majesty for public purposes. But here is a case in which the House of Commons is being asked to grant money to Her Majesty for public purposes after it has been spent. The government comes to the House of Commons and says: Air Canada has spent so much-in this case, $264,800,000-for capital purposes and we want you to give authority for having spent the money.
This is wrong in principle. I do not say there is anything wrong as far as the expenditures themselves are concerned, but I think it is wrong that this anomaly should continue. The minister told us it would be difficult to bring in estimates applicable to these expenditures. But the bulk of these expenditures has been made for capital purposes and in acquiring investments in affiliated companies. A list appears on page 2 of the bill-road property, $79 million; branch lines, $13 million; equipment, $85 million; telecommunications, $14 million; hotels, $4 million; Air Canada, $67 million. Surely, there would be no difficulty about producing an estimate of what was required for hotels, branch lines equipment, and so on and bringing it before parliament in the same way as any other government expenditure is brought before parliament with a request for authority to spend money up to the sum provided. I suggest strongly to the minister that this should be the last year in which things are done as they are being done today. In future we should be presented with the estimate of the C.N.R. and Air Canada in the same way as the estimates of other departments and branches are presented, and parliamentary approval secured before the expenditure has been made.
This is the only way in which parliament can exercise control over the expenditures of government branches, that is to say by limiting the amount which can be spent for specific purposes. This is what parliamentary control of the purse means. If there is no such control over these crown corporations then, in essence, there is no control over their expenditures.


Mr. Norman Fawcett (Nickel Belt):: I do not
intend to take up much time but as a former employee of the C.N.R. and as one who still
September 26, 1967

C.N.R. Financing and Guarantee Bill holds seniority in train service I think I should not neglect this opportunity to say a few words. Moreover, as a former representative of one of the unions which represent railway employees, there is a particular point I should deal with.
First, I might say I am in no way opposed to this bill. I realize it is more or less a matter of form, something which must be dealt with if the C.N.R. is to continue in operation.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
I am sure the top officers of the C.N.R. deserve commendation for the realistic view they have taken of their obligations in many respects. I refer particularly to passenger services, a type of transportation which it seems the other line has decided to abandon altogether. I will not develop this point extensively except to say that the C.N.R. has shown a greater realism in its approach to its responsibilities, something which has resulted in a much better employee-employer relations attitude.
The matter with which I wish to deal was touched on by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), last night. It is the inadequate pensions received by many former C.N.R. employees. One has to understand the C.N.R. pension system to realize the awkward position in which some of these people have been placed. As my colleague said, if parliament is to be asked to assume responsibility for making funds available for C.N.R. operations, then we should insist that something be done for some of its retired employees.
In practically every locality there is the case of C.N.R. pensioners living side by side, both having given the company 45 years service, but the one who was pensioned off six seven, eight or ten years ago is getting a very inadequate pension, while the other gets an adequate pension. Something must be done about this. We must insist that something be done to help such pensioners, mainly those who have been on pension for seven or eight years.
I hope the new Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) will insist that the C.N.R. accept proper responsibility for these people. I have received letters by the dozen from them. Many of them belong to retired people's organizations. Sometimes they send petitions; sometimes they send individual letters. They feel they are not getting a square deal. They did not have the same opportunity to contribute to pension funds as employees pensioned 
off more recently. They have been just as dedicated in their service, have worked just as hard, have served as many years as more recent pensioners, yet all they get is a subsistence pension.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Batten in the chair.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On clause 3-Capital expenditures authorized for 1967.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, this clause deals with the question of capital expense. It reads as follows:
The National System is authorized,
(a) to make capital expenditures not exceeding in the aggregate $264,800,000 in the calendar year 1967 in the following estimated amounts for the purposes of capital investment:
Estimated requirements in the calendar year 1967:
Road property Branch lines Equipment Telecommunications Hotels
Investment in affiliated companies:

Air Canada Other
67,000,000
200,000

My point in rising is to mention the fact that throughout the years the leader of our group and other prominent members of it have urged that social capital be provided by the Bank of Canada, and we cannot understand why we have to go through this procedure.


Mr. Byrne:: That is the Social Credit theory.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Well, you have got one of
your members who will support me on this proposal, the hon. member for Medicine Hat. I hope to get support from him because he knows I am on sound ground. Social capital required by the federal, municipal and provincial governments should be provided by the Bank of Canada in the form of loans on the basis of securities offered by the federal government, at an interest rate which will provide for the servicing of the loans, instead of this country having to import $1,000 million, as it did last year, of United States funds to provide capital investment for provincial and municipal governments. I see the minister looking at me, but I believe I am pretty close to the figure that was involved.
What I want to know is why we should finance our social capital through this type of bill? Why can't the Bank of Canada provide
September 26, 1967
this capital, accepting securities from the federal government for the investments involved? I would like the minister to explain why this cannot be done. It is a policy we have advocated throughout the years. Only recently I read a letter from our leader to the Social Credit League in British Columbia endorsing this policy.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, the biggest holder of government of Canada bonds is the Bank of Canada. The Bank of Canada takes up a substantial amount of any new issue of the government of Canada. At the moment it is the biggest holder in the country of government of Canada bonds, which are used for financing social capital, as the hon. member call this particular expenditure.
In the case of the C.N.R., the financing can be done in either one of two ways. The government can borrow the money directly from sources including the Bank of Canada, which would take up a big part of the loan, with the chartered banks taking up a substantial part also, and then advance the money to the C.N.R. Alternatively, the C.N.R. may borrow directly with a government guarantee but it would have to pay a higher interest rate if it did. It can be done in either manner, o (9:40 p.m.)


Mr. Leboe:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to add my support to the plea that we extend the policy of the Bank of Canada in this regard, because we know that the interest that is paid by the government of Canada on bonds that are held by the Bank of Canada is returned to the consolidated revenue fund.


Edgar John Benson: If it makes a profit.


Bert Raymond Leboe: You got the message all right. I should like to make the plea that there be a continual increase in this policy so that eventually the Bank of Canada will hold a great deal more of the national debt than it does at the present time. I should like to commend the government for increasing it a couple of per cent in the last few years, but I would like to see it increased even more.
I should like to support the hon. member for Kootenay West in his plea that the Bank of Canada become more of a functional bank rather than something which is there to buy and sell bonds simply for the sake of regulating the money supply without any regard to the interest charges we are paying to capital investors from outside to do the job we are trying to do in Canada.
COMMONS DEBATES	2529
C.N.R. Financing and Guarantee Bill Mr. Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make one further comment. I was very pleased that the minister admitted the Bank of Canada can provide funds for investment in social capital and is doing so at the present time. All I urge is that this policy, which originally was a policy devised by the C.C.F., be extended so that finally we can get all our social capital provided and will not have to go to other countries to obtain loans and send interest there to meet the obligation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is the greatest proponent of the application of the idea of social capital I have ever seen.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, I heard, indeed with pleasure, the participation of the member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) to the debate. I am pleased that he has asked that the Bank of Canada supply funds, at least for the time being, to Crown companies.
I therefore also invite the minister to take the necessary steps so that the Bank of Canada can finance our crown companies in part. And I ask him: why could this same Bank of Canada not finance the whole Canadian National debt as well as those of all the other crown companies? I find that, with regard to the Canadian National, for instance, at least in recent years, we are given an annual report indicating surpluses and profits, but when the interest on that debt is taken into account the profits are transformed into deficits.
The same holds true in respect of the St. Lawrence seaway administration. Since its establishment in 1959, this company has always made profits, but due to the interest on its debt, those profits have become a deficit which is an onus on Canadian consumers who make up for it in taxes when they buy products shipped through that seaway.
Therefore, I invite the minister to continue to consider thoroughly the representations made this evening. I am pleased to note that the member for Kootenay West is supporting the demands of the Social Credit party to that effect. I do not know if he feels that there is some sort of socialism in such a policy. As for me I do not see any. It would simply mean that money would be made available to the people through the Bank of Canada and this is the purpose of our request. I think that if the government can ask the Bank of Canada to finance some small undertakings as is the case at the present time, the same Bank of Canada could finance all the investments of the government.
2530	COMMONS DEBATES
C.N.R. Financing and Guarantee Bill Mr. Gregoire: Mr. Chairman, I must say that the electoral district of Roberval is also a very fine one, there are very sympathetic people there, and I would be very happy to be the member for Roberval. But since they already have a very good representative and in view of the fact that I am deeply attached to my riding of Lapointe and my constituents,
I, nevertheless, prefer to retain the constituency of Lapointe.
I had another point to raise in connection with clause 3 of Bill C-151, but before raising it, because it concerns me very deeply, I should like first of all to support the request made by the hon. member for Kootenay West which is, in fact, a reasonable one, since the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Leboe) and the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise) have supported it. This request is to the effect that the Bank of Canada provide the financing of the construction and the development of the Canadian National and other public bodies.
Now, today, when the Bank of Canada buys bonds, it invests in private enterprise. So I am wondering whether the Bank of Canada has the right to buy bonds from private enterprise; if it has the right to buy shares or bonds from private enterprise, why would it not have the right to do so in the case of public bodies, of municipalities, of provinces, of crown corporations? And then, if the Bank of Canada buys bonds from public organizations, municipalities, provinces or crown corporations, I wonder why the Bank of Canada, which is another public body, would try to make money out of a public body? It would be the same thing as to rob Peter to pay Paul.
So since it is admitted in principle and recognized as a fact that the Bank of Canada can buy bonds issued by private enterprise, why not recognize the fact in the case of state enterprise? It seems to me it would be most logical. And if the Bank of Canada can buy bonds from public enterprise, I am wondering why the Bank of Canada, which is itself a public enterprise, a state enterprise, should make profits out of state enterprise? It would be illogical and ridiculous. And then we come to the most logical and most simple conclusion suggested by the member for Kootenay West, seconded by the member for Cariboo and the member for Chapleau, and it is that the Bank of Canada should finance, at a nominal administrative cost, the public bodies and public undertakings, government undertakings. It is simple. If the Bank of Canada is doing this in the case of private enterprise, all the more reason for it to do as much for state undertakings.

September 26, 1967
I should now like to raise another point. It is said here that the national system, that is, the Canadian National Railways Company is authorised to make capital expenditures not exceeding in the aggregate $264,000,000, including $79 million for road property and $15 million for branch lines.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board. Where have these works been done? In Quebec? I should like to know about the work done in each province. The Minister of National Revenue could give me this information, but perhaps he does not have the figures at hand. He may not be able to give them to us before ten o'clock. We could interrupt our examination of this clause and take it up again tomorrow.
I should like to know where these works have been done. The C.N.R. may have made some improvements or built some new lines, but not, I think, in the province of Quebec.
In the case of the Saguenay-Lake St. John area, for instance, there has been no marked improvement in the railway system, as train service is just as poor as ever. If the service seems to be faster, it is because the train now does not make any stops where it used to. That is the only reason. The train still runs at 60 miles per hour: 20 miles up and down, 20 miles from side to side and 20 miles forward, for a total of 60 miles per hour.
Now, after investigating the matter, I also found out that the number of miles of railway lines in service at present in Quebec has been reduced rather than increased.
So, where was this work done? Where were those structures erected? Where was the equipment used? The new equipment? I know that train service was discontinued in several areas in Quebec. However, the Rapido was put in service between Montreal and Quebec, for the duration of Expo, with four daily trips each way. This was a noteworthy improvement to the Quebec-Montreal line service.
I hope that with all those expenditures and amounts authorized to-day, the same service will be provided after Expo, as this train was always full and as many people have used this train to go from Quebec city to Montreal and vice versa.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Minister of National Revenue, who is now sponsoring this bill, to tell us how this amount of $264,800,000 was spent, by province. For instance, what proportion of the $79 million has been spent in each province, for road purposes? He
September 26, 1967

could give us this information. He could also tell us how many branch lines were built in each province. As for equipment, how much of the $85,304,000 was spent in each province? Expenditures to the tune of $4,875,000 are provided for hotels; how much of this was spent in each province? There is also investments in affiliated companies. Obviously, for Air Canada, it is to purchase aircraft, for interprovincial flights, and it would perhaps be more difficult to give any figures.
In any case, Mr. Chairman, I should like the minister to provide that information. It may be that the minister does not have it at hand since I put the question to him on the spur of the moment; but perhaps he would agree to putting off adoption of clause 3 until tomorrow. It is five to ten. If the minister agrees to do so, we could have an answer tomorrow. Does the minister have those figures now?
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I could not give the details of all the capital expenditures, including the breakdown by provinces, as quickly as that, particularly with reference to such things as rolling stock and so on. I will be very pleased to undertake to get this information from the C.N.R. for my hon. friend and provide a reply by letter to him or in answer to a question he may wish to put on the order paper. I will ask the C.N.R. to supply the information. I do have some details in respect of certain branch lines such as at Mattagami, Sarnia, Amesdale-Bruce Lake, Stall Lake-Osborne Lake, Watrous-Guernsey. I have the details for these branch lines and there may be others included. I will undertake to provide the information to my hon. friend in one of the ways I have suggested.


Mr. Gregoire:: Will the hon. minister
agree to postpone clause 3 until the end of our examination? Tomorrow, before continuing the consideration of clause 3, the minister could bring us these details.
Obviously, I cannot blame the minister for not having the answer at hand. I know that when such a bill is considered in committee, some members may raise questions just as difficult as the one I am putting and that is why I have no idea of blaming the minister for not having the reply at hand but I think the information which he has supplied is inadequate and does not answer the question I have raised.
27053-161J
C.N.R. Financing and Guarantee Bill
He has given us information regarding construction of seven or eight branch lines for an expenditure of $13,125,000. Railroad property cost $79,701,000, which is a large amount.
I should like to know how much has been spent in each province out of this amount of $79,701,000, out of the sum of $13,125,000, out of the $85,304,000 for equipment, out of the $14,595,000 for telecommunications and out of the sum provided for hotels.
So if the minister prefers to adjourn consideration of clause 3 until tomorrow, at which time we may continue the examination of the other clauses, we may have a complete reply tomorrow.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, if we could move forward with this bill I could give the information in respect of the road property. This information is available to my hon. friend in the capital budget of the C.N.R. which was tabled in the house. The information he is asking for is available to the house at this time.
All we are asking for in this particular bill is the right of the government of Canada to guarantee the loans. The question I suggested was difficult to answer related to the breakdown by provinces, and I doubt that I could provide that information by tomorrow. I will undertake to ask the C.N.R. to do that if it is possible. Let me repeat that the information in respect of road property has been broken down by regions and is available in the budget which has already been tabled.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I have received the committee report on the C.N.R., but I did not find in it the answer to the question I asked, by province.
As for the study made by the transport and communications committee, the Minister of National Revenue is probably not aware of it and I even believe he does not approve of such action. But I shall tell him this: Mr. Chairman, I have been systematically kept away, brushed aside, along with the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard). We are the only ones to have been systematically eliminated from the committees. We do not sit on any committee. If the minister tells me that this information has been given in the transport and communications committee, I say to him it is really unfortunate, but if we
September 26, 1967

C.N.R. Financing and Guarantee Bill are not members of the committee, it is precisely because the government tried to gag us by systematically keeping us away.
I am probably the only member here that does not belong to any committee, the less so to the transport and communications committee. This is why I did not attend the proceedings of the transport and communications committee and why I did not get this information.
Therefore, I must be satisfied with asking questions in the house since I do not have the opportunity to ask them in the committee. I admit this may give a little trouble to the minister. But what can I do, Mr. Chairman; it is not I who established this discrimination towards the member for Lapointe, but rather the government. I will not blame the Minister of National Revenue; I know he is not the type to participate in that kind of discrimination. I have always thought better of him. Therefore, I did not obtain the answers in committee, because I was not allowed to be a member thereof. No answer can be found to my specific question in the annual report of the C.N.R. Then, I think that it would be advisable to call upon the Minister of National Revenue to obtain the information from the C.N.R.
As it is past ten o'clock, well, Mr. Chairman, I would like to call it ten o'clock which would give the Minister of National Revenue the opportunity to provide an answer to-morrow.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I did not suggest in my answer to the hon. member that the information was contained in the annual report of the C.N.R. I referred to the capital budget of the C.N.R. which has been tabled in this house. This is not available only to committee members but to all hon. members of the house who want to look at it. My hon. friend could have obtained most of the information he is asking for from that budget if he had wanted to look at it.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should like to tell the hon. Minister of National Revenue that I took the trouble to look for this information, but the expenditure in these different fields in not indicated for each province; let the minister see for himself.
If this information had been contained in the report, the minister would not have had to get up and say: I do not have the figures. Nor would he be forced to say: I do not know

whether I shall be able to give these figures tomorrow. If this information were contained in the report, the minister would not have said that he would perhaps be unable to give me these figures tomorrow. The minister cannot even give these figures tonight or tomorrow because it may take a long time to find them. They are obviously not contained in the report on capital expenditures, for then he would be able to quote them. He could have sent another member to fetch the report in his office in less than two minutes and given the figures. If he is unable to give us this information tonight, it is because it is not contained in the report. Therefore, the minister should not tell me to take the time to read the reports; I have read them, but they do not contain the information and this is the reason why I am asking the minister to give me the answer.
I will now call it ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I will give the hon. member a copy in order that he may look at it.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I realize that an hon. member has called it ten o'clock, but in order to expedite the business of the house and in view of the fact that probably this bill could be passed this evening if we are patient, we are prepared to sit beyond ten o'clock.
[DOT] (10.00 p.m.)


Maurice Rinfret: Is this
agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, far from me the idea of delaying unduly the progress of our business but let us set aside consideration of clause 3 and take it up tomorrow.
The minister has just given me some loose sheets. It is not a report but photostatic sheets of which I did not get any copy and which have not been tabled.
I have received the reports of the C.N.R., the report on capital expenditures, but I did not get this one and I have not even looked it over yet. Therefore, if the minister agrees to postpone consideration of clause 3 until tomorrow, so that I may have a satisfactory answer, I will tell him that I have no objections to carry on with the consideration of the rest of the bill tonight if we could make some progress. It has never been my intention to delay unduly our business; on the
September 26, 1967

contrary, I am glad and happy when everything goes well and smoothly and everything is considered in great detail but, in this case, there is a matter about which I should like to get some answers which I have not been able to receive in committee because I did not sit on the committee.
In order to allow the minister to carry on with the consideration of his bill, I am prepared to study the rest of the bill except clause 3 which will stand until tomorrow; otherwise, Mr. Chairman, I call it ten o'clock.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, my offer was conditional upon our passing the bill completely tonight. In view of what the hon. member has said, it is obvious that he does not wish the bill to be passed this evening.
Progress reported.


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman-


An hon. Member:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman-


Maurice Rinfret: Order,
please-

order; the only thing that would be in order at this time would be for somebody to ask what the business of the house will be tomorrow.


Michael Starr: We know that.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, under the new and efficient management of the house these things are all well known.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In order to facilitate the debate, Mr. Speaker, I would ask what estimates were arranged for tomorrow.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to speak to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) about the request conveyed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Starr) to deal with a specific item. However, I hope that before-


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is wheat tomorrow, is it not, and not housing?
DEBATES	2533
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Michael Starr: I think tomorrow we will be dealing with the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce, item 1.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Auguste Choquelte (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, once again I appreciate the great generosity of my distinguished colleague, the member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne), who is so concerned with the matters I submit in this house, that every evening after ten o'clock he remains in the house to give these points a very friendly and very efficient consideration.
Mr. Speaker, the matter I should like to bring forward tonight offers a great deal of interest, for the good reason that we are living exciting hours in Canada.
The major problem in the present context is that of Canadian unity.
I should like to make a digression to point out to the house very prejudicial publicity. I am thinking of such serious papers as the Toronto Telegram and others with a wide circulation, which print headlines such as this one: "How will Quebec separate" and the picture of Pierre Bourgault on the first page. I think that newspapers such as these are more deleterious to Canadian unity than all the wild statements that can be heard here and there throughout the country.
It is unfortunate, Mr. Chairman, that such disproportionate attention is given to movements that, in fact, express the opinion of but a very small minority. I am afraid to state that, in the province of Quebec, the majority, and a large one at that, hold the view that Canadian unity is priceless and should be safeguarded.
I should like to take advantage again of this digression to say that, if Mr. Rene Levesque is a separatist candidate in Quebec, he will be beaten, and soundly so, and I am not afraid to say so.
However, if problems crop up in Quebec, it is not up to Rene Levesque to speak on behalf of Quebec. There are federal members
September 26, 1967
2534	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion here, 58 Liberal members from Quebec who reflect the opinion of that province better than a demagogue like Rene Levesque. Still, if there are problems, it is because, in fact, the Canadian ideal which should exist is sadly lacking. Indeed, there is almost a total absence of Canadian ideal. And it is so because we have neglected to Canadianize our institutions.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) had a Canadian flag adopted in 1964, it was a step forward. Our institutions were then being Canadianized, our Canadian ideal was being strengthened; all Canadians were being asked to rally around a symbol in which they take pride and which flies now over the world fair. How humiliating it would have been, Mr. Chairman, if, in 1967, during the world fair, when hundreds of thousands of people visited us from abroad, we had not had that distinctive symbol as witness to Canadian unity.
Let us Canadianize our institutions. That is the purpose of my question tonight. I ask the government, or its authorized spokesman, whether it would not be advisable to convene a conference of all commonwealth countries and decide whether the term "British subject," which is there and applies to most Canadian citizens, could not be changed without prejudice to the respect for man and with the agreement of all commonwealth countries.
Canada wants to and must remain in the commonwealth, an economic and political association of nations united under the symbol of the British crown. There is nothing offensive about that, but since Canadians, proud to be Canadians, are still British subjects, we should think it over and wonder whether a conference of the commonwealth could not consider the possibility of amending such a statute and all that in effort for Canadianiza-tion, Mr. Chairman. In the past, it used to be called the British Commonwealth; today, it is called the Commonwealth of Nations. And what would prevent the British crown from presiding still over that association. But, even so, all the countries which are part of that association can also say that the citizens of those countries are no longer subjects but citizens.
That is the reason why I urge the government authorities to see to what extent they could encourage a good initiative, request or suggest the calling of such a commonwealth conference and ask all the representatives of the commonwealth countries to take action
[Mr. Choquette.l

so that we will be citizens of each of the countries which make up the commonwealth and to discard the label "subject" in order to further the spirit of Canadian unity, the reason we are willing to fight against people like Rene Levesque who is only trying to create disorder to satisfy his selfish ambitions.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, if I were to repeat any of the compliments I paid the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Cho-quette) last evening it might be assumed that we belonged to a mutual admiration society.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't you?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: It goes without saying that the energetic and youthful member for Lotbiniere is indeed versatile and well versed in many subjects. He has introduced a new subject this evening, one not entirely related to the question which was put by him on July 4, 1967.
Personally, I do not feel qualified to comment on the relative positions of political parties in Quebec. Specifically I am not qualified to talk about Mr. Rene Levesque; nor, indeed, am I interested in what Mr. Rene Levesque believes to be best for the interest of Quebec. From what I have heard, I may say that I cannot agree with him.
The hon. member raised an interesting question. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) and his parliamentary assistant are attending the sessions of the United Nations; both would have been interested in hearing what the hon. member had to say, and I shall be pleased to bring the matter to their attention. I may say that, for the moment, no plans are under way for convening a commonwealth prime minister's conference in the near future.



PUBLIC SERVICE-LEGISLATION TO INCREASE PENSIONS OF RETIRED CIVIL SERVANTS

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on the basis of a question which I put yesterday afternoon to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Benson), as reported in Hansard on page 2431, I return once again to the matter of pensions of retired civil servants.
There must be a word which means "again for the one thousandth time". At any rate, I return to the subject tonight and as earnestly
Sepiember 26, 1967	COMMONS
and strongly as I can, I plead with the President of the Treasury Board to do everything he possibly can to get action on the matter soon.
The subject was under discussion in the late show period last night. My hon. friend from Carleton expressed indignation, indignation which I share. The parliamentary secretary to the present minister took exception to that approach. I hope I may get somewhere if I take a different approach.
I plead with the minister to realize how deeply disappointed, almost disillusioned, are the people who are concerned about this matter. The minister knows that he himself in June, 1966, a year and a quarter ago, gave his personal consent to this subject being referred to a special joint committee on the public service of Canada. That indication on his part was a word of encouragement which seemed to say that after all the years we have been fighting over this matter we were about to get somewhere. In January, 1967, the consent the minister had given was transformed into reality when the appropriate motion was made referring this question to the special joint committee on the public service. That joint committee did a tremendous job on this issue and it made a unanimous report on May 8 of this year recommending that immediate action be taken to increase the pensions of retired civil servants. I emphasize, again, that this was a unanimous report and that it was made by a committee of both houses with all parties in both houses represented thereon.
An immediate assurance was given that the matter would be considered and action taken at the earliest possible moment. I emphasize that this could have been acted upon before we adjourned for the summer on July 7. For a time it looked as though it might have been, because of the words of assurance which were given. But when July 7 came we were told we would have to wait until the fall. Not only were we told we would have to wait until the fall, but we were told by the President of the Treasury Board that an announcement of a specific proposal would be made in the fall. I plead with the minister not to get up and tell me tonight that it is still the fall. By the calendar it is-


Edgar John Benson: It is only four days old.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But the retired civil servants and their families believed that a recess of 11 weeks would certainly be long enough for the government to act, and that the necessary legislation would be ready when we resumed
DEBATES	2535
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion yesterday. An assurance that something would be done was given not only by the present minister but by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) who entered the debate on the last day before we recessed, July 7. I was castigated for insisting that action be taken before we rose. I replied to that criticism by saying this, as reported in Hansard for Friday, July 7 at page 2360:
I know, if we are asked to wait until fall on this issue, that there will be other matters that will have priority. We would not reach the matter until October or November, and these people would not get their increase until next December or January.
I know further, Mr. Speaker, that unless action is taken now we have no guarantee that action will be taken in the fall.
I was told that I lacked faith, that I lacked confidence, that I did not appreciate the deep concern on that side of the house over the plight of these people. I was told this on the floor of the house and out in the hall. They said: "Stanley, we are just as concerned as you are." But you, sir, as a member for an Ottawa constituency, know as I do what this means to many thousands of these people.
e (10:20 p.m.)
I could use the language that was used last night, and on occasion I probably will use it.
I think it is a hoax that for months these people have been led to believe something was going to take place. But, Mr. Speaker, I put it to the President of the Treasury Board in terms of the strongest plea I can make-don't mislead these people, don't disappoint them, don't disillusion them any longer.
Parliament has spoken through a joint committee of both houses. It has said something should be done and should be done soon. The government has said through the mouth of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, through the mouth of the President of the Treasury Board, and through the mouth of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) that active consideration is going to be given to that report and that something is going to be done.
We were told something was going to be done this fall, but yesterday the answer we got was that the matter was still under consideration and that when a decision is reached the house will be informed. That is the kind of answer we have been getting ever since May 8. I am afraid if that kind of answer continues to be given, my prediction of last July 7 will prove to be correct, that by not having got the matter dealt with then the battle is almost lost. So far as I am concerned
September 26, 1967

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
it will not be lost. We shall keep at it until it is won.
I do not know who it is in the cabinet who is holding this up. I know one member who was against it, for he told me so. I can mention this now because he has since left the cabinet. But there must be somebody else in the cabinet who is objecting to it. I know where the President of the Treasury Board stands. He has told us publicly, and I am sure he will not mind my saying that he has told me personally and privately. He thinks something should be done. I plead with him not to let this issue be stalled any longer. Let us have action on it now. I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are at the edge of your chair and so I leave my earnest plea with the President of the Treasury Board.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I would simply reply briefly to the hon. gentleman opposite by saying the steps he has outlined were the steps that were taken. He indicated my personal concern in this particular matter. In due course the government agreed to refer it to a joint committee of the house and the other place. That committee made its report and the committee report was then transmitted to cabinet.
The cabinet has been considering the matter. I can assure the hon. gentleman only that the matter is still on the cabinet agenda. It has not been dropped by the cabinet, but a decision on the matter by the cabinet has not yet been made. When a decision is made I will transmit it to the house. As the hon. member has indicated, he knows my personal feeling in the matter, and I trust it will not get too far into the fall before a report can be made to the house by myself.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION

[Stage Direction]
-SASKATOON-INQUIRY AS TO STATION CONSTRUCTION
Lewis Mackenzie Brand: Mr. Speaker,
I should like this evening to make a plea once more in the house for C.B.C. television coverage for the constituency of Saskatoon and the surrounding area. Undoubtedly the government must be aware that the story of C.B.C. coverage for my constituency has been a story of frustration, a story of delays, a story of indecision. In other words, nothing has been done despite numerous petitions and letters sent over the past few years to the government of Canada and also to the C.B.C.
We are wondering where exactly the holdup on this matter is. I refer to the white
[Mr. Knowles.}
paper on broadcasting. At page 10 it points out:
The government has advised the Board of Broadcast Governors that, pending the enactment of new legislation, it is now prepared to consider issuing second-station television licences on the recommendation of the board, subject to the reservation for the use of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation of channels in Victoria, B.C.; Saskatoon, Saskatchewan-
Of course that came after the big freeze was put on any expansion by the C.B.C. The government has advised that it is prepared to consider issuing these licences. What has happened since? Nothing very much has happened. Along came the report of the standing committee of the house on broadcasting which, on page 9, reads as follows:
The committee concurs with the statement on structure appearing in the white paper-
That is the one to which I have referred.
-particularly with reference to extending coverage to all Canadians, and to full network services in both official languages.
We recommend further that, wherever practical, in areas now receiving only one Canadian service, if the service is through a private outlet, the alternative should be provided by C.B.C. If C.B.C. is now the sole service, the second service should be private. Where there are serious obstacles to such parallel development, however, these should not prohibit the extension of alternate service by other means, at least on a temporary basis. We urge that the introduction of dual service proceed as rapidly as C.B.C. finances and local market conditions permit.
I submit that the local market conditions certainly have been met in the city of Saskatoon with the broadcast area it has. We are the only major city in western Canada which is without a C.B.C. television outlet. I think it is very important indeed that the people in this area should have the privilege of sharing in the benefits from the tax money which is used in the support of the C.B.C.
Despite everything we have done there always seems to be something blocking the actual construction of a C.B.C. station at Saskatoon. You will recall that it was held up first by the government freeze on expenditures by the C.B.C. Then, permission was given to go ahead, but the B.B.G. hearing was delayed. The hearing was to be held in January but was delayed until April. Finally, the B.B.G. gave approval early in May this year. Then the Department of Transport, which had to pass on the technical matters, gave its permission as well.
Now, what has happened? I, personally, have attempted to find out by phoning several government departments which might
September 26, 1967
COMMONS DEBATES	2537
seem to be involved in this, but I have been unable to get an answer from anyone concerning what has happened. The press, which seems to know things before members of parliament do, has pointed out that cabinet approval has been held up. If this is the case, then in view of the fact that the government already has stated in the white paper that it is prepared to consider issuing these licences, I wonder why the cabinet could not immediately consider allowing the commencement of construction of a C.B.C. station at Saskatoon.
If this construction is not started soon or is held up much longer, then the program series, which I think was to start in September of 1968, will be held up for an additional year since the transfer between the private station and the C.B.C. station would require some time to enable them to work out the programming. So that there will not be a further delay of one year, some decision should be made very soon so that the C.B.C. can commence construction. This affects not only the Saskatoon constituency but also many of the surrounding constituencies which would be served by the radius of television coverage which I understand the C.B.C. has suggested. Apparently they have in mind a satellite to serve the Kerrobert area. As we all know the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Cantelon) has risen in his place from time to time pointing out the importance of C.B.C. coverage for this area and why they feel there should be a C.B.C. station in Saskatoon with the consequent satellite coverage for them.
I should like to know whether in the very near future the cabinet will allow the C.B.C. to start construction of a C.B.C. station. We think it is of vital importance to a city which is the second fastest growing city in Canada and also one of the finest, as my colleague the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasserden) has pointed out. We believe it is very important that a city which is major in every possible way in western Canada should have this coverage. I would appreciate it very
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion much if the representative of the government could tonight give us the assurance that in the next few days the cabinet will give favourable consideration to the immediate construction of a C.B.C. station in Saskatoon.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, just as I had an affinity with the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) this evening, I should like to assure the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Brand) that both he and I walk in the same wilderness so far as C.B.C. television is concerned within our ridings.
I only wish I could take the hon. member on a trip through the East Kootenay to let him hear of the complaints and concerns of the people in my riding which is served to the extent of 20 per cent to 25 per cent by off air service; that is by C.B.C. television. All other receivers are on a wire line and are paying a substantial amount for this service. As suggested by the white paper, before granting a second license we are first endeavouring to provide television service for the majority of the people in Canada. I might say that the majority of the people in my riding are not receiving C.B.C. television.
Be that as it may, I am sure this matter is being given very careful consideration by the ministers concerned with this matter, namely the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer), and the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh). As I am here this evening apparently to make apologies because of the absence of these ministers, who are unable to be in their places because of illness or important business, I will undertake to bring this matter immediately to their attention and indicate the very forceful manner in which the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Brand) has brought this matter to the attention to the house.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.34 p.m.

Wednesday, September 27, 1967