1967-04-26

PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF LEADER OF UNITED KINGDOM LIBERAL PARTY

Mr. Speaker:: May I be permitted to bring to the attention of hon. members the presence in the Speaker's gallery of a distinguished visitor, Right Hon. Jeremy Thorpe, leader of the Liberal party in the United Kingdom.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Seventh report of standing committee on northern affairs and national resources-Mr. Badanai.
Ninth report of standing committee on industry, research and energy development- Mr. Cashin.
Twenty fifth and twenty sixth reports of standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs-Mr. Laflamme.
Twelfth report of standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts-Mr. Stanbury.
[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of the standing committee on Indian affairs, human rights and citizenship and immigration-Mr. Duquet.

Mr. H. C. Harley (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, by leave of the house I wish to table the minutes of proceedings of the special committee on drug costs and prices referred to in the second and final report of the committee presented to the house on April 3.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to table these documents?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



RENEWAL OF MOST FAVOURED NATION AGREEMENT WITH BULGARIA

Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the house that we have reached agreement with the People's Republic of Bulgaria to renew the most favoured nation trade agreement between our two countries. The appropriate documents will be signed later today.
Mr. Dimitar Kostov, chairman of the Bulgarian trade delegation, is in Ottawa to sign on behalf of his government the agreement which brings to a successful conclusion talks I opened with the Bulgarian trade minister, Mr. Budinov, in Sofia last September. The negotiations carried forward the friendly spirit of cooperation which has been a feature of our trade relations with Bulgaria in recent years.
Under the terms of the agreement Bulgaria has undertaken to purchase a minimum of 7.4 million bushels of wheat during the next three years with an option on a further 3.7 million bushels subject to the ability of the Canadian Wheat Board to supply. The basic quantity together with the additional option would represent about $24 million of trade at current prices. Purchases of wheat will be facilitated by the extension of credit arrangements under the Export Credits Insurance Act providing for payment over three years.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)
The exchange of letters concerning the expansion and diversification of trade between Canada and Bulgaria will express the interest of both contracting parties in further developing trade between our two countries. Bulgaria undertakes to give first consideration to Canada as a competitive source of supply for a number of goods other than wheat for which Canada has demonstrated export performance. The letter also indicates that within the framework of the laws and regulations it should be possible for Bulgaria to expand its exports to Canada.



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (for the Secretary of Stale) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No.

April 26, 1967
Questions
S-59 (from the Senate) to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Mather: 1.	What was the amount, In dollars, of federal aid to provinces, municipalities and cities in 1945 and in 1965?
2.	How many federal departments and/or agencies administered such funds in 1945 and in 1965?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: 1.	Federal aid to provinces, municipalities and cities in 1945-46 amounted to $164.2 million, and in 1965-66 to $1,721.5 million.
2.	The federal departments and agencies administering such aid numbered 9 in 194546, and 17 in 1965-66.


FERRY SERVICE RATES, BORDEN-CAPE TORMENTINE
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Is it still the intention of the government that hearings he held by the Canadian Maritime Commission into the rates charged on the Borden-Cape Tormentine ferry service?
2.	If so, when are such hearings to be commenced?
3.	What groups or individuals have Indicated a desire to appear before the commission?
4.	Did the government of Prince Edward Island protest the increase in rates and, if so, on what date?
5.	Has the government of Prince Edward Island proposed changes in the management and operation of the ferry service?
6.	If so, when were such changes suggested?
7.	Has the government of Prince Edward Island requested a withdrawal of the Canadian National Railways from the operation of the ferry service?
8.	If such suggestions and requests were made, what is the date of the reply to same?
9.	What is the nature of the reply given?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. Yes.
2.	Under discussion between federal and provincial government officials. Decision will be announced in due course.
3.	Maritime Transportation Commission.
4.	Yes, May 10, 1966.
5.	Yes.
6.	In letters from premier of Prince Edward Island to Prime Minister Sept. 6, Sept. 12, 1966.
7.	Yes.
8.	Sept. 22, 1966.
9.	Matter referred to federal Ministers of Transport and Labour for consideration.



WRITTEN QUESTIONS AND MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

['1. March 30, 1967.\n2.\tInspiration Limited, Dumex (Canada) Li-mitee Societe Dumex, Simard-Beaudry Inc. $42,980,000.00; Kiewit-Northern-Mannix, $43,391,060.00; The Foundation Company of Canada Limited and Miron Company Limited, $50,952,896.85; Causeway Constructors, $53,035,700.00.\n3.\tAs reported on April 21, 1967, at page 15179 of House of Commons Debates, the tenders are being studied and analysed and this has not been completed.\n4.\tDecisions cannot be made or anticipated prior to the completion of the study and analysis.\n5.\tNo attempt to state a completion date is being made. As has been previously stated in the house, on a project of this size and complexity, at this stage it is impractical to forecast a completion date.\n6.\tThere has been no delay. As stated on April 21, 1967, it may well be that when the analysis and study have been completed some\nMotions for Papers\nadjustments or modifications may prove desirable. The rate of construction might be influenced by such adjustments or modifications, but this cannot be anticipated now.']
Mr. M. A. Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: The following brings the statistics up to date on questions and motions for the production of papers.
No. of	No. of
Session	Parliament	No. of	written	Starred	motionsYear	No.	No.	sittings	questions	questions	for papers1964-65	2nd	26th	248	3,063	319	3861965	3rd	26th	53	876	60	109
Insofar as the present session is concerned: 2,922 questions have appeared on the order paper and 2,802 have been answered.
232 starred questions have appeared on the order paper and 222 have been answered.
369 orders for returns have been passed and 352 have been tabled.
[Mr. Pickersgill.l



Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What is the total contribution of the government of Canada towards the construction of the centennial project of Prince Edward Island, namely, the provincial administrative building formerly designated as the Shaw centre?
April 26, 1367

2.	What is the total contribution of the government to the construction of the New Brunswick centennial project, the provincial office building in Fredericton?
3.	What has been the contribution of the dominion government towards similar centennial projects in each of the other provinces?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the centennial commission as follows: 1. Nil.
2.	$2.5 million.
3.	The centennial commission is contributing toward the construction of similar projects, i.e. confederation memorial projects, in the other provinces as follows: Newfoundland, $2.5 million; Prince Edward Island, $2.8 million; Nova Scotia, $2.5 million; Quebec, $2.8 million; Ontario, $2.5 million; Manitoba, $2.5 million; Saskatchewan, $2.5 million; Alberta, $2.5 million; British Columbia, $2.5 million; Yukon, $250,000; Northwest Territories, $250,000.


INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND FARM CREDIT LOANS, QUEBEC AND ONTARIO
Mr. Caouette: 1.	How many loans were granted by the industrial development bank in the province of Quebec and in the province of Ontario during the years 1963, 1964, 1965 and 1966?
2.	How many applications for loans did the farm credit corporation receive from the provinces of Quebec and Ontario during the years 1964, 1965 and 1966?
3.	How many of these applications for loans were granted by the corporation during those same years?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Departments of Finance and Agriculture as follows: 1. As indicated on page 12 of the annual report of the Industrial Development Bank, the following number of loans was made by the bank in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario in the
fiscal years ended	September 30, 1963, 1964,		
1965 and 1966.	1963	1964 1965	1966Quebec	395	439 485	450Ontario	676	675 684	7522. Fiscal Year	Quebec Ontario	1964-65	1908	25911965-66	1636	24951966-67	1979	22803. Fiscal Year	Quebec Ontario	1964-65	1354	21311965-66	1140	22101966-67	1522	2042
Questions


EGG STABILIZATION PAYMENTS
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	In the last five years, by provinces (a) how many egg producers received payments from the agricultural stabilization board (b) how much was paid to these egg producers?
2.	In what year was the minimum shipment requirement of eggs established?
3.	In each of the last five years, by provinces, how many egg producers shipped between (a) 500 and 4,000 dozen per year (b) 500 and 10,000 dozen per year (c) over 10,000 dozen per year?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: 1.	(a) and (b) During the past five years deficiency payments were made to egg producers in the years ending September 30, 1962, 1964 and 1965. No payments were necessary in the years 1963 and 1966.
Listed below are tables outlining the number of producers and payments made, by provinces.
October 1, 1961 to September 30, 1962.
	No. producers	Payments
Nfld.	15	$ 579.70P.E.I.	911	11,653.47N.S.	253	5,976.38N.B.	116	2,745.84Que.	3,370	69,446.16Ont.	18,020	375,056.17Man.	4,409	60,322.97Sask.	2,855	19,710.05Alta.	5,644	59,417.04B.C.	863	27,692.51Canada	36,456	$632,600.29October 1,	1963 to September	30, 1964.No. Producers	PaymentsNfld.	17	$ 1,246.64P.E.I.	635	19,065.40N.S.	176	10,228.16N.B.	97	6,275.92Que.	2,034	98,938.92Ont.	12,383	563,786.18Man.	3,098	102,710.54Sask.	1,695	28,847.46Alta.	3,483	84,721.64B.C.	599	41,857.12Canada	24,217	$957,677.98October 1,	1964 to September 30, 1965.	No. Producers	PaymentsNfld.	39	6,364.42P.E.I.	682	45,131.78N.S.	172	22,546.46N.B.	154	20,804.27Que.	2,296	247,385.61Ont.	11,802	1,119,118.27Man.	2,679	207,129.36Sask.	1,158	50,254.98Alta.	3,063	168,008.31B.C.	538	83,311.47Canada	22,583	$1,970,054.93
April 26, 1967
Questions
2.	In 1965/66 when adjustments were made respecting minimum and maximum shipments eligible for deficiency payment.
3.	Data about shipments by producers only available in years deficiency payments made. Since deficiency payments have not been made yet in years where eligibility extended to more than 4,000 dozen shipped, data are not available to segregate numbers of producers shipping in excess of 4,000 dozen but not in excess of 10,000 dozen.
The following data set out the number of producers receiving payment for shipments of (a) 500 to 3,999 dozen, and (b) 4,000 dozen or over, and (c) payments to producers in total for both categories.
Year ending September 30, 1962.
	500-3999	Total payment 4,000 doz. both	
doz.	& over	categoriesNfld.	1	14	579.70P.E.I.	634	49	11,026.40N.S.	72	120	5,823.30N.B.	40	48	2,686.24Que.	1,754	936	67,680.44Ont.	11,151	4,095	367,691.68Man.	2,320	550	56,929.45Sask.	983	105	16,497.76Alta.	2,741	379	53,749.74B.C.	212	586	27,513.87Canada	19,908	6,882	$610,178.58Year ending September 30, 1964.	Nfld.	2	15	1,246.64P.E.I.	441	65	18,326.78N.S.	41	108	10,092.84N.B.	26	65	6,255.66Que.	831	802	97,375.68Ont.	7,436	3,415	555,178.42Man.	1,512	633	98,098.34Sask.	623	114	24,979.14Alta.	1,724	352	77,814.02B.C.	114	462	41,727.56Canada	12,750	6,031	$931,095.08Year ending September 30, 1965.	Nfld.	6	33	6,364.42P.E.I.	481	66	43,601.42N.S.	44	112	22,347.94N.B.	52	93	20,717.67Que.	1,000	963	243,611.27Ont.	7,240	3,115	1,102,748.49Man.	1,297	666	200,181.28Sask.	439	121	45,199.18Alta.	1,566	374	156,984.62B.C.	76	442	83,077.44Canada	12,201	5,985	$1,924,833.73


C.B.C. NEWS REPORTS BY JOSEPH SCHLESINGER
Mr. Webb: 1.	Is Joseph Schlesinger a full time employee of the C.B.C.?
2.	Reporting on the C.B.C. television news at 11 p.m. on February 16 on Prime Minister Wilson's return from Bonn, did Joseph Schlesinger report from London or Toronto?
3.	Has the C.B.C. been putting on national newscasts featuring Mr. Schlesinger, purporting to be on the scene reports from Europe, actually delivered in Toronto and, if so, why are the viewers being misled into believing that he is abroad?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows: 1. Yes.
2.	Mr. Schlesinger reported from Toronto on February 16.
3.	All reports made by Mr. Schlesinger on the national T.V. news have originated in Toronto. No attempt has been made to suggest overseas origination.


HIPPOLYTE LAFONTAINE TUNNEL-CANADIAN FLAG AT OPENING
Mr. Isabelle: Where was the Canadian flag placed during the ceremony for the opening of the Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine tunnel?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minisier of Public Works):: This ceremony was not arranged by the government of Canada.


APPLICATIONS FOR DISCHARGE, R.C.A.F. PILOT INSTRUCTORS
Mr. Pascoe: 1.	How many R.C.A.F. pilot instructors (a) at Moose Jaw (b) at Portage, have applied for discharge from the R.C.A.F. since January 1, 1967?
2.	How many have received discharges since January 1, 1967?
3.	In the case of those who have not received discharges, for what reasons have discharges been withheld?
4.	Are R.C.A.F. personnel allowed discharge on application following six months' notice and, if not, what is the present policy and since when has It been In effect?
5.	How many R.C.A.F. personnel of all ranks (a) at Moose Jaw (b) at Portage, have applied for discharge since January 1, 1967 and, how many have been granted and how many refused?
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National
Defence): The answer to part 1 (a) is 11, and to part 1 (b), three.
Apiil 26, 1967

2.	From CFB Moose Jaw, 4, from CFB Portage, nil.
3.	Presuming this refers to those pilot instructors who have applied for discharge since January 1, 1967, a six month notice of intention for voluntary release is required in the absence of serious or compassionate reasons.
4.	Yes, when the following obligations have been fulfilled: i. R.C.A.F. pilots holding a permanent commission must, by release date, have served for five years since attaining wings standard. This policy has been in effect since August 29, 1966.
ii.	R.C.A.F. navigators holding a permanent commission must, by release date, have served for five years since attaining wings standard. This policy has been in effect since January 20, 1967.
iii.	All R.C.A.F. officers must, by date of release, have fulfilled the various obligatory periods of service associated with subsidized undergraduate ROTP training or subsidized postgraduate training as provided for in existing orders and agreed to by contract previous to commencement of such training.
5.	In addition to personnel listed in part 1, 6 men and 1 officer from CFB Moose Jaw and 2 men from CFB Portage have applied for release since January 1, 1967. All requests have been approved within the bounds of policy in part 4.


PAROLE BOARD REGIONAL OFFICE, NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Tucker: Has the government ol Canada any plans to open a regional office of the National Parole Board of Canada in the province of Newfoundland and, if so, when and where?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: The
government of Canada plans to open a district office of the National Parole Board of Canada in St. John's, Newfoundland, on June 1, 1967.
The officer in charge of the district office will report to the regional representative of the National Parole Board, Halifax, N.S.


RELOCATION OF RAILWAY LINE, OTTAWA
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	Has (a) the Minister of Public Works (b) the national capital commission, given study to the report of C. C. Parker and Associates Limited regarding the relocation of the C.N.R. Beachburg line in the national capital?
Questions
2.	If so, what are their opinions with respect to the recommendations of the said report?
3.	Has (a) the Minister of Public Works (b) the national capital commission, formulated any plan for the relocation of this railway line in a location which would avoid the disadvantages (i) of the existing location (ii) of the location proposed in the said report?
4.	If so, what is such plan?
5.	If not, what consideration is now being given to the problem and by whom?


George James McIlraith: 1. (a) Yes; (b) yes.
2.	While the report of C. C. Parker and Associates made no specific recommendation for an alternative to the Beachburg subdivision, it put forward for consideration an alternative route for the part of the Beachburg subdivision between Wass and Hurdman. The commission believes that the alternative route probably would produce some of the same objections as those arising from the present location.
3.	No.
4.	See answer to part 3.
5.	The report of the Beachburg subdivision by C. C. Parker and Associates Limited was prepared for the city of Ottawa, with 50 per cent of the cost being borne by the N.C.C. Recently the N.C.C. agreed to assist the city in a further study of an alternative mentioned in the Parker report. It is expected that the N.C.C. will be advised by the city if the city decides to adopt this alternative route.


GUEST HOUSE FOR FOREIGN VISITORS, OTTAWA
Mr. Rapp: 1.	Under what authority was the guest house for distinguished foreign citizens visiting Ottawa purchased?
2.	Was there an order in council passed and, if so, when?
3.	What is the cost to date of said house and, in particular what was (a) the purchase price thereof (b) the cost of repairs and additions made since purchase (c) the cost of furniture, equipment and other furnishings?
4.	What salary and allowances are paid to the manager of this house, and what public and private positions has this person held in the past ten years?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Department of Public Works, the Prime Minister's and Privy Council offices as follows: 1. Treasury Board minute 652668 of March 24, 1966.
2.	No.
3.	(a) $152,000; (b) $92,544.72; (c) $90,594,76.

April 26, 1967
Questions
4.	The operational management of the guest house has been added to the duties of the director of administration Privy Council office who has occupied this position since 1 June, 1964. Immediately prior to joining the Privy Council office staff this officer held the position of administrative attache and consul at the Canadian Embassy, Washington, and has occupied a number of similar positions with the Department of External Affairs at home and abroad since August 1946.


REFUSAL OF ENTRY TO CZECH WIFE OF CANADIAN
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	Has the Minister of Manpower and Immigration refused entry into Canada of Mrs. John Clarke (nee Vlasta Malenkova) who was recently married to a Canadian in Czechoslovakia?
2.	If so, on what grounds?
3.	Is an investigation taking place Into the circumstances of the marriage and the part played in bringing about the marriage by one Eric Knapp of Toronto?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Mrs. Clarke's admission was refused on the grounds that the marriage had been contracted strictly for the purpose of circumventing Canadian immigration regulations in order to gain entry into Canada.
3.	An examination of all the circumstances is being made.


TESTS OF HOVERCRAFT
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Did the Department of Transport recently carry out tests with a Bell SK-5 Hovercraft?
2.	If so. where were the tests held, and during what period of time?
3.	What was the evaluation of the tests in these areas (a) simulated ship-to-shore cargo and personnel movements (b) search and rescue tasks (c) marine firefighting (d) patrol and surveillance of marine traffic (e) other functions routine to the coast guard?
4.	What was the cost of the tests for (a) rental of a Hovercraft (b) fuel (c) other?
5.	Is it proposed to use Hovercraft in the Canadian coast guard operations?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. Yes.
2. In the eastern end of lake Ontario, the bay of Quinte, the St. Lawrence river to Prescott. Between 24th October and 20th November.

3.	(a) Not evaluated in the role of a ship-borne tender for ship to shore movement, (b) Very good potential due to ability to reach scene of rescue at high speed and seaworthiness on water, (c) Satisfactory capability to carry equipment with the advantage of being able to reach scene of fires quickly, (d) Good capability for same reason as (b) above, (e) Useful capability for servicing and support of aids to navigation. Trials limited by configuration of test craft which was designed for passenger rather than load carrying.
4.	(a) Craft chartered for an inclusive sum of U.S. $18,000 covering fuel, stores, spares, crew and maintenance, as well as use of craft, (b) N.A. (c) U.S. $1,975 to modify side decks to suit search and rescue operations.
5.	Decision awaiting completion of operating and maintenance cost studies.


PENSION COMMISSION SURVEY OF DIEPPE RAID SURVIVORS
Mr. Lambert: 1.	Has any consideration been given by the Department of Veterans Affairs to a survey at any early date of the present physical condition of Canadian W.W. II ex-servicemen who were prisoners of war following the Dieppe raid, so as to ascertain as was done recently in the case of Canadian Hong Kong prisoners of war, whether the treatment received and privation during detention has aggravated or accelerated physical ailments or infirmities?
2.	If so, what action is to be taken and when?
3.	Will similar consideration be given to all remaining Canadian prisoners of war of World War II?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. Yes, such consideration has been given by the Canadian Pension Commission.
2.	It was decided not to conduct such a survey because no unusual difficulty has been experienced in the award of appropriate disability pensions to these men.
3.	This question has already been considered, but no action to conduct a survey similar to that undertaken in the case of Hong Kong veterans is contemplated for the same reason as mentioned in part 2.


MAIL CONTRACT, R.R. 4, MONCTON, N.B.
Mr. Fairweafher: Will a mail carrier contract for Moncton rural route No. 4, New Brunswick, be advertised for tender in view of the fact that Irishtown post office is to be closed and its patrons and those of Irishtown rural route No. 2 are to be served by an extension of Moncton rural route No. 4?
April 26. 1967


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: No, the contractor on Moncton rural route No. 4 will have his payment increased pro rata in accordance with the terms of his contract to serve the additional mileage and boxholders.


CONSULTATIONS RESPECTING PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD RULES AND REGULATIONS
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	Were any discussions or consultations held by the public service staff relations board with staff associations or other representatives of the employees in the public service before the promulgation of the P.S.S.R.B. regulations and rules of procedure?
2.	If so (a) with whom were such discussions or consultations held (b) what, in detail, was the nature of the discussions or consultations?


Hon. Waller L. Gordon (President of lhe Privy Council):: I am informed by the public service staff relations board as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Consultations took place with representatives of the staff associations and labour bodies which appeared before the special joint committee. With respect to the consultations concerning the regulations appearing in the Canada Gazette of April 12, 1967, no record was kept of the persons who attended a meeting with the chairman and vice chairman of the board, but at a subsequent meeting such a list was kept. Representatives of substantially the same organizations attended both meetings. The organizations represented at the second meeting are as follows: Association of Postal Officers; Canadian Air Traffic Controllers Association; Canadian Labour Congress; Canadian Merchant Service Guild; Canadian Postmasters Association; Canadian Union of Postal Workers; Canadian Union of Public Employees; Confederation of National Trade Unions; Council of Union Employees, Canadian Government Printing Bureau; International Association of Machinists; International Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union of North America; International Typographical Union; Letter Carriers Union of Canada; Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada; Public Service Alliance of Canada.
(b) The procedure followed was as follows. The draft regulations referred to in (a), in English as well as in French, were forwarded either by messenger or by mail to those staff associations and labour bodies which had appeared before the special joint committee. The organizations were then asked
Questions
to meet with the chairman and vice chairman. At the end of the meeting organizations were asked to submit any further views they had in writing. None did so. The chairman reported to the board on the consultations and subsequently the board approved the regulations.


PURCHASE OF CALGARY AIRPORT
Mr. Nugenl: 1.	What was the price paid by the federal government to the city of Calgary for the purchase of Calgary airport?
2.	What were the terms of the purchase?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. $2,407,000.
2. Unconditional for cash including the acquisition of lands, buildings, structures, chattels and benefit of all leases, licences and agreements granted by the city. Employees of the city who are qualified were offered employment with the department at substantially the same salary or wages as they received from the city.


LIST OF TITLE &quot;CANADIAN FORCES&quot;
Mr. McCleave: Has the Department of National Defence issued regulations and other documents incorporating in the titles to such the words "Canadian Forces" in place of "Royal Canadian Navy", "Canadian Army", "Royal Canadian Air Force" in (a) 1966 (b) 1967 (c) recent years prior to 1966?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: The National Defence Act, as enacted in 1950 and still in effect, provides in section 15 that "the Canadian Forces are the naval, army and air forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of three services, namely the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force. Accordingly, when it has been desired to refer to the three services collectively the description authorized by section 15 of the National Defence Act, i.e. "the Canadian Forces" has been employed.


FEDERAL PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF PROVINCIAL TAXES
Mr. Gregoire: 1.	What amounts were paid to each province in lieu of provincial taxes under section 5 of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Revision Act, 1964, chapter 26, statutes of Canada, 1964-65?
2.	When were those amounts paid?

April 26, 1967
Questions


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Newfoundland, $398,690; Ontario, $1,156,697; Prince Edward Island, $2,618; Manitoba, $2,535; Nova Scotia, $194,032; Saskatchewan, $9,654; New Brunswick, $15,412; Alberta, $10,727; Quebec, $1,657,799; British Columbia, $356,564.
2. February 10, 1965.


BREAKWATER CONSTRUCTION, PORT McNEILL, B.C.
Mr. Diefenbaker: Will the government give reconsideration to its decision not to proceed this year with construction of a much needed and overdue breakwater at Port McNeill, British Columbia?


George James McIlraith: The answer is that this matter is under consideration at the present time.


QUEBEC-PROCEDURE FOR DEALING WITH OTHER GOVERNMENTS
Mr. Goyer: To the knowledge of the government, has the legislature of the province of Quebec established an administrative procedure for dealing with other governments and, if so, what is the policy of the government toward it?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: The government is aware that Bill 33 entitled "An act to amend the federal-provincial affairs department act and certain related acts" was adopted by the Quebec legislature on April 13, 1967. In answer to questions raised in this house at the time when that bill was read for the first time in the Quebec legislature, I stated on behalf of the government, that to the extent that this legislation purported to set up the administrative machinery which the Quebec government felt it required for the performance of the functions assigned to its competence, this was a matter for the Quebec government to decide.
Since then, however, the government has had occasion to see the legislation in question, and to follow the debates on it in the Quebec legislature. Due note has been taken of statements made on that occasion that the sole purpose of this legislation was to effect an internal transfer and reorganization of existing administrative functions and responsibilities. However, a certain ambiguity of wording in parts of the legislation has resulted in interpretations by the press and elsewhere as possibly having the effect of entrusting this new department with responsibilities in the
[Mr. Gregoire.l
external field such as for relations between Quebec and foreign countries, and for the negotiation of agreements with foreign governments or bodies.
There should be no ground for any such misunderstanding.
The constitutional position in Canada with respect to the division of powers as between the federal and provincial governments clearly gives the federal government exclusive responsibility for the conduct of the country's external affairs. This cannot be altered by legislation adopted by a provincial legislature. Quebec legislation cannot confer upon the government of Quebec any of the powers which are now assigned exclusively by the constitution to the federal government for the conduct of Canada's relations with foreign countries and for the negotiation and conclusion of agreements with these countries in all fields. The government of Quebec is of course aware of these constitutional requirements in the field of external affairs and there is no reason to believe that the manner in which the new Quebec department will carry out the functions assigned to it by this bill will not be fully consistent with the constitutional position in Canada.
With regard to Quebec provincial agents abroad, whose responsibility is assigned by this new legislation to the department of intergovernmental affairs, it is a well known fact that provincial agencies abroad-which have existed for many years-do not form part of the Canadian diplomatic and consular establishment in foreign countries. Thus they are not empowered to exercise abroad any of the functions which, within our constitutional framework and in accordance with international practice, it is the exclusive responsibility of Canadian diplomatic and consular missions abroad to perform on behalf of all of Canada. Consequently the role of these agencies does not consist in transacting with foreign governmental authorities official business affecting Canada or any part thereof in any field unless agreement has been reached beforehand through diplomatic channels between the Canadian government and the foreign government concerned on the matters to be transacted with provincial authorities and the manner in which this is to be done.
April 26, 1967


WHARF EXTENSION, BEACH POINT, P.E.I.
Mr. McQuaid: 1.	Was a contract awarded in 1966 for the construction of an extension to the wharf at Beach Point in King's county, Prince Edward Island?
2.	If so, to whom was the contract awarded?
3.	Was the contrat for this work later cancelled and, if so, for what reason?
4.	Is it proposed to call for another contract In the immediate future?


George James McIlraith: 1. Yes.
2.	Norman N. MacLean, Murray River, P.E.I.
3.	No.
4.	No.


NEW BRUNSWICK SECTION, NORTHUMBERLAND CAUSEWAY
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	On what date did tenders close for the New Brunswick causeway section of the Northumberland crossing?
2.	What firms or individuals submitted tenders and what was the amount of each tender?
3.	Why has a contract not been awarded?
4.	When is it intended to award a contract?
5.	What is the anticipated completion date of the Northumberland crossing?
6.	Has the delay in awarding this contract necessitated a change in the anticipated completion date and, if so, what is the extent of such delay?


George James McIlraith: 1. March 30, 1967.
2.	Inspiration Limited, Dumex (Canada) Li-mitee Societe Dumex, Simard-Beaudry Inc. $42,980,000.00; Kiewit-Northern-Mannix, $43,391,060.00; The Foundation Company of Canada Limited and Miron Company Limited, $50,952,896.85; Causeway Constructors, $53,035,700.00.
3.	As reported on April 21, 1967, at page 15179 of House of Commons Debates, the tenders are being studied and analysed and this has not been completed.
4.	Decisions cannot be made or anticipated prior to the completion of the study and analysis.
5.	No attempt to state a completion date is being made. As has been previously stated in the house, on a project of this size and complexity, at this stage it is impractical to forecast a completion date.
6.	There has been no delay. As stated on April 21, 1967, it may well be that when the analysis and study have been completed some
Motions for Papers
adjustments or modifications may prove desirable. The rate of construction might be influenced by such adjustments or modifications, but this cannot be anticipated now.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 223 and 229?
I ask, sir, that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.
[Englishl



FEDERAL WITHDRAWAL FROM VOCATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 223-Mr. Orlikow:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence between the provincial governments and the federal government in respect to the decision of the federal government to withdraw from the technical vocational training program.
Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to accept the question in its present form since we have never withdrawn from occupational training as implied by the question. The agreements came to an end, normally, on March 31 last without any withdrawal on the part of the government, and we are studying, at the present time, a new bill concerning occupational education.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion dropped or transferred for debate?


Mr. Orlikow:: I wonder if the minister would agree to table the correspondence which has taken place as a result of the decision? I know the province of Manitoba is going to agree to the tabling in its area.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the motion dropped?


David Orlikow: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, if the hon.
member wants to redraft the motion and not imply that we have withdrawn from vocational training, I will agree to it.


David Orlikow: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.

April 26, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry



NORTHUMBERLAND STRAIT CROSSING

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 229-Mr. MacDonald (Prince):
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house copies of all charts, maps, plans, specifications, diagrams and surveys produced by Northumberland consultants for the Department of Public Works in connection with the construction of the Northumberland strait crossing and an analysis of same by the department as well as regulations, tenders and contracts issued by the department and all communications exchanged between the government of Canada and its departments and the government of Prince Edward Island and its departments relative to the proposed construction of the Northumberland strait crossing.
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, it will be seen that this motion asks for the production of all charts, maps, plans, specifications, diagrams and surveys produced by Northumberland consultants for the Department of Public Works in connection with the construction of the Northumberland strait crossing, and for analyses of the same by the department. Then it asks for regulations, tenders and contracts issued by the department. Third, it asks for communications exchanged between the government of Canada and the government of Prince Edward Island.
The materials produced by Northumberland consultants for the department and the studies and analyses of the same by the department are departmental papers which it has not been the custom to produce, and they are privileged. However, the pre-tender information and the tender documents issued by the department can be produced. Similarly the communications exchanged between the government of Canada and its departments and the government of Prince Edward Island and its departments relative to the proposed crossing can be produced subject, of course, to having the consent of the province-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In the absence of the hon. member this motion will be allowed to stand.
Motion stands.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Slarr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the many months

that have elapsed and the uncertainty and uneasiness which have been caused, will the Prime Minister soon name a president of the C.B.C. to replace Mr. Ouimet, who has announced his desire to retire?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, one reason for the delay has been the delay in getting the legislation before parliament and through parliament. There is a relationship between these two things but I do hope to be in a position to make an appointment before long. If the legislation has not been passed then the appointment will be to the existing Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, but naturally in the eyes of those being approached for an appointment of this kind there is a relationship between that appointment and what happens if and when the legislation gets through parliament.


Michael Starr: As a supplementary question I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he will take action to fill the other top administrative posts that are now unoccupied in the administration of the corporation and which are causing serious dislocation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend will bring to my attention some specific details of administrative posts which are vacant I shall be glad to look into the matter. Perhaps he himself might qualify for one of them.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. The other day I asked the Prime Minister whether the government had protested or expressed regret concerning the dangerous escalation of the war in Viet Nam by United States bombing inside the territory of Haiphong. The right hon. gentleman at that time said the government had not made any protest and that he would not think of doing so without more information.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is now prepared to protest to the government of the United States against the extremely dangerous escalation of the war in Viet Nam which continues on an increasing scale.
April 26. 1967


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, not at this moment, and certainly not before I have had an opportunity to consult with the Secretary of State for External Affairs who is in New York today and who, as my hon. friend knows, has been on a mission to London, Paris and Bonn where all these questions were discussed with representatives of the foreign governments.


David Lewis: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I know how anxious the right hon. the Prime Minister and everyone else are about this matter. May I be permitted to ask whether he can assure the house that the moment the Secretary of State for External Affairs returns the government will express itself on this very dangerous situation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Of course we have already expressed our very definite concern about anything in the nature of escalation of the war in Viet Nam, whether there is escalation on one side or the other.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


CANADIAN CENTENNIAL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Could he tell us whether he intends to ask His Excellency the Governor General to sign as soon as possible honour certificates for Canadians who are 100 years old, whose names have been added recently to the incomplete list held by the centennial commission?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will be glad to look into this. I had not heard of it before.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Could the minister give the house any information as to the progress to date and Canada's position at the meetings of the directors of the International Monetary Fund at present being held in Washington?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet had a report from my officials, but when I have I will be very happy to make a statement if there is anything of sufficient importance to report to the house.


INQUIRY AS TO NEGOTIATIONS WITH COMMUNIST COUNTRIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the minister's announcement this morning concerning the granting of most favoured nation treatment to Bulgaria, will the minister inform the house how many communist nations still do not have most favoured nation treatment and whether negotiations are being carried on with these nations on this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think this is a question which should be asked at this time.


REPORTED INTENTION TO REDUCE SHIPMENTS THROUGH CHURCHILL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce through his parliamentary secretary in relation to reports that shipments of grain through the port of Churchill possibly would be decreased this year, and asked the minister or his parliamentary secretary to give the reason for this. I wonder whether the minister has this information now.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can give the reason for something which I do not believe will take place. The Canadian Wheat Board at present are negotiating shipments of wheat from Churchill for this season. They are doing everything they can to encourage a high level of shipments, and we believe there again will be a good level of exports through the port of Churchill this year.


Robert Simpson: I should like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In a recent letter from the chairman of the National Harbours Board it was stated to me that shipments of grain through Churchill this year are not expected to exceed the level of

April 26, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry other years. Therefore I should like to ask the minister whether he would look into this.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Oxford.


EXPO '67 REPORTED INTENTION OF U.S. GROUP TO CAUSE DISTURBANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of reports this morning to the effect that a group of United States citizens is planning to come to Canada today or tomorrow to cause a disturbance at Expo '67, is the minister taking appropriate steps to see that these persons do not enter Canada?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of this proposed visit but I will check into it immediately to see what can be done in this regard.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the great importance for future Canadian defence plans of the possible deployment of an a.b.m. system by the United States, can the minister say whether he will make arrangements to have his estimates referred to committee at an early date during the next session so that this vitally important subject may be thoroughly explored?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me this question should be asked during the next session.


PRESENTATION OF BELLS FROM DECOMMISSIONED SHIP &quot;NEW WATERFORD&quot;
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Will he correct the error made in presenting the bells of the decommissioned ship New Waterford to the wrong town, and recognize at least this one tradition by presenting these bells to the town of New Waterford, Nova Scotia, after which the ship was named?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made a representation which I assume the hon. minister will take into consideration.


Malcolm MacInnis: Will the
minister do me the courtesy of correcting that situation?


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, having received further information with regard to the previous question I asked which indicates that I probably owe the Minister of National Defence an apology. However, having referred to the breaking of traditions in this country, I examined the situation and found that the ship to which I made reference, the New Waterford, has been named after a town in Nova Scotia, so it appears that our traditions have not been broken at all but are being divided. The minister has indicated-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder whether the hon. member does suggest that this is a question of privilege. He will realize that according to the rules a question of privilege concerns a situation affecting an hon. member's personal privileges as a member of the House of Commons. I have some doubt whether the question he now raises meets that requirement.


Malcolm MacInnis: It
affects the honour of a town I represent, which provided to this country-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It may do so, but that
does not make it a question of privilege.


Malcolm MacInnis: Then I rise on a point of order. The town of New Waterford provided to this country more volunteers per capita than any other town in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Malcolm MacInnis: The
minister is now being egotistical and arrogant-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There must be order in the House of Commons.


HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the
April 26, 1967

Minister of Labour, who reports to the house for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Now that he has had ample time to study the results of his cross country symposiums with the provinces regarding the housing crisis, can the minister tell us whether he is now seriously considering further measures to stimulate housing starts for this spring season?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to what I have already said on this subject. The hon. member has been told repeatedly that the government has received suggestions; has been studying them, and that if and when we intend to recommend or make changes they will be announced in due course.


AIRPORTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport.
In view of the fact that the Montreal airport is the only one in North America where the sum of 25 cents is charged for every piece of luggage handled by porters, and in view of the fact that this gives a very bad impression of Quebec hospitality to the people who come to visit Expo, is the minister in a position to tell us whether the officials of his department propose to eliminate this charge of 25 cents on every piece of luggage handled?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize the importance of this question, in view of the fact that many visitors will land at the airport as soon as Expo opens tomorrow and that this would be an appropriate measure to be taken by the minister.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am not at all sure whether the hon. gentleman's conception of the facts is in accord with the actual facts. I will have to inform myself in this regard. If I find that his suggestion is accurate I will attempt to do whatever is necessary to make sure that a truly Canadian welcome is given to all those who arrive at that airport.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the Minister of Transport for his interest in this. May I ask, since this is urgent due to the opening of Expo tomorrow, wheth-
Inquiries of the Ministry er he could try to obtain the information today so as to settle the problem?


CONSIDERATION OF IMPORTS OF SHOES AND CHILDREN'S JACKETS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that the importation of shoes into Canada from Asia and Czechoslovakia is reaching the alarming proportion of one third of Canadian sales, and in view of the fact that employment in the industry is steadily falling off, what steps does the minister propose to take to restrain this large importation?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, this is a question which has been asked previously. I have answered it on other occasions. While importations have gone up, domestic production has also gone up substantially. If the hon. member knows of any instances in which imports are being made in breach of our rules and regulations I shall be very glad to look into them.


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellinglon-Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce regarding the importation of children's jackets. According to a news report this morning from London, Ontario, the fire department has discovered that these jackets are highly inflammable. What steps is the government taking to see that regulations are drawn up to assure that this type of thing will not be repeated in Canada?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member would be kind enough to give me some specific instances and examples, and I would be very happy to look into them.


William Marvin Howe: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The specific instances should not be given at this time.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the

April 26, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the minister been informed of a new vitamin compound known as gerovital, presently produced in Roumania, said to prolong life? The report even suggested that persons could serve effectively in public life to 100 years of age, and this might even apply to members of parliament. If so, is his department making inquiries concerning this vitamin compound?


NOVA SCOTIA-COAL BOARD PURCHASE OF MINING EQUIPMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources but in his absence perhaps I could direct it to his parliamentary secretary. This matter is of importance because the Prime Minister announced in the last few days that legislation in respect of the Nova Scotia coal mines would come forward at the next session.
In view of the announcement made a few days ago by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that the Dominion Coal Board would purchase mining equipment in the amount of $2 million for the Cape Breton mines, I would ask the minister whether he has received a telegram from local 8672 of the United Mine Workers of Thorburn, Nova Scotia, asking that some of these funds be allotted in the interim period to the McBain mine which employs some 400 men.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is not in order to ask whether a telegram has been received.
[Later: ]


Howard Russell MacEwan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order which relates to the question I asked during the question period. On several occasions during the years I have been here questions have been asked about telegrams, and so on, which have not been ruled out of order. I did not realize who was Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, but in view of the fact that his grandfather came from my constituency I would ask him to look into this matter concerning the McBain mine.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will realize that the question whether a telegram has been received, by itself and without further explanation, is not acceptable.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Then, Mr. Speaker, I will ask what reply has been received.


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid it is too late, because the question period has expired.


BANKRUPTCY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Registrar General of Canada. At the present time, is he drafting a bill to amend the Bankruptcy Act which bill would be studied by a parliamentary committee immediately after the opening of the next session?


Mr. Speaker:: I would suggest to the hon. member that he should raise that question during the coming session.


REQUEST FOR ADVICE ON SPRING PLANTING ON PRAIRIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce based on his announcement this morning that an agreement will be signed with Bulgaria and that one of the clauses of the agreement, if I got it right, was that it was conditioned on the ability of the wheat board to supply. In view of this type of clause being necessary at this stage of the game prior to seeding, would the minister be prepared to advise the farmers to increase their wheat acreage for this year, or is he just going to leave it to chance?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to say last week that the farmers, in their own good judgment, had decided this year to plant the highest acreage in wheat in the history of Canada, and I think that is a very good sign.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


INCOME TAX
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue but in his
April 26, 1967	COMMONS
absence I would ask the parliamentary secretary whether he is aware that an exact facsimile of an official, federal government form, namely an income tax form, is being used in the newspapers for advertising Scotch whisky. I wonder whether the company has received permission to do this. Will the minister's department look into the matter to see whether there is any impropriety in the company so doing?


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. It is one I posed during his absence on Tuesday of last week, asking when he would recommend to the house that bylaw No. 1 passed as order in council No. 1967-579, dealing with regulations under the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, be referred to the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, as undertaken by the minister to the committee.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I answered this question yesterday. I, of course, have no objection whatever to recommending that this order be referred to the committee, but I thought we might be winding up this session today and that it would be better to wait until the beginning of the new session. I will so recommend as soon as we get into the new session.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister at the same time consider the referral to the committee of the regulations that will be made with regard to the disclosure of cost of borrowing under the Bank Act?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Those regulations have not been promulgated, but when they are I will be very happy to do so.




[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. On Monday last the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam asked the Prime Minister a question about the Canadian government's recognition of the new regime in Greece and diplomatic relations with that 23033-972
Inquiries of the Ministry country. Has the Prime Minister any further report to make, now that several days have elapsed?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, after the examination that has been made by experts in this field it appears that no special recognition is required of this government, in view of the circumstances of the change. I understand this is the position being taken by other friendly governments.


WINTER WORKS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the objections which were raised early this morning to holding the adjournment debate, in respect of which I was quite willing to forgo the opportunity to speak, and because of the urgency of this matter and the timing involved, the deadline being the end of April, I wonder whether I could put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and ask whether he has reconsidered allowing those municipalities which have winter works under way to continue beyond April 30.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing new to add.


AIR TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Has the meeting on prairie regional air policy scheduled for Regina on May 1 been postponed? If so, what is the new date to be? I trust this meeting will be held soon so that TransAir might provide adequate service to meet the special demands of centennial year.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt very much whether the question can be asked at this time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Regina City was allowed to ask this question two days ago, and I took it as notice. In view of the date perhaps I might be permitted to say that I am advised the hearings were postponed because TransAir had largely

April 26. 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry changed the nature of its application and the respondents felt they could not possibly deal with the new proposition between now and May 1.
Indeed, for this reason the board is not yet in a position to set a definite date. However, the service that TransAir is now giving is being continued. With respect to the introduction of the DC-9 service about which the hon. member also asked, he was quite right in his surmise that the only delay in this service is connected with the availability of aircraft.


Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he can clarify the answer he gave a short while ago. Do I take it that owing to the shortage of DC-9 aircraft the service to Regina city will not commence on May 1? If that is so, can he tell us when it will commence?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Unfortunately I did not bring a document which I thought I had with me concerning that matter, and I think it would have been better if I refreshed my memory before giving an answer.
While I am on my feet perhaps I can answer the hon. member for Lisgar who asked me the other day about the direct Air Canada service to Winnipeg. It is to continue.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works in his capacity as government house leader. In view of the difficulty we had last summer with respect to certain committees of the house meeting during the period of adjournment, will the minister consider before the day is over asking the house to make the necessary order so that any committees that need to sit between now and next Wednesday in order to finalize their reports might be able to do so?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to consider that matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, but may I direct it to the Prime Minister. Will the government, when preparing the speech from the throne

for the next session, consider the recommendations in the reports which various committees have made and which have not yet been considered by the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Of course, Mr. Speaker, if we get them in time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about those that are already in, such as the one on birth control, and so on?


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the hon. gentleman will wait until the speech from the throne is delivered he will be astonished by the things in it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I doubt it.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice, because I was astonished this morning by a brief prepared by the association of chiefs of police. I wonder whether the minister will find out and advise the house if this brief of the chiefs of police to the Canadian Corrections Association, advocating among other things the continuation of flogging, the abolition of the necessity of obtaining search warrants, and the ending of the priest and citizen and solicitor and client communication privilege, was prepared in 1767, 1867 or 1967.


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look into this matter.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is it the intention of the government to supplement our labour force with people from Jamaica during the harvesting period of our vegetable, fruit and tobacco crops?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think the question is of sufficient urgency to be asked at this time.
April 26, 1967


Percy Verner Noble: Mr. Speaker, this is an urgent matter because these arrangements must be made a long time ahead. We need 2,000 of these people in our area alone.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, it is our intention to have the same type of agreement we had last year with the government of Jamaica concerning seasonal workers.



HURON AND PERTH COUNTIES, ONTARIO- ASSISTANCE FOLLOWING TORNADO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, this is further to a question I asked the Prime Minister last Friday regarding the disaster in the counties of Huron and Perth caused by the tornado. At that time the Prime Minister said he would refer it to the agriculture department. I would now like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he has received word from the provincial department, and what decisions will be forthcoming from the federal government.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, we received a communication from the provincial department of agriculture requesting support for the people who suffered as a result of the tornado. That communication has been referred to the appropriate section of the Department of Finance where these matters are considered.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean Berger (Monlmagny-L'Islel):: Mr. Speaker, owing to the fact that, with God's blessing and undoubtedly a very rare all-party spirit of co-operation, this session will soon come to an end, may I repeat the important question I asked yesterday of the Minister of Labour, who I see is back in his seat today, regarding the possibility of all Canadian woodworkers employed in the state of Maine benefiting in the near future from the Unemployment Insurance Act?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, all I can say at this time is that, together with the chief commissioner and the other two members of the unemployment 23033-9724
Inquiries of the Ministry insurance commission, I did meet last Friday with the Governor of the State of Maine and the commission of that state. The fact that Maine is the only border state which has not some reciprocal agreement with Canada on unemployment insurance was discussed at length. The discussions were useful and a task force is being set up to study it. I cannot say anything further at this time.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Can he now report on the gist of the findings of his department into the Cape Bonnie tragedy, and specifically as to the suggestion that the Sambro light ship be restored to service at the approaches to Halifax harbour?


John Whitney Pickersgill: A statement on that matter will be made some time today, I think, and as soon as it is available I will send the hon. gentleman a copy.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Would the minister undertake by next Wednesday, when it is expected that this session may prorogue, to answer question No. 2,804? This question has been on the order paper for over a month. I am sure the material could be supplied within half an hour. It is quite urgent to people concerned that the question be answered. This information is necessary to resolve certain conservation problems in my part of the country as it involves a number of projects.


Hon. John N. Turner (Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: I will bring it to the minister's attention.



STATEMENT ON PROTEST AGAINST SLOW MOVEMENT FROM LAKEHEAD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of



April 26, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry Transport. Two or three days ago he undertook to look into the presumably stalemated negotiations between the wheat board and the great lakes shippers. I should like to ask whether he is now in a position to say anything more on this matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In the hon. gentleman's absence yesterday I answered that question, which was also raised, as he will recall, by the hon. member for Port Arthur. I said this matter has been settled, the shipments are now going on, and we are all very pleased about it.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. O. Bower (Shelburne-Yarmouih-Clare):: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. My question, sir, has to do with the subsidy paid by the federal government in respect of annual operating losses in public housing constructed under the 90 per cent-10 per cent capital cost arrangements between the province of Nova Scotia and the government of Canada. I should like to ask the minister whether he has received representations from the government of Nova Scotia asking the federal government to consider increasing the subsidy on operating losses to 75 per cent from the present 50 per cent in cases to which the 50 per cent now applies. If so, in view of the fact that it is becoming increasingly apparent-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is much too involved. I suggest the hon. member ask it again in the new session, when I will suggest that he put it on the order paper.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
I have received a protest from a state pensioner. As a matter of fact, this concerns a citizen of my area who pleaded guilty to three murders two years ago and was sentenced to death.
Last year, this man wrote to the Minister of Justice-
[Mr. Schreyer.l


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member please put his question?


Roland Godin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege.
I would like to point out to Your Honour that the question period is a period of information and that hon. members on this side of the house have the same rights as those on the other side. The hon. member for Portneuf is asking his second question which, moreover, is quite out of order, and I have a very interesting question to ask.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, in any case, in his letter this citizen insisted on being hanged. Therefore, could the Minister of Justice tell us if he intends to have a look at that prisoner's record and take his request into consideration?



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I was rather hanging on the words of the hon. member for Portneuf, but I am pleased that you have allowed me to put my question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Since the federal contribution to the new dairy program represents an increase of $30 million for 1967-68, is the minister considering the possibility of meeting in the near future the provincial Ministers of Agriculture, in order to convince them that they should make up the difference which could satisfy the demands of dairy producers as well as those of the C.F.U.?


Mr.. Speaker:: Order. Unless I am mistaken, the hon. member is repeating his previous question.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I did not put that question previously. In fact, the purpose of my question is to ask the minister to bring pressure to bear on the provincial authorities.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Enns (Portage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to ask the house
April 26, 1967

leader when the house will reassemble next week. My concern arises out of the fact that a good number of the members of this house and of the other place have agreed to be present at the national prayer breakfast, and if we should not be assembled on May 3 plans for that morning would be materially affected.


George James McIlraith: In view of what was said I will confirm our plans later today.



PRIVILEGE


Gilles Grégoire: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, something I have not been able to do before.
I notice that we received yesterday's official report in English only and that we have not yet received the French version. I think, Mr. Speaker, that I have the privilege to ask that the French edition be delivered at the same time as the English. I wish to point out this fact to the authorities concerned so that we may receive both editions at the same time in the future. And this is all the more serious, Mr. Speaker-and this is a second question of privilege-that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) said yesterday that he would wait till he had read-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I heard the hon. member's representations, and I am certain they were noted.



OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, April 25, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-278, respecting the occupational training of adults-Mr. Marchand-Mr. Batten in the chair.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose last evening clause 2 as amended was under discussion.
On clause 2-Definitions [Translation]


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I want to answer certain statements which have been
Occupational Training
made in this house, as well as some objections which were put forward yesterday.
The hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) suggested in a strong outburst yesterday, that we were proposing to interfere with the workers' freedom.
In my answer to the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacDonald) I mentioned that workers would not be free to pick one course in preference to another because the fear expressed by the hon. member for Prince was that, at a given moment, the worker might choose a longer course simply because he would get more allowances from the federal government. I mentioned to him that the manpower centre would then have the authority to refuse if there was abuse.
The member for Lapointe obviously said he was scandalized, claiming that we infringed upon the freedom of the workers.
The workers are just as free as any other citizens but no more. This means that, for instance, everybody is not being admitted to university at this time, for there are conditions to be met, not only educational qualifications but also available space. The same thing has to apply in the field of manpower too, that is to say, if a worker wants occupational training which is not worthwhile and which will not increase his future income and his opportunities for employment, the manpower centre will certainly not agree to pay allowances in such a case. The worker remains free to follow such courses if he wishes, but we will be free to pay because if there is unemployment in a specific trade or in a specific town, it certainly would not be sensible for the manpower centre to train new people for this trade or profession.
There is a conditioning to freedom which must not only be explained but also motivated.
Therefore, I suggest it is exaggerated to object that this manpower centre was to force a trade or a profession upon somebody and, if that can have some effect in certain quarters, I think that here, in this house, there should be no misunderstanding about the scope of such charges.
In theory, of course, should there be openings in several professions-


David Lewis: Would the minister permit a question at this point?

April 26, 1967
Occupational Training


Jean Marchand: Yes.


David Lewis: I entirely appreciate and agree with the explanation the minister has given, but obviously whether the bill will work well depends on whether the minister will have the personnel with the experience, training and knowledge to advise and direct people into the right occupational training.
While the minister is answering this question, would he give the committee an idea what steps are being taken to recruit and train personnel who will have very considerable powers under the act, powers which can easily be abused by people who do not have some human understanding and appreciation of the problem?


Jean Marchand: This is a very important question, Mr. Chairman. We are aware of this problem, and during the last 12 months I think we have recruited about 500 university graduates. This does not mean that these people are ready to operate overnight, but we are trying to upgrade our own staff. The staff has very important responsibilities, and this program can be a success if we do have good men in the right places; I entirely agree with the hon. member there.
[DOT] (12 noon)
We must upgrade those who work for the department. We must do that, because we have no way out. I think that is very important.
tTranslation1
Therefore, in closing, I will deal with the objections raised by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire). In short, if a demand exists in a trade or two and if a worker indicates a preference and is qualified, there is no doubt that we would then take his preference into account. But if he is not qualified or if the trade is congested or no longer exists, of course the manpower centre will not accept to pay an allowance to that worker who will want, for instance, to learn the trade of piano tuner in a village where there is not a single piano.
That has nothing to do with restricting freedom, it is simply being realistic and trying to orient manpower properly.
Of course, the desire and that freedom are conditioned also by the individual's qualifications. For instance, if someone who wants to become an airplane pilot is blind in one eye, it is not interfering with his freedom to tell him that he cannot take the course.
[Mr. Lewis.)
At any rate, let us say that there is an abuse of the word "freedom" simply to make trouble.
The second serious objection, or apparently serious, which was raised by the hon. member for Lapointe had to do with overlapping of services and double taxation, I took the trouble yesterday to explain to him precisely how that situation could occur previously and how, under the new system, there was really no division between the two functions, that of education which is entirely provincial and that of the federal government which is to help financially the workers who need to be retrained.
If tomorrow the province would assume the federal responsibility, it would have to hire the same people who are working for us at the present time. Therefore, there is no double taxation, no overlapping of services. The province pays for the education, the province manages its institutions and it has inspectors for those institutions. Of course, we shall have accountants to audit the expenditures.
However, if that jurisdiction were left with the province, tomorrow morning it would have to hire people to perform that task.

There is no double taxation, no duplication of services. It is very clearly defined. There is double taxation and duplication of services when two governments are trying to cover the same field at the same time. This can occur, for instance, in loan insurance cases. If the provincial and federal governments are both insuring the same loans and levying from the taxpayers a tax for that purpose, there is really double taxation there, since the same service is being taxed twice.
And I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the best example of double taxation is, no doubt, the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), who was elected to represent his constituents in the field of federal jurisdiction, but is simply coming here in order to discuss problems coming under provincial jurisdiction. Now, there is already a provincial member in Quebec. And this means that the Lapointe people are being taxed double for the same service.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
April 26, 1967


Mr, Langlois (Megantic):: Mr. Chairman, before the minister ventures further into other subjects, 1 should like to ask him a question on the point he brought up concerning the program and the guidance of those people who take special training courses. I am willing to believe the minister is right and I accept his explanation to the effect that if there is unemployment in one sector of our economy people should not be encouraged to take up the same trade and thus contribute to increasing unemployment.
Still, here is my question: as we are venturing into the field of guidance, will this plan allow for the participation of existing technical schools in the various provinces, in such a way that guidance and organization will remain in the hands of the principals of the technical schools who can then guide their students into taking up certain trades, so that there can be an over-all plan for the whole endeavour?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Before the minister replies I wish to ask some specific questions. 1 can ask those now or I can wait until after the minister has replied, whichever the minister prefers.


Jean Marchand: I shall answer some questions that were asked last night. Perhaps the hon. gentleman would wait until 1 have done so, as what I say may cover some of the points he wishes to raise.

Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Langlois), I must say that provincial institution and directors of technical schools still have all their powers and we do not intend to interfere. They can refuse the students we send them or give them some guidance or try to direct them elsewhere.
Now, the bill provides for the establishment of an advisory committee. Besides, the provincial representation has always been provided for and will consist in technical schools directors and professional people. Therefore, the workers will not be guided at random. We shall take into consideration the needs of the market and the qualifications of the workers.
I believe that conciliation procedures will be possible within this advisory committee provided for under the legislation.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, I
should like to thank the minister for his information. I did not imply that the bill or the
Occupational Training
minister wanted to run the existing technical schools. All I wanted to know, since we already have technical schools with vocational guidance officers in the area of trades-the teachers also give some guidance particularly in the cases of 7 or 8 graders who drop out to learn a trade-is whether this advisory committee which will be set up will work in co-operation with the technical schools not specifically within this program as it will be set up to train workers, unemployed or others who seek to improve their trade, but also help those who are taking up a new trade and establish an over-all plan for ten or fifteen years to come under which the school principal, fully aware of a manpower surplus in such trades will warn his pupils accordingly, so that they may take an immediate decision and possibly select another trade when others are overcrowded. I should like to know whether this advisory committee will co-operate with the technical schools instead of going about its own way, so that we will miss the boat for lack of consultation.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I shall now answer some questions that were not answered last night. The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond asked whether the courses given in community colleges will be eligible under this program. The answer of course is that they will be. Courses of occupational training are acceptable from various institutions, with no distinction being drawn between them.
Answering the question of the hon. member for Simcoe East, occupational training includes up to one year or 1,820 hours of basic education if needed as a preliminary to specific occupational training in a further course of up to one year. That means that if a man needs to learn mathematics, a language, or science to upgrade his skill he will be entitled to one year's tuition before the one year course concerning his occupational training is undertaken.
I urge, Mr. Chairman, that before leaving the general discussion on clause 2 we deal with the point raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond which lies behind many complaints about lack of consultation. The hon. member said he had checked with leading training persons in several metropolitan areas who were not consulted and ought to have been consulted. I should like to make clear that in addition to the formal federal-provincial meetings in October and November, in December deputy

April 26, 1967
Occupational Training
ministers of education were informed in writing, in quite unprecedented detail of our intended legislation and regulations. In fact my fear was that I would be criticized in this house because my officials were going so far in their desire for full discussion in advance with the provinces. However, I cannot take responsibility in connection with the consultations which took place within the educational establishments of provinces. We gave full information to the senior officials. Surely no hon. member would suggest we could properly do more than that.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond also asked whether we had enough money. In various items of our estimates the total financial provision for operating the program is $110 million. This is apart from capital expenditure. The increase compared with last year's spending is 24 per cent. I have made it plain that there will be much expansion in the future, and I assure the committee that I will ask for more this year if more is needed.
The hon. member for Lapointe wanted to know what would be the expenditure in Quebec. Estimates are that we shall spend roughly $30 million, but during the phase-out of capital grants Quebec will be entitled to a total of $245 million. I do not have sufficient detail as to current rates of provincial construction to enable me to say how much will be spent this year or how much Quebec may request in loans under the new program.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond asked about research. There is total provision in the estimates for several million dollars worth of research most of which would have to be done by outside experts. The hon. member was also concerned about the balance of youth and experience on our staff. As I mentioned a few minutes ago, I am proud to say we have recruited 511 new university graduates who begin work in the next few months. Since the department was formed we have obtained 1,000 extra field staff made up, for the most part, of more experienced people with suitable backgrounds in teaching and personnel work.
I would add that our staff may not be perfect, but in my opinion they have done and are doing a remarkable job considering how few of them there are in relation to the needs. The new staff will of course, benefit from their experience, and for both old and new we have begun a massive training program of our own.
[Mr. Marchand.l
The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond was also concerned about regional variations in selection and training. The criteria will be the same everywhere. We shall take account of regional variations in needs while showing as much consistency in individual cases as possible.


Mr. Regimbal:: Mr. Chairman, may I put a
question to the hon. minister?


Jean Marchand: Certainly, Mr. Chairman.


Roger E. Régimbal: I should like to return for a moment to the question of this manpower centre and comment on the case mentioned by the minister concerning a locality where five tradesmen might be unemployed. This would be sufficient reason for refusing to accept a sixth worker in the same training course.
However, this same tradesman might be urgently needed in another area provided he were ready to move over there.
Therefore, I should like to bring up again a question which I raised in the course of my comments and which was not answered. It concerns the type of research which may have been undertaken before the bill was introduced, or perhaps even before it was drawn up, in order to find out where opportunities exist, how people feel about the conditions they would have to fulfil to go to these places and whether they would agree to take part in a relocation program if there were one. I received no answer on this subject, and I would very much like to know what sort of research was undertaken, what information sources were used, in short what sort of coordination there was between the research centres in the different departments?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, to answer the first question, it may well happen-evidently these things cannot be decided in the abstract-that if there is unemployment in a given trade, in a given city, there may be a labour shortage in another city. In such a case, the manpower centre might well accept that a man should take a course in the overcrowded trade, provided he agrees to be moved elsewhere afterwards.
Those are not decisions that can be taken here, but they can be made under the terms of the act. This is matter of judgment and appreciation, and officials in our manpower centres will benefit by the advice of the advisory committee, wherever it is created.
April 26. 1967

Now, with regard to the analysis of the situation, I must say that I read the excellent speech made by the hon. member on the bill, and that this is not a thing we can do once and for all.
We have in the department a research service which we are trying to upgrade as much as possible, so that it can appreciate as soon as possible the condition of the labour market, the existing problems, the manpower requirements and the number of people available in our labour force.
This is a continuing work. We cannot do some research and then cut it off there. In other words, we cannot be content with research made last year in that field, and apply the results to the situation prevailing this year, because in all likelihood the data would not be valid any more.
We are trying to upgrade a departmental service so as to secure as soon as possible the best information concerning the labour market, the skills available and the manpower requirements in Canada. That is not something exceptional, because we want it to be a permanent service and we shall not be able to have a labour policy if we do not have that tool which allows us to know the real facts.
Therefore, the only answer I can give is that there is no special investigation going on at this time; there is a permanent body which is called the research branch of the department of manpower and it is that body which must give to all our manpower centres the information they require to give a sound judgment in every case.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The minister has assured the house that there has been close consultation with the provinces in the development of this new program. Nevertheless I have no doubt he is aware that we are still getting static back from the provinces, indicating that they feel no satisfactory guide lines have been laid down. In particular there is uncertainty as to how much of the programs now operating in the respective provinces will be covered under the new arrangements.
The minister is aware that all the provinces have set up elaborate vocational and technical training programs. This was done hurriedly, I suggest, because Ottawa was late coming to an awareness of its responsibility in this field. As a matter of fact it was only in the late fifties that we began to feel the federal government had responsibility in this area. On
Occupational Training
the basis of policies then laid down the provinces moved rapidly to adopt what can only be described as a crash program made necessary because of the long years of delay and neglect on Ottawa's part.
As I read this bill it establishes new principles. Uncertainty is caused by a feeling-and I know this applies in Manitoba-that the elaborate training program already established there will not be covered adequately by this new approach by the federal government which concentrates its emphasis on adult education and withdraws entirely from secondary and post-secondary levels. I think it was under parts 5 and 6 of the old schedule that Manitoba established a pretty elaborate adult retraining program to meet the demands of our changing technological society.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
With these background remarks I would now like to ask the minister some specific questions. The basis of the capital grant program is changed, but the minister indicates that there is going to be a phasing out period. I presume that phasing out period is not restricted to any number of years. As I understand the bill, the program is going to be available to the provinces until such time as each province is able to claim its equitable share.
Some special training programs come to mind, and questions with respect to them should be answered before the house passes this bill. Other hon. members have referred to them in a general way. With respect to special training programs for juvenile delinquents, reference has been made to the House of Concord, and I understand the minister has said this will be covered under new legislation. But uncertainty arises because this bill specifically says the program only applies to cases where a trainee has been out of school for one year. Obviously this does not apply to these special schools which provide particular skills to young people who have come into trouble with the law. I presume this will be covered under the apprenticeship programs. Otherwise I cannot see how it would be possible.


Jean Marchand: The rehabilitation act.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It would be covered under the rehabilitation act?


Jean Marchand: If you are referring to the school run by the Salvation Army.

April 26. 1967
Occupational Training


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It would be covered by the rehabilitation act under much the same terms as it operates at present?


Jean Marchand: We pay 50 per cent.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Another problem that comes to mind is the continuing shortage of teachers. Any educational or training program that has operated over the past few years has been handicapped by the chronic shortage of accredited teachers. I know that where a trainee is prepared to teach in a school directly involved with occupational training he is covered by this bill. I would presume that most of the technical schools will require qualified teachers. Teachers preparing to instruct in a technical school have to take academic courses in order to become accredited teachers. Would this type of trainee be covered under the terms of this legislation? I am thinking particularly of married women who want to get into the teaching profession but who have family obligations. I am thinking of widows, and others who have been abandoned by their spouses. Even under the old program they were not able to take training as teachers because no allowances were provided for their families during the training period. Could the minister be specific on this point?
Another problem that has been referred to is co-ordination between manpower needs in various regions across the country and the new Canada manpower centres. Will the new centres attempt to gear the flow of trainees into technical programs to meet the job demands of local areas? At present there is a shortage of manpower in certain parts of western Canada which could be aggravated in the initial adjustment period. There is going to be a big backlog as a result of the neglect in this area, because trainees are going to be steered into technical programs and this will aggravate the labour supply shortage. As has been indicated, this problem can only be solved by people who are especially trained to view labour needs in the proper perspective.
I presume private commercial colleges will be covered by this legislation if they are recommended by provincial governments. In certain parts of western Canada such colleges play an important part in providing the secretarial skills which are in increasing demand in the type of economy in which we are operating.
A final question relates to the provision of skills to our Indian population. Under schedule 5 of the old program the government in Manitoba set up an excellent Indian retraining program centred at Pembina House
tMr. Marchand.]
at Ninette. It is a comprehensive approach to the problem of providing our Indian citizens not only with technical skills but also with the social skills that are required in order for them to be able to compete adequately in the workaday world. If a province would recommend such a training program to the minister as coming within the terms of the adult occupational retraining program it should meet the terms of this legislation, but I would like to have the minister's assurance on this point.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member has accurately explained what is going to happen the capital grants program for the building of new schools. This program will be phased out, and there is no time limit. The basis for the grants was $480 per youngster between the ages of 15 and 19 years in each province, according to the 1961 census. As the hon. member knows, we have increased this amount to $800 per youngster, and after this fund is exhausted that will be the end of this special program.
As I mentioned, under our rehabilitation program we can continue to help the Salvation Army school.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The House of Concord.


Jean Marchand: Yes. I spoke on that last night. With respect to teachers, we can use this new program in order to train teachers who will be directed to training schools. If we need teachers in order to upgrade or retrain workers we can use this program to get those teachers.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Would it cover teachers taking a training program in a teacher's training college?


Jean Marchand: No.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: If they are preparing to teach in a technical school?
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)


Jean Marchand: Last evening I attempted to make clear that this program is designed to retrain or upgrade adults, and therefore anything which can be done in order to attain this goal will come within this legislation. If teachers are required in order to retrain workers, those teachers can be trained under the program. We will not, however, train teachers for universities or colleges under this scheme.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Perhaps the minister would permit a question. It is indicated by this new legislation that it will be necessary for those
April 26. 1967

teachers who wish to qualify for teaching positions in the schools which will be operated by the provincial governments to obtain their certification at a teacher training college. If they are specifically prepared to teach in this adult occupational retraining program, would it be possible for them to be regarded as trainees under the terms of this legislation?


Jean Marchand: If the purpose of their retraining is to teach workers who come under this program, then I believe the answer is yes.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Even if they should be taking the course in a teachers training college in order to qualify as teachers?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, it is quite difficult to answer a general question of this nature, because it will be necessary to look at the course to see whether it is a course which is aimed at preparing these teachers for the type of teaching position I mentioned: If it is not, then it is not covered. If a technical school, for example, is certified by the provincial government to give certain courses to adult workers, then of course it will be normal to prepare teachers for that purpose and we would agree to pay for the training of these teachers. This training, however, must be training which comes within the terms of the legislation.
I cannot answer the question in general terms because it would be necessary to know what courses will be handled by these teachers so we would know whether these courses were related to the purpose of the legislation. I believe the intention is that new teachers can be trained if the training is related to courses which come under this legislation.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, would the minister permit a question. I should like to ask the minister whether people who are being trained in industrial plants because the training is not available in the schools will be permitted to move from one province to another for the purpose of this training.


Jean Marchand: Are you referring to the teachers or the workers?


Robert Jardine McCleave: The workers.


Jean Marchand: You wish to know whether they would be entitled to move from one province to another in order to attend courses?


Robert Jardine McCleave: So that they may receive this training in plants.
Occupational Training


Jean Marchand: As you know, the courses which will be given in industry will have to be approved by the province concerned. If such a course should not be available in one province, we will authorize the worker to move to another province in order to attend the course.


Robert Jardine McCleave: This is a technical matter and perhaps the minister would like to consider it over the luncheon break. I am wondering whether he might consider an amendment desirable to clause 3(a) so the word "ordinarily" might be inserted before the word "resides", because the word "adult" is given special meaning in the definition. It seems to me that the drafting by the minister's advisers would not enable a person to qualify for help if he should move across a provincial boundary. By doing so he might remove himself from the special meaning of the word "adult" which is given in this clause. I could move such an amendment later on, or perhaps the minister might wish to do so, but I believe I should extend to him the courtesy of an opportunity to consult with his legal advisers on this point.


Jean Marchand: I will take advantage of the opportunity to determine whether a change is necessary in order to clarify the meaning of this clause.


Roger E. Régimbal: I am sorry to bring up again the matter of research, but I do so because I have the impression that during the drafting of this bill, the research was not adequate and I should like nothing better than be convinced of the contrary.
The minister said earlier, for instance, that his department had a research centre which could be on the look out and could be kept informed about any change which might come up or about a special demand which would be created through those manpower centres, as a result of which it could train someone.
Moreover, on Monday evening I believe, the parliamentary secretary told us that there was no reason not to forecast that within a very few years 350,000 persons would be affected by this program.
I cannot help wondering where this figure comes from, how one reaches this particular figure, and whether it is correct. The important thing now is much more to deal with evils which are strictly of a local nature.
There is quite a sociological change now in progress. So this immediately means we must

April 26. 1967
Occupational Training
find out what people's motivations are, and what arguments are strong enough to make them relocate.
What do they want? Is there a tendency to relocate? Is something being done to prepare the ladies to that displacement or transfer?
I am under the impression that such research has not been made and if so, I think considerable difficulties and disappointments can be expected in the implementation of such legislation.
As I have already said, I am ready to let myself be persuaded that this is not true.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I am trying to understand exactly what concerns the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes.
We have information-you know that the federal government has maintained an employment service for 25 years-on manpower, unemployment, employment, occupational qualifications.
So, the department has a load of information in hand and has found-like everybody else, we were not discoverers in that field, for the Economic Council of Canada came to the same conclusions-that there were, as we have mentioned, extremely important sociological changes, and all we can do in that field is to make projections on the basis of facts we have in hand. Besides, this legislation is based on that, because we are more and more aware that the workers need retraining. This is not empty information; we have had employment services for 25 years and we find that some trades disappear and that some people have to be retrained two or three times during their lifetime.
Now, as far as the figures are concerned, they are surely projections and I cannot say exactly whether it will be 300,000 or 325,000. However, the official in research gave figures based on the available facts and the changes that have occurred during the last fifteen or twenty years. I cannot see what type of survey could be done today or tomorrow to secure data different from what we now have on hand.

The Depuiy Chairman: The hon. member for Wellington-Huron.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I have a few more answers which perhaps I should give at this time.


William Marvin Howe: Mr. Chairman, the minister might include the answer to my question in the answers he will be giving. It has to do with the gap which has been mentioned so many times in this particular piece of legislation. As the hon. member for Brandon-Souris has mentioned, in respect of the person who must be out of school for one year a difficulty arises. These young people have been to school but have not acquired the knowledge or ability to enter the professions. Most of them are in a position to obtain employment as labourers either on farms or in the cities and towns. They can obtain work, if they want work, which will pay more than the $35 a week which the minister says is to be the allowance for a person without dependants.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
In this regard I think there is a gap in the legislation. This is an area in which these young people could be trained because they are young and can readily adapt to new circumstances. The minister attempted to answer this question during his reply on second reading by suggesting that if we paid this allowance to these young people there would be a mass exodus from schools. I do not think that would be the case. I think this is the time to provide training facilities in order that these young people may become skilled.
I am sure many of these young people live with their parents who feel they should get out and go to work. If they do that they may find work for one year and then take advantage of this training. That simply means a loss of one year. If they were given an allowance and encouraged to take these courses this would fill that gap. Some consideration should be given in this way, because these boys and young women are able to do the work we usually associate with adults. Young, boys can join the army at 18 and are allowed to do many other things usually confined to-adults. I think the minister should reconsider this situation and take steps to make it possible for these young people to take advantage of these training courses immediately.
It is not our contention that some individuals will not drop out of school in order to take advantage of the allowance of $35 per week, but in this case we do not feel one apple will spoil the barrel. Surely it would be up to the manpower organization to weed out these individuals when they make application or after they have been taking a course for a. short period of time.
April 26, 1967

There certainly is a shortage of skilled workers in a number of metropolitan areas. One need only read the Globe and Mail to appreciate the great demand there is for skilled young men and women in the clothing business and the needle trades. It would be advantageous to train these young people coming out of school in these specialized skills. Many of the provincial vocational training programs do not have the required facilities.
I cannot accept the minister's suggestion that there would be a mass exodus from the schools if the $35 per week allowance was made available to these young people. In this regard I feel this legislation is insufficient. Our welfare workers are worried about these youngsters wandering around at the age of 17 or 18 going from one job to another, because a pattern is created which in many instances they follow for the rest of their lives. These people need help.
Before this legislation is passed I hope the minister will give some consideration to this suggestion regarding this element of our population. Youngsters leaving school can obtain work at $50 or $60 per week. During the first year before they become eligible for an allowance they very often get married and continue in that sort of employment. As a result they live at a low standard of living for the rest of their lives. Surely this is an area in which special consideration should be given. This legislation should be amended to make it possible for these particular youngsters to participate.
{Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister would prefer that we put all our questions now, so that he can answer them all together as he has done for the hon. member who has just spoken or whether he would prefer to answer each question separately? If not, I could possibly ask him my questions and he could answer once and for all. Would the minister prefer this?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think I would like to deal with the few questions there are. Otherwise, I might forget them. If the hon. member insists, I have no objection to this procedure.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I will not insist, because I realize the minister has not too good a memory. I will see to it that his memory is refreshed with his own past contradictions.
Occupational Training


Jean Marchand: It is very difficult to refute with certainty the suggestion that there will not be many dropouts if we make the allowance available immediately to these youngsters. Perhaps you are right and I am wrong when I suggest that there will be many dropouts. We have made inquiries, and the best information available is that most probably a great percentage of young people will drop out in order to obtain this allowance. You suggest that will not be the case, but surely the provision of such an allowance would be a great inducement to many youngsters to drop out and come back after one year in order to obtain the $35 per week. If that happened it would create a terrible situation in our school systems. As I said last night, we would be paying $35 per week to one student and nothing to another.
We are concerned about these youngsters and we are ready to provide training courses free of charge. However, at this stage we do not think we should pay them the $35 per week allowance. In some cases if these individuals have dependants we feel they should be treated as adults and paid this allowance.
I cannot prove conclusively that what I suggest is what will happen, but knowing human nature I believe this allowance would be a strong inducement to these youngsters to drop out of school. If that happened it would disrupt our whole school system in Canada. You will agree, I am sure, that that is not the purpose of this bill.


Mr. Bigg:: Is there any provision in this bill to assist youngsters who do not have families, such as those from industrial schools or orphanages? Is there a provision in the bill to cover them?


Jean Marchand: No. The only exception is the youngster who has left school for a year and has a dependant such as a mother or grandmother, or someone else. That individual is to be considered an adult and will be entitled not only to the free training but the weekly allowance. I can envisage some problems in this regard, but those problems should be solved by other legislation. After all this is not a social security scheme. I hope I have not forgotten the suggestions put forward by other hon. members. We will utilize private institutions with the consent of the provinces. We will do so when the provinces cannot provide the types of courses required. We have allowed the provincial governments

April 26, 1967
Occupational Training
control in this regard for a very important reason. The provincial governments were afraid that we might bypass their institutions and send all these trainees to private institutions, thereby creating unfair competition. That is not the intent of this bill. We recognize provincial jurisdiction in this regard, and we intend to use private institutions only when the required course cannot be otherwise provided. The provincial governments must recognize the acceptable institutions which meet the standards they set. It is up to those governments to select the private institutions to which we may refer the trainees.
In regard to Indian children, let me repeat that it is not the intention of this bill to solve all the problems which exist in Canada in the educational or social fields. There is a problem in respect of Indian children in the field of education, but this problem likely exists because of the school system. The Indian people will be treated exactly the same as others, and will be entitled to the same privileges enjoyed by other Canadians. Because there is a particular place where some young Indians cannot attend school, for example, we do not believe we should use this law to correct the situation. There is a provincial responsibility in that field and I think we should not intervene. If we ever do intervene we will do so with a special measure and, of course, with the agreement of the provinces.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
I understand the problem. As far as Indians are concerned we are ready to take into consideration their special status, because we know that sometimes they work only six months of the year. We are ready to consider them as part of the labour force even if they work for only six months of the year, because this is the very nature of their environment. We are ready to do that, but we are not ready to rebuild the school system for Indians under this scheme.
As far as shortage of labour is concerned, again this bill does not deal with all aspects of manpower policies. We have a mobility program. I hope it will work. We have tried to remove a few of the obstacles to the relocation of workers that have existed in the past. Perhaps we can solve part of that problem with the mobility program. I do not know whether the hon. member had anything particular in mind in this regard. I did not really understand what he had in mind. Is the hon. member afraid that we will create a more serious shortage of labour in certain parts of
IMr. Marchand.]
Canada under this program? There are always shortages of labour in certain trades. If the hon. member would be a little more explicit I will make a better effort to understand his point.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: On the first point, Mr. Chairman, before we come to the labour shortage problem, I take it from the minister's remarks that this bill will not be as comprehensive as the arrangements under the technical and vocational training assistance program in dealing with specific problems such as the retraining of our first Canadians, the Indians, a chronic area of unskilled labour. I think this is why the provinces are concerned. They have established programs which are operating successfully within the framework of the existing legislation, and suddenly they are faced with this new principle with regard to which there are no specific guide lines. It will mean an adjustment of considerable proportions if they are to carry on a good many of the programs which are already established.
With reference to the special training centre-and it is an adult retraining centre in the most constructive, creative and comprehensive form-Pembina House, it seems to me that it should qualify under the legislation because it concerns mostly adults and is not necessarily restricted to our Indian population. Because this is the chronic area of unskilled manpower in many parts of Canada, it seems to me that a training centre of this kind should be covered.
Perhaps I was dealing in the realm of the hypothetical with respect to the other problem I mentioned. When a new program of this kind is launched there is a cumulative backlog of problems and it could be that in the first enthusiastic blush of implementing the program, areas of labour shortage could be aggravated by sending potential labour into the training schools rather than onto the labour market. As I understand it, the manpower offices in the various parts of Canada will have the absolute right and authority to indicate who is eligible to enter the retraining programs. It is not based on whether they are employed or unemployed, and people already employed could be shifted into a training school rather than onto the labour market, thereby aggravating an existing labour shortage.
Perhaps the problem is hypothetical, but the minister knows from our discussions in the immigration committee that in certain parts of Canada we are faced with a real
April 26, 1967

1S387
problem of labour shortage. I hope it will not be aggravated by this program. It seems to me it would depend entirely on the capacity of the men in the manpower centres to analyse the situation and make their decisions accordingly.


Jean Marchand: Yes. The purpose of this bill is to retrain workers, or upgrade them when they are unemployed, likely to be unemployed or underemployed. The hon. member tries to define a situation in which there is full employment and at the same time a need to retrain employees in order to upgrade them. I do not understand how this could happen. If there is a shortage of labour it means that workers work and they do not need to be retrained because they have jobs, except in a few cases. I do not understand the situation put forward by the hon. member. In order to answer his question I have to understand it better than I do.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Let us wait and see how the situation develops.


Jean Marchand: Yes, I think that would be preferable. I think I made quite a serious mistake a few minutes ago when I spoke about schools for Indians. Those schools are definitely under federal jurisdiction and not provincial jurisdiction. Of course we have a responsibility, but it is not under this scheme that the problem should be dealt with. With regard to the other question raised by the hon. member, I do not have enough personal knowledge of this institution, and if he will allow me I will get some information and answer the question later.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Thank you.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I am a little hesitant to enter the debate because when referring to my previous contribution the minister suggested that my speech contained close to a record number of misconceptions and inaccuracies. However, I am not too concerned about things that are said about me in debate because I suppose there will come a time when I will be just as critical of the minister as he was of me.
As I said when I spoke several days ago, if the minister's parliamentary secretary had been as specific as the minister was yesterday and has been today in answering the questions and criticisms on the proposed program, a good deal of the debate we have had probably would not have taken place. The minister suggested that most of us, myself included, had relied almost entirely on charges and
Occupational Training
criticisms made by various provinces which were not true. They may not be entirely true, but I think some of the charges made were and are true.
I refer the minister to an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail of Saturday last in which it is said that Freeman Stewart, executive secretary of the Canadian Education Association, acting on the instructions of the provincial ministers of education wrote to the Prime Minister asking for a meeting, and the meeting was not held. Later in this article it is said that the minister of education for Ontario, Mr. Davis, wrote to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration outlining difficulties, and again no meeting was held.
[DOT] (1:00 p.m.)
The minister says there was no point in holding a meeting because nothing would have been accomplished. I come back to what I said the other day: In my opinion consultation between the federal government and the provinces does not mean that when there is disagreement one government, in this case the federal government, says to the provinces, "This is what we are going to do; take it or leave it." I do not consider that to be consultation. I have heard from several sources in Ontario that several thousand people now receiving living allowances under the old agreement may very well lose those allowances under the new regulations.
The minister said yesterday-I have not been able to read his speech word for word -that the number was in the neighbourhood of 2,000 or 3,000. Even so this means that a fairly substantial number of people will be affected. I cannot see any reason why, in the discussions between the federal government and the provinces, the exact number of people who would be affected by the change could not have been worked out so that we would know how serious the problem really is. The minister said there was a good deal of consultation. In fact I think he suggested this morning in replying to my colleague, the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond, that there may have been too much consultation with people in the retraining centres. I do not know how much consultation there was. Reference was made to it, although not in as much detail as I intend to give now, in the Toronto Globe and Mail of Saturday, April 22, where the following was said:
In Toronto, a system of computerized cheque distribution developed over two years' co-operation with the Ontario treasury, is being scrapped under the new regulations, which permit no "third

April 26. 1967
Occupational Training
party" to distribute cheques. In some cases, manpower officials are writing them out in the classrooms.
I was told yesterday that under the system which was followed previously in the city of Toronto the 6,000 people getting living allowances had their cheques processed by a computer so that the entire 6,000 cheques could be made out in half an hour, and it was an easy matter to distribute them. I am told that after the new plan went into effect last week six officials of the federal department spent 55 minutes working out the payments for 13 people. I hope the minister is listening to this because it is a pretty serious allegation. Mr. Chairman, is there an agreement to adjourn for an hour?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was trying to negotiate it.


David Orlikow: Before we do so I should like to put this on the record, and I would ask the minister to listen to it so that he can check whether this allegation is true because it is a serious one. I will repeat what I said. I was told yesterday that last week or some time this month after the new plan went into effect it took six officials of the minister's department in the city of Toronto 55 minutes to work out the payments for 13 people, and that this was done while the people were actually in the classrooms during the training period. It may be that regard should be given to the fact that this plan is new and that it takes time to make the first assessment, but one can see that if there are 6,000 people in the city of Toronto alone receiving living allowances and it takes six people that much time to calculate how much 13 shall get, the department will be engulfed and buried in red tape. I hope the minister will take a look at this very serious question which has been raised by people in the department.
Are we going to suspend our sitting for lunch, Mr. Chairman? If not, there is one more matter I should like to raise.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I confirm the suggestion made by my colleague that we might like to rise now until 2 p.m. It is true the minister must be hungry.


Jean Marchand: Of course I am.


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Chairman, yesterday we agreed to an allocation of time but it was not kept. If we cannot work out an allocation of time by agreement then of course the big stick has to be applied and the result is closure. Here we are requesting an interval for lunch. At this point this bill should have been

completed. I do not know how much longer it will take. The delay was occasioned by a personal altercation between the minister and the hon. member for Lapointe.


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, that statement is incorrect.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We might as well eat.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Let me finish. I was going to say that never in my life have I seen such incredible folly as that of the minister, who wishes to put a bill through the house, in going to a member's constituency and making a violent attack upon him. The result is that the hon. member for Lapointe is within his rights in wishing to say a few things today. I should like to see the lunch hour spent by the minister and the hon. member for Lapointe in a spirited discussion, and I will stay here and listen to them.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit later today?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: We shall now suspend the sitting until two o'clock. However, before doing so we will resume in committee of the whole.




[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-278, respecting the occupational training of adults-Mr. Marchand- Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
On clause 2-Definitions.


[Stage Direction]
The committee resumed at 2 p.m.
David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose I was dealing with some of the difficulties which I see still existing in the implementation of this bill. I was dealing with one of the major objections the minister had to my earlier comments, and I suppose to the comments of every hon. member who has spoken, namely, that we were repeating as if they were completely true the questions that have been raised by the provincial governments, mainly, the minister suggested, by the province of Ontario.
April 26, 1967

I now want to deal with another matter which was dealt with by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris and several other hon. members, namely, the problems which will arise in the implementation of this bill as it relates to the training of a particular group, Indians.
It is true that the minister has expressed some very fine sentiments to the effect that Indians would not be treated any differently from other people in the community. That sounds very good except for the fact that Indians are different from other people in the community. They are different for two reasons. First of all, under our constitution Indians are the responsibility of the federal government. So we have a greater responsibility for them than for any other people in Canada. They are also different because the level of education of the Indian is vastly below the level of education of the population of Canada as a whole. It is for that reason that the clauses of the bill spelling out that the provisions of the program will not be applicable to those people who are at least one year older than the regular school leaving age and the provision with respect to being three years in the work force will, I suggest to the minister, have a catastrophic effect upon the training of Indians.
I suggest to the minister that he stop thinking about what is implicit in everything he has said since the debate began, namely, that the criticisms being made by members on this side of the house are to a large extent of a political nature. Of course all of us here are politicians, and those of us in the opposition like to be able to criticize the government. However, I suggest to the minister that he pay very close attention to a submission which apparently was sent to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development by the Indian-Eskimo Association. He should pay particular attention to it not only because the association is a very responsible one but because the letter was signed by the executive director, Ernest McEwen, and the vice president, Mr. Martin P. O'Connell, of the Indian-Eskimo Association.
The minister is a relative newcomer to politics and may not know who Martin P. O'Connell is. Therefore I should like to take a few seconds to tell him that Martin O'Connell is one of the very bright people the former minister of finance brought to Ottawa to help him prepare that notorious budget which got the former minister into such trouble. Martin O'Connell was a Liberal candidate in the last election for the constituency of Greenwood
Occupational Training
where he ran against my deskmate and colleague. So no one can accuse Mr. O'Connell, when he writes a letter about the possible effects of this bill on the Indian population, of being politically antagonistic to this government.
I should like to refer to a short article which appeared in the Globe and Mail of yesterday's date. The heading is "Group Fears Indians Deprived Under Job Law" and the article reads:
The Indian-Eskimo Association of Canada is worried that Canada's new manpower training law will deprive thousands of unemployed and under-employed Indians of job training.
Martin P. O'Connell, vice-president, and Ernest McEwen, executive director of the association, said yesterday that a letter is going to Indian Affairs and Northern Development Minister Arthur Laing asking for information.
They said the letter was prompted by these facts: New regulations specify that single persons must be out of school for at least 12 months and must be at least 17 before they can take training. Single trainees must have been substantially in the labour force for three years before they can receive training allowances of $35 a week. Trainees who have dependants may draw training allowances if they are 17 and out of school for 12 months.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
More than one-third of Indians are unemployed and many never enter the labor force. A recent survey showed that 61 per cent of a large sample group of breadwinners work less than six months a year.
Large numbers of Indian children drop out of school before the age of 16.
These facts are correct. I suggest that those who have dropped out of school before reaching thei age of 16 are precisely those who ought to be encouraged to take courses so they may do useful and productive work.
When one visits the slum area of any Canadian city one notices the large numbers of such people living on welfare, idling, drinking and becoming entangled with the law. These people and others like them are excluded from the program by its rigidity. I urge the minister to heed the editorial in today's Globe and Mail and not to throw out the baby with the bath water. The minister ought to be less rigid and more accommodating in meeting the legitimate suggestions, criticisms and desires which have been expressed by all provinces.
Constitutional difficulties lead to a division of manpower training and general education, but for our population to benefit most the division ought to be abolished. Winnipeg inaugurated last year a most imaginative program whereby adults who during their school days dropped out of high school before completing their education may return to school to

April 26, 1967
Occupational Training
finish their high school training. It is difficult, as the minister knows, for anyone without a sound education to get a good job. The people of Winnipeg were surprised that the enrolment in the adult school was more than double that anticipated for any one year.
The minister alleges that education is a provincial responsibility, but I suggest that the minister's program is the most suitable vehicle for upgrading people's educational qualifications to the point where they can get better jobs. Instead of saying that the federal government will not participate in such provincial matters the minister ought to consult with the provinces to encourage the kind of educational program I spoke of. And Winnipeg is not the only city with problems. I am informed that out of a population of approximately 260,000 in the Ottawa area, 90,000 adults have not been educated beyond grade 5. One third of Ottawa's adults are poorly educated.
The minister has been in the labour movement long enough to know that it is almost impossible for a poorly educated man to find a good job. The provinces and municipalities ought to be induced to do something to improve people's education and prepare them to take the courses outlined in the program. The federal government ought to encourage such thinking. The division which has been created between education and manpower training is not only impractical but will lead to disaster for this country. I hope that in future the minister and the government will reconsider some of the principles which have been enunciated.


Mr. Davis:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask the minister a question about the levels of training allowances. There are great differences between the levels of wages paid in different parts of the country, and I want to ask whether these differences will be recognized in the administration of the act and the regulations when the bill is made effective. I draw the minister's attention to the tremendous differences in wage rates paid in different parts of the country. I know that the bill sets a minimum payment of $35 to those retraining under this program while the maximum is $90.
On looking at the latest statistics from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics for January, 1967, I find that there is a 35 per cent swing between wage rates in the Atlantic provinces and those on the west coast. For example, I note that the average weekly rate in British Columbia was $117 in January and that in

Prince Edward Island it was $69. The Canadian average is about $100. Ontario's average is about $106 and Quebec's about $97. How much you are paid depends on where you live because going rates of pay differ in different parts of the country. If $90 is the ceiling obviously many people will have to weigh the alternatives of continuing to work in their present jobs or taking time off to retrain. I ask the minister whether, in the administration of the legislation, the different pay rates in the various areas in which applicants live will be considered. Going pay rates differ not only between province and province but between one area and another within an individual province.


Jean Marchand: There is some flexibility, but the minimum rate must be $35 and the maximum must be $90. Each province may possibly have a scale for each of its different regions. I know that Quebec is divided into nine regions and different scales might apply to each of those regions, but each scale must be within the minimum and maximum.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, yesterday I put certain questions to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) concerning this bill, but unfortunately I realize that he did not deem it useful to answer any one of those questions.
Among other things, I had asked him if he would make sure that clause 2 would include a definition of a university credit, since the meaning of the word, as I mentioned, could vary a little from province to province and according to the educational systems.
The minister-and I have been listening to him since this morning-did not provide an answer. I am convinced that his department must have made inquiries in this regard, and I had also asked him what will be the total cost of that program in the first year: first, the cost of the tuition fees; second, the cost of the allowances; third, the cost of the investments; fourth, the cost of the loans-for the whole of Canada as well as for the province of Quebec.
I notice that the minister has not replied. I think that just the same he must have figures, that his department certainly did not just go ahead with that legislation without getting beforehand at least some figures, an estimate.
Therefore, I wonder why the minister does not want to answer those questions. They are
April 26, 1967

simple but the minister does not seem willing to answer.
When this will add up to millions of dollars-


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I answered this morning when the hon. member was away. He should have been in the house, that is all. He can read my answer tomorrow in Hansard.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, here are the facts: this morning, except for approximately five minutes when a newspaper man requested information for television, precisely as the Minister of Manpower and Immigration said, I stayed here all morning and if the minister claims to have answered, he must then have given the figures for each of the items of cost for allowances to people who will follow these courses. Has the minister given the figures this morning?


Jean Marchand: I do not understand the question, Mr. Chairman, so I cannot answer.


Gilles Grégoire: It is very simple, Mr. Chairman, I was asking how much it would cost and what is the department estimate of the cost of tuition during the first year? In other words, what will the department have to pay to the provinces in tuition fees.
Second, what will it cost to the department for allowances to people who follow these courses?
Third, I was asking what the minister expects to spend as capital expenditures for the institutions which will give this occupational training?
Four, I would ask the minister what amounts he expects will be loaned to the provinces to build institutions for adult occupational training.
Did the minister answer those four questions this morning?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I did not reply to those four questions because some cannot be answered.
For instance, no one knows to what extent the provinces will be interested in borrowing from the federal government to build training schools. It is therefore impossible to give figures in that case.
This morning, I indicated that the program would cost the federal government approximately $110 million in the first year. I also mentioned, while the hon. member was absent from the house this morning, that we expected it would cost us $30 million for
Occupational Training
Quebec. We have further established that Quebec has a credit of $245 million for the construction of occupational training schools, under the previous agreement.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, the minister has just said that it will cost $30 million for Quebec. As he pointed out, he gave that information while I was just outside the house. I also know that the minister took the opportunity to give answers while I was here. He even saw fit to say in my presence that I represented double taxation for my constituents, since I was working both at the federal and the provincial levels. On the contrary, I feel that I render two types of service to my constituents, instead of one. I can also tell the minister that the taxes paid by my constituents for only one salary are perhaps the equivalent of those paid for other salaries, probably less deserved in many cases.
I know the minister prefers hon. members who never say a word, who never bother him when he introduces legislation, but he must realize that others want some explanations or details on certain matters.
Could the minister tell us-and this is what I want to know-how much of the $30 million that will be spent in the province of Quebec, according to the estimates of his department, will be expended on tuition fees and allowances to be paid to those who will take occupational training courses? Does the minister have detailed figures in this regard? What are the estimates of his department?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, the figures I gave are the only ones I have at the moment. I could try to get some details, if possible, before we finish studying this bill.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, there is a point I should like to mention. I see that it is sometimes good to drive the minister into a corner. I did this yesterday, and as a result he is now making slightly different statements concerning the freedom of choice of the individual who will take these occupational training courses.
This is what the minister said yesterday, as recorded in Hansard of April 25, on page 15348:
I might point out that the people to be trained will not themselves decide to follow this course, or that.
That was quite clear and explicit, Mr. Chairman. The minister asserted that the people to be trained will not choose their courses themselves.

April 26, 1967
Occupational Training
The minister added:
They will be consulted but they cannot decide, for example, to take a course lasting 45 weeks as opposed to some other course because they will be receiving allowances during that period.
It is the manpower training centre which will decide what course is to be followed.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
There, then, is the categorical statement the minister made yesterday. The person taking the training course will have no decision to make; he may express preferences but the official of the Department of Manpower, that is the official at the training centre, will be the one to decide what courses he will take. When the minister was confronted with his statements-which to my mind are contrary to freedom

naturally, he was annoyed. He may have thought about it as buzzing around, but the minister was annoyed by that fly. He had to go back on some of the statements he made yesterday. He said: Yes, but it is not a matter of forcing an individual to take such a course; if he is not satisfied, he is free not to take the course.
In the past, he left a little more freedom to the worker who wanted to take occupational training courses; the worker was left free to take the course determined by the department or not to take any, in which case he kept on eking out a living on unemployment insurance. Such is the freedom, the change, the improvement now brought on by the minister.
The minister replied

and I agree with him on this-that there may be some fields where the labour force is too large and, in such a case, it would not be necessary nor useful to provide courses to an individual in a specific field where the demand for labour is not too high.
Of course, with his examples which are always exaggerated, the minister mentioned the case of a piano tuner in a village without a single piano. He thought he had then all the arguments needed to say: If there is not one piano in a village, it is useless to allow someone under the occupational training program to learn to tune pianos in that village.
Mr. Chairman, we recognize that, of course, but there is a difference between the statement made yesterday by the minister and the example he gives us now to try to prove that he is right when he will not let people who live in villages where there are no pianos train to become piano tuners.

Mr. Chairman, to give such an example is actually trying to break down an open door, or still acting quixotically, as the minister did last Sunday in the riding of Lapointe and at Kenogami, in front of a handful of persons.
Mr. Chairman, there must nevertheless be a point in all this. First of all, the minister's decision to force a course on an individual, while telling him at the same time: Since there is little demand for the trade you wish to learn, you will not be repaid the costs of the course and you will not get any allowance.
Would it not be more reasonable for the department to draw up a list of courses available or those interested? For instance, in a given area, they could be told: Since jobs are available for plumbers, electricians, masons and carpenters, these are the courses provided. You are free to make your choice from that list. Would it not give more freedom to the individual instead of requiring him to take some courses forced upon him by officials of the department of manpower?
True, the minister had to qualify, this morning, the grave words or statements he uttered yesterday. Is there not finally some means to leave more freedom to the individual while maintaining the principle laid down by the minister?
The principle is that training can only be given for trades in which there is a shortage of manpower. I feel that instead of requiring the interested parties to take specific training, we should suggest a list of subjects and let them pick among those subjects the one they prefer, instead of allowing the federal official to force the party involved to take a specific trade.
If the department assumes the rights and privileges mentioned by the minister, that is the end of individual freedom. The official will decide and say: This is the type of training you will take; you are free to take it or go back home without any training.
That is what the minister says. Would it not be better for the department to draw up a list of subjects in which occupational training can be given? Then, the official could tell the person concerned: Here is the list of subjects you can choose from. The man could then choose from this whole list the course he wants to take or which he prefers.
Will the minister not agree that, in this way, the individual would have at least freedom of choice? This is not what the minister told us yesterday, Mr. Chairman, and I quote
April 26, 1967

his words which are recorded in Hansard, on page 15348:
I might point out that the people to be trained will not themselves decide to follow this course or that.
I object to this categorical statement. Even though the minister tells us this morning that the workers will have freedom of choice because they will be free to choose not to take the courses picked for them, to my mind that is not freedom but dictatorship.
We cannot allow the minister, even though he is heading a new department, to become a dictator in the field of manpower. We will accept a minister, but not a dictator who tells us that civil servants will make decisions for the individual.
Why could we not allow instead freedom of choice, letting the official draw up a list of subjects and the individual concerned choose a course among them? This would allow the worker to choose freely, while at the same time show that the government is not about to pay people to take courses which will not help them find a job, for example a course in piano tuning in villages where there are no pianos, in spite of whatever the minister would have us believe with regard to the usefulness of such a course, to use an example given by the minister.
Whatever the method used, the worker must have freedom of choice.
Yesterday, the minister said clearly and explicitly: It is the manpower training centre which will decide what course is to be followed. Notice the words used: it is the manpower training centre which will decide what course is to be followed. That is coercion, Mr. Chairman, and those are dictatorial methods.
I admit today that having pressed the minister to his last positions, he was a bit harassed, and he was shown how illogical his position was yesterday, so that he had to reconsider his position a little and he said: Well, the individual will be free to follow that course or not to follow any at all.
Now, we would like the minister to make an even greater effort with respect to the freedom of workers and agree that instead of having a course assigned by an official, a list of subjects should be drawn, so that the individual concerned might choose among those subjects suggested by the manpower training center. Give him a choice, at least.
So our intervention yesterday was not in vain, since the minister has already started to
Occupational Training
draw in his horns. If, instead of acting quixotically in the riding of Lapointe, he had devoted the day Monday for consideration of his own bill, he might have made the proper statements at the outset.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer to another point. In that connection, I wonder whether the minister, perhaps unintentionally, or perhaps he had the right information, has not tried to mislead the house somewhat in making two conflicting statements.
If hon. members will recall, this morning the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) presented a motion for the tabling of documents, motion No. 223 in today's order paper, asking:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence between the provincial governments and the federal government in respect to the decision of the federal government to withdraw from the technical vocational training program.
The minister refused to table the documents as long as the federal government has not withdrawn from the technical and vocational training assistance program.
Now yesterday, I asked the minister, while speaking of the duplication in funds and administration, why there should be two administrative set-ups. And the minister answered, as can be seen on page 15340 of the official report, that the government has withdrawn from that joint program and from the technical and vocational training program.
He said one thing yesterday; today, so as to avoid tabling documents, he says something else. I would like to ask the minister which one of his two statements is right. The statement he made yesterday that the government had withdrawn from the technical and vocational training program or the statement he made this morning to the hon. member for Winnipeg North that the governent had not withdrawn. Those are two completely contradictory statements.
I have Hansard and the statement he made yesterday, and we all heard his statement this morning when he refused to table some papers. These are two contradictory statements within two days.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
So I would like to ask the minister which of the two is the right one? We should finally like to know whether or not the minister is still interested in the vocational and technical training. Yesterday, he said no. Today, he says yes. Could the minister secure information

April 26, 1967
Occupational Training
from his officials and tel us whether or not the federal government has withdrawn? I must say, Mr. Chariman, that we are completely confused in view of these contradictory statements.
I will not say that the minister deliberately misled the house. No. I would not go that far. Let us say that it might have escaped him just like that, on the spur of the moment, due to overwork and too many trips. He is slightly confused. That is why I say that it was not deliberate.
The minister also said that, under the new program, there will not be duplication of services nor double taxation. And he adds, and this is where I find him fantastically candid and naive: there will not be duplication of funds and the federal and the provincial governments will not both be spending money for the same thing. In the same sentence, or in the same paragraph, he adds-and I noted his very words:
Naturally, we will have our accountants to check.
The minister therefore admits that there will be a whole series of federal accountants to check what the provincial accountants have already checked. For me, this is a manpower problem. To hire two sets of accountants, two sets of inspectors, two sets of bureaucrats. If the minister says so himself, if he admits that the federal government, and I respect what he said this morning:
Naturally, we will have our accountants to check.
The minister admits it. But is he going to tell us that the provincial government, after having done all its work, will not have its accountants check also, and make exactly the same checks as the federal government accountants will be called upon to make?
Mr. Chairman, I merely took down that sentence. If I knew the exact words spoken by the minister, I could take up other sentences showing without any doubt that administration costs will be doubled. And, in spite of everything, the minister tells us: There will not be any duplication. And he added: Naturally, we will have our accountants to check.
If accountants, secretaries, stationery are doubled, all the red tape will be doubled. Checked by Quebec and checked by Ottawa. Quebec will check everything, will send the figures to Ottawa and the Department of Manpower and Immigration will affix the [Mr. Gregoire.l
stamp "checked" after a thorough scrutiny by its accountants.
Mr. Chairman, does this not double the costs of administration? The minister will answer no. It seems to me that the minister should be less naive, less candid, or at least, imagine that we may not be as candid as he is. The minister will have to correct his range, because his statements are no longer understood.
So, Mr. Chairman, it might be well to get some explanations on those points. It might be well for the minister to make the necessary amendments to indicate the double use of the funds.
Can you imagine that, Mr. Chairman? The minister thought it worthwhile to spend five minutes this morning to say that I perform two jobs and pursue provincial interests and federal interests at the same time.
I take the applause as a compliment. If some people fail to do their job, I cannot be blamed for having to do it in their stead. So I do it in two places.
The minister spent five minutes to say that I perform two jobs. Could he not spend some time in trying to prevent the spending of public funds, whether levied by Ottawa or Quebec, to pay double administration, double expense, when we could pay but once. Could the minister not take some time also to make sure to avoid that public funds, whether they are collected by Ottawa or by Quebec, will not be used twice, to pay two different administrations, to pay twice what could be paid only once?
Admittedly, this would take a few hours of the minister's time. All he has to do is to cancel a little trip to the constituency of Lapointe, and this would give him the time required. The hon. member for, I do not know which constituency, if he has anything to say, should simply rise and make his views known. That is an example of the type of members the minister likes, Mr. Chairman, those who never say a word except to bawl once in a while, from the back rows, sitting comfortably in their seats. That is the type of "caille" members that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration wants the province of Quebec to elect. That is what he likes, bawl-ers, and he has a few of them behind him.
Mr. Chairman, I would therefore ask the minister at least to suggest to us a procedure to avoid duplication, to avoid useless spending of the funds of Canadian taxpayers. At the
April 26, 1967

moment, unfortunately, this happens too often under our system, and I believe that the minister should see to it that it does not happen again, at least in his department.
Therefore, I would like some information from the minister about the points I have just raised.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, this morning the hon. member for Brandon-Souris talked about an institution called Pembina House. This is a multi-purpose institution. It seems that everything that was provided before in the way of federal support can be provided now. The difference is that it will be provided in part under this legislation, in which case the support is greater than before, and partly under the rehabilitation program.
In respect of Indians, I am sure this program is wider than the former program. Under program five only the unemployed were entitled to allowances. Under this new program not only the unemployed but also the under-employed and even employed workers will have an opportunity to upgrade and improve their situation by retraining. Therefore it is a wider program and one which I believe will benefit the Indians more than the previous program did. It must be remembered that under the old agreement which expired on March 31 we were paying usually about 50 per cent of the cost to the provinces and, of course, the provinces had to pay 50 per cent of the cost of the training under program five, for example. Under this new program the province will not pay anything. We pay 100 per cent of the cost.
The provinces will be saving money in this field and I believe they should use this money to enable them to occupy more extensively the field which is under their jurisdiction. This is the reason I do not think we are worse off than before. We are better off, and I believe the provinces should take their share. The whole retraining program will be much more up to date than it was in the past.
So far as the cheques are concerned, this seems to be a big problem. It has been mentioned that an experiment was made on the spot in Toronto. This, however, was only an experiment. I think we have as good computers here in, Ottawa to write cheques as they have in Ontario. I believe my hon. friend should forget about what he called a very serious situation. I think it is very temporary and experimental.
Occupational Training


Mr. Gilbert:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister to clarify his answer concerning Concord House which is the rehabilitation centre of the Salvation Army. He told the hon. member for Brandon-Souris that the rehabilitation legislation would apply. Would he tell us whether it applies with regard to the retraining and the allowance or just to the allowance?


Jean Marchand: This is an institution for delinquent boys. This is a social problem for which the province is responsible, but I informed the Salvation Army of what the province must have known in any event, that if the province supports the home we, under our rehabilitation program, can and will share 50-50 the cost of operating the home and providing training allowances to the boys.


Mr. Peiers:: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to speak on this subject but having listened to much of the argument I now feel I should. I assumed the minister would take advantage of past experience in respect of this legislation and would have improved it. This, however, never seems to be the Liberal approach. They always decide to start over again. They do not take advantage of the experience of the past. Rather than take advantage of the previous legislation they have left out, so far as I am concerned, one of its major parts. I refer mainly to the drop-outs. I live in an area where a good many of the young people who require training have a very low educational standard. The people who train are those who have been in the high school system and have found no occupational advantage from the education they received there.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
I am experienced in this field in my own area. Many young people there were unable to obtain employment, took vocational retraining and obtained jobs and have been very successful. This bill will eliminate this opportunity. Many young people will have to bum around in their own areas for a year before being eligible for retraining or will hang around the street corners in Toronto for a year. Obviously their school education has not equipped them with the ability to hold down jobs in fields in which they wish to make a career.
It is my belief that the minister has proposed this bill which will eliminate this opportunity because of pressure from the provincial governments. While there have been

April 26, 1967
Occupational Training
abuses in respect of other educational programs, I suggest that the over-all results have been better than the disadvantages which will be created by the adoption of this measure.
Many provinces, particularly Ontario, are making a mistake by requiring children at the grade 9 level to make firm decisions as to the fields they wish to enter. Once they have made a decision they cannot change their minds but must continue along a specific line of education. Very often they find they are not equipped to continue successfully in these fields of endeavour. These individuals are not able at that time to take advantage of the vocational training program in order to obtain those skills in which they might excel.
Many individuals who have taken advantage of vocational training programs have increased their standard of living by increasing their incomes from $2,000 to $3,000 per annum to $7,000 per annum. I know personally of one individual who increased his income from $300 per month to $800 per month. Surely this is an indication of the advantage of training programs for the unemployed.
It seems to me that if these young people remain unemployed for a year they are not able to get jobs or do not want to work. Surely we will create another generation of individuals dependent upon welfare. It seems to me also that the minister has decided to relate immigration to specific manpower shortages. In other words, when we need men skilled in a particular field we will allow immigration of individuals skilled in that field. Surely such a practice will result in a decrease in immigration.
This measure will have a discriminatory effect so far as widows between the age of 40 and 80 are concerned. Many of them married before entering the working force and have no training which would allow them to enter the work force now. At that age it is not easy for these women to learn new skills. This will create a class of women who will find themselves in serious difficulty because of the three year period before which they will be entitled to benefit. In this regard the minister seems to be taking a backward step. He is destroying the advantages of the old programs. Instead of renewing those programs and increasing benefits he is eliminating them and substituting new ones of less value.
It is my belief that the minister has been influenced by the provincial governments which were afraid that the federal government would confine provincial programs to the supplementary high school educational 
field. Many provincial programs are inadequate because they are designed to place people in certain limited vocations. Much of the assistance provincial governments give is provided to individuals in high school who intend to continue their training at university. For one reason or another many of these people find they are not able to continue through university. As a result they drop out and are unable to find jobs because of lack of training of an industrial or commercial nature.
Personally I favour sacrificing the advantages inherent in this legislation in terms of dollars and cents for those available under other programs. It seems to me the assistance we are now to provide to those who need it is the type of assistance which has been provided to the same kind of people through other programs. I can understand the attitude which I am sure the province of Quebec will take in respect of this kind of assistance, because it involves an area under provincial jurisdiction.
It is understandable that many people who are subject to high municipal taxes will not object to the federal government assuming the entire cost of high school education. Most people will agree that there have been abuses in respect of this kind of assistance, probably because many families have been unable financially to provide for higher education. Surely we are victims of circumstances which occur as a result of pressures from provincial governments. I do not think the federal government should enter educational fields which are under provincial jurisdiction, regardless of the pressures. The federal government has a role to play in the field of education but that role should be confined to the training of individuals for industrial and commercial jobs.
Let us not attempt to reduce training to a common denominator. Let us provide an opportunity in co-operation with provincial governments for the unemployed to retrain and acquire skills which will allow them to enjoy a decent standard of living. By doing so we will recover from these people sufficient amounts through income tax to provide similar training for others. I venture to suggest that for every individual we train in this way we will be able to retrain two others through the money recovered in income tax.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
I realize that the minister wants to develop a relationship between the requirements for skilled employees, retraining and immigration. I suggest to the minister that this is a
April 26, 1967

very short-range program and one that will be changed in the next four or five years. I suggest it is a program that will be highly detrimental to Canada. A very large section of this nation believes that we should try through immigration to double our population in the next 10 years. I suggest that the miserable methods that have been used in the past and expressed in recent days as our immigration policy will not enable us to double our population but will limit immigration to people from countries which have educational standards for which we are not willing to pay.
It is all very well to say that we will bring people in and put them into a retraining program. I suggest there are better ways of doing this and that experience in the past has proven that if we worry about opportunities for education and jobs for the second generation the first generation will take care of itself. I come from and have worked in an area many of whose citizens came to this country having received absolutely no education in the country of their birth and have not acquired any here. It is true of some of our colleagues in the house that their parents came to Canada with none of the educational qualifications we would have liked them to have. However, they came to this country and made their contribution, and the second generation has taken advantage of the opportunities that have been afforded them. Despite their parents' lack of education and job opportunities, things have not turned out very badly for them or this country.
I suggest we are going backwards in this program. We are again allowing the provinces to wag the federal dog. I think it is time we decided what we are going to do federally. We are going to offer this opportunity to the provincial governments. If they do not want to take advantage of it, that is their business. I do not object to their staying out of the program on a voluntary basis, but I am violently opposed to the idea of reducing everything to the lowest common denominator and saying that if some provinces do not want to take advantage of the program, none will. The present program has shown that young people leaving school are able to take advantage of the courses provided. I do not think the program is so bad that we should drop the major portion, because program five has been very beneficial.
We in this country must pay attention to the basic principle involved in this question and not be misled by the statement that each 23033-973
Occupational Training
and every one of those who participate in the program will have a better standard of living because of the payments the federal government is willing to make. I suggest it is drawing a red herring across the path of this program to say to some provinces: Now that the federal government will pay all the cost, everything is O.K. I believe many of the provinces were satisfied with the 50-50 arrangement in this field and most of them do not want to enter into this program of immigration and manpower. In my opinion the program as previously carried out has produced very good results.
Many things in the bill are advantageous to this country and the minister is to be congratulated for them. However, some of the basic tenets that were the backbone of the previous legislation have been scrapped without anything being substituted for them. I can foresee great discrimination in the program in that a large number of people in my area who have been helped under the previous legislation will not be helped under this measure. Many people will remain idle for a year while they look for a job that is obviously not there. Unless they go to Toronto and get into the stream of uneducated labour, untrained people, the bottom rung of the employment ladder, they will not have a job and will seek this type of training only after a period of idleness. That is not what this program was designed for.
The arguments to which I have listened have considerable merit. There have been two sides to the arguments presented, but I believe the whole discussion gives an indication of the thinking of the nation and I think the program Should not be introduced on a national basis with respect to either manpower or immigration.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, I shall intervene very briefly in this debate in the hope that the hon. member for Lapointe will be able to catch his breath in time to continue his tete-a-tete with the minister before clause 2 is passed. Because I intend to be somewhat brief in my remarks I first want to say all I can in praise of the minister. I am glad to see that he has in fact grasped this nettle. I said this at the resolution stage. I think it is high time the federal government exercised its undoubted authority in this field.
I do not think there is any question about the jurisdiction of the federal government. I believe that when in 1940 the provinces agreed to the constitutional amendment as a result of which unemployment insurance

April 26, 1967
Occupational Training
became a federal matter it was inevitable that the next step would be the establishment of a national employment service. From the national employment service has stemmed, first, a program which the previous government introduced and which has been an excellent one-I do not need to say that because it is accepted; I do not think anyone in the house would deny that it has been a good program-and, second, this program which is an attempt to implement those things for which the national employment service and the unemployment insurance program were set up. I do not think there is any question that the federal government has this right.
I believe that recent developments point up the unrealistic position the government has taken. Questions asked of the Prime Minister by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi and the hon. member for York South invited the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice to make these constitutional issues public rather than having a few alleged experts nesting in a dark corner trying to produce something and then in their good time bringing it out for the benefit of parliament and the public. I think the details of this argument should be brought to the attention of the public. The light of day should be shed upon them. The heat of sunlight should be cast upon them. I do not think there is any question that the great majority of the people of this country believe in a program of this kind. The question of the occupational training of those people who are part of the labour force should be a matter of national consequence and should be within the unchallenged jurisdiction of the federal government.
When we come to another clause of the bill there is the question to be raised, what is occupational training? What is the difference between adult training for these purposes and ordinary education as envisaged in the British North America Act? These are the kind of things that should be discussed in public. There should be a national debate on them. They should be discussed in this house, the other place and in the provincial legislatures. For the life of me I cannot see why the Prime Minister and the government refuse to make these and similar matters the subject of national debate and discussion. The very fact that we are now engaged in this discussion establishes the validity of that point. However, that is a matter for argument another day.
I congratulate the minister on this program but I cannot congratulate him and the government for the way in which it has been

introduced. In this respect I subscribe entirely to the views of the hon. member for Prince and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who made this point last night. Unfortunately I was not able to be here. I read the reply of the minister and I must say I think it was a very superficial reply to a real remonstrance on the part of members of this house.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
The Secretary of State attempted to say the same thing with respect to the item on educational television in last year's estimates. It is simply not good enough for the minister to say, "Well, we had to do it. This is the only way." This does not cure the impropriety at least, if not the illegality, and the way in which the government has proceeded is absolutely improper. Age cannot wither nor custom stale the infinite variety of means by which this government seeks to evade its constitutional responsibility and get around the right of parliament to deal with financial matters.
I think we must also consider this matter in the light of the admonishment of the Prime Minister and the way in which he chided us in the house last Thursday when he trotted out the large program of legislation and said, "This is what we have to do. This is what lies ahead. We must have an allocation of time rule. We must change our rules." I go along with the Prime Minister and the government in many of these measures. I have made it quite clear where I stand on the matter of the reform of the procedures. But that does not excuse the government from doing what it has done here. Are we to take it that the government simply wishes the rules changed so it can proceed on its way unchecked and unchallenged, so it can proceed in violation of all proper constitutional parliamentary practice to pay out money prior to an estimate being passed and to enact regulations prior to legislation being passed?
I heard what the parliamentary secretary said and I think he made the most of a very bad case. It is true we passed interim supply on March 22 last and that the passing of interim supply, which included one twelfth of the amount of vote 10 in the 1967-68 estimates of the Department of Manpower and Immigration, meant that the vote became a resolution of this house which was subsequently incorporated in an Appropriation Act and became an act of parliament. However, we must take that in the light of what the Minister of National Revenue said, namely,
April 26, 1967

that the passage of interim supply is without prejudice to later complaints and does not in any way invalidate or prevent proper criticism on the part of hon. members. It does not prevent us at any time from charging the government with impropriety or illegality in respect of any of the items which may have been included in interim supply or the way in which they have been passed or the means which have been used to take advantage of them.
The government alone is seized with the responsibility of arranging the business of the house. The government may say that we took too long on the unification bill. I am one of those who have said that we spent too much time on the wrong parts of the bill. But that is beside the point. The government knew precisely what the situation was going to be. It was made quite plain that there were members of the house who took a very strong position on the issue of unification, and the government was aware there would be very determined and effective opposition to it. In the light of that fact the government had a choice when we resumed the session after the Easter recess or even before then. It should have been the first item of business to be placed before the house, and the failure of the government to exercise its undoubted prerogative to so arrange the business that it would have been the first item to be considered is evidence of complete irresponsibility.
The Prime Minister said: "We want the power to do this and that; we want more authority." We are rapidly approaching a situation where the government will be nothing more than an a monolithic monstrosity unless we check this trend. And so we have to think of what the government have done in respect of matters of this kind when they ask us to change the rules of the game, to change the procedures so as to invest them with more power and authority. I suggest that the action of the government in proceeding in this way is absolutely indefensible, and I think it is a shame that this is so because this bill is the start of a very useful program which I particularly favour.
These are things which the members of this committee must keep in mind, and the Prime Minister and other members of the government who are proposing changes in the rules must themselves abide by them. This is not a mere technical violation. It is a very fundamental and basic principle involving the right of parliament to vote supply to the 23033-9731
Occupational Training
government, to tell it what money it can have and how it can spend it. Until that right has been exercised the government has no right to spend it. 1 want to make that quite plain because I think it is a criticism which can be levelled against this government frequently and effectively. I hesitate to have to do it because the bill before us is a good bill and I am in favour of it. I wish this kind of criticism did not have to be levelled at the minister and the government.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, first I should like to comment on the proposal made this morning by the hon. member for Halifax who suggested the addition of the word "ordinarily" before the word "resides" in clause 3. I am told by my legal advisers that this would not change the meaning at all and that to do so would be useless. A person's eligibility will always be judged by reference to the school leaving age applicable in his home province.
I must emphasize again that we are taking nothing away under this scheme. Under the old plan it was possible for a drop-out aged 17 to take a training course one year after he left school. This is still possible. We have not taken away anything. In fact the requirements are even less stringent because under the old program he had to be unemployed while under the new scheme this is not necessary. I do not know why so much emphasis has been put on this because we are not taking away anything from these young people and in fact they will be better off under the new program than they were under the old.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I am not rising to make a lengthy speech, and I am sure the minister and the members of the committee will be glad to hear this. I want to make a very brief comment on the point raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and by the hon. member for Peace River, followed by a suggestion to the minister on another point.
I was as disturbed as were other hon. members about the way in which these regulations were brought in, not merely because they were brought in in a way somewhat different from the usual and orthodox manner. I must say that I would not be very disturbed merely because the manner was different. However, I think that the evil of that manner is illustrated by what has happened in this case. The fact that the bill now before us was enacted by regulation-this is what happened and let

April 26, 1967
Occupational Training
there be no confusion about it-meant that across the country there was misunderstanding about the meaning of the bill on some of the points about which the minister has already spoken. If one looks at the regulations and at the bill, one finds that the regulations enact the bill. If there had been a debate in the house and an exchange of views on this floor and if the minister had listened to suggestions, as I am sure he would have done, then not only would the bill have been better but a great deal of the present misunderstanding, the present negative attitude, and the present misgivings in various parts of the country would have been removed either by explanations and undertakings of the minister or by changes in the bill.
As was said by the hon. member for Peace River, the rule that regulations should not be established without statutory power is not merely a procedural rule but a rule grounded in logic. It is a rule grounded in the simple premise that until you have dicussed and decided the framework within which the regulations are to fit you ought not to draft any regulations because they would be produced in the abstract with consequent misunderstanding and difficulty.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I entirely agree with the hon. member for Peace River that there is no reason that this bill could not have been brought before the house a long time ago. The minister knew there was a deadline of March 31, and so did the Prime Minister and government house leader. We spent a great deal of time discussing important bills that had no deadline. We spent a great deal of time giving priority to a bill whose deadline was extended and is now 15 months away.
The minister and the government should have brought this bill before the house prior to March 31 instead of resorting to passing an act of parliament by regulations, and they did not merely pass regulations. This is what I object to. It is not only improper and its legality questionable but in its practical effect it is an evil thing to do. It creates doubts, misunderstandings, difficulties, misgivings, divisions and conflicts where none would have been had the government and the minister acted in accordance with their duty to parliament and the people of Canada in this regard.
The specific point I raise with the minister is this. He said in a statement published in the press and he also said on the floor of the house that the three years in the labour force

which the next clause requires is not three years service in the Canadian labour force necessarily but could be three years in the labour force of some other country from which an immigrant has come. With the greatest respect, that is an interpretation of law that is a little strange to me. I assumed from the language of the bill that, unless specifically said to be otherwise, the situations we were talking about applied to this country. We understood, and I think everybody understood, that when the minister talked about three years in the labour force he was talking about the labour force in Canada.
If the minister intends it to be otherwise, may I suggest to him that he consider including in clause 2 a definition of labour force. This could easily be done simply by stating that labour force or service in a labour force, whichever language his advisers choose to use, means not only service in a labour force in Canada but in a labour force in any other country from which an immigrant to Canada has come. If he does that I think he will allay a great deal of the fear that some of his manpower officers may interpret this legislation in a narrow way.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, as I stated, this is surely what is intended. I have no objection to making this change if it can be made, so I will make a note of it and see whether the bill can be amended along these lines.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of covering again the ground covered by the hon. member for York South and others but I should like to address a specific question to the minister relating to the application of the bill. If I heard him correctly, on second reading the minister said there were no occupational exclusions under this plan. On the other hand, in his remarks when giving specific illustrations and also in much of the discussion we have had concerning welders and other trade occupations, there did seem to me to be exclusions.
In order to test the application of this bill I should like to put a question relating to a specific situation which has recently come to my attention. It has to do with a young man 23 years of age who is married and has two children. He has had some difficulty in securing the kind of work he would like to do. For a time he lived in my constituency, and this is the reason he telephoned me.
On exploring his educational qualifications and so on it appeared that he was really
April 26, 1967

interested in a teaching career and specifically a teaching career in northern Canada. I suggested that he go to the manpower office and make inquiries about this, which he did. He was referred to someone in the education section of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, where he was told that he should take a teacher training course or normal school course in the province of Ontario and come back and see them again. Without going into the question whether this legislation is already in effect by regulation, I point out that this example is of recent date.
Therefore I address my question to the minister in the form of this specific example in the hope that he will make clearer than he has so far done what he means when he says that there are no occupational exclusions under this plan. If this man is personally suited to this kind of occupation, would he qualify for a course of not more than 12 months' duration, which I understand is now the length of the normal teacher training course in the province of Ontario?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, so far as the example given is concerned I think I told the hon. member for Brandon-Souris this morning that if a person wants to teach a trade which falls under the definition of this law he is entitled to allowances and to all the benefits of this legislation. But if he wants to teach a discipline or a science which is outside the scope of this law he is not entitled to the benefits of the legislation.
If the hon. member wants a definition of occupational training, it is defined in clause 2 in terms of time. An occupational training course originally meant a course of occupational training not more than 12 months in duration. That has now been amended to read as follows:
(d) "occupational training course" means a course of occupational training that provides not more than fifty-two weeks of full-time instruction or 1,820 hours of part-time instruction;
That is the amendment that was proposed. We have added the number of hours, that is all.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, as I understand the bill the minister still has not clarified the situation. He states that if this man wants to teach in a discipline which comes within the scope of the bill he can take advantage of its provisions. I have referred to clause 2 where "occupational training" specifically excludes instruction designed for
Occupational Training
university credit. Where is occupational training otherwise defined in the bill? I may have overlooked it. I have looked at clause 12 where I see that the governor general in council has authority to make regulations defining certain expressions, including instruction designed for university credit. But my understanding is that a normal teacher training course does not give one entitlement to university credit.
Suppose a man wants to go to northern Canada as a teacher under the northern education program to teach mathematics or English or history or languages. Is he disqualified under this plan whereas if he was going to teach metal work or drafting or something of that kind he would not be?
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, the definition is negative, but it is the only one I know. Universities are excluded and the regular school system is excluded because it falls under provincial jurisdiction. Outside that all occupations are covered provided the training takes not more than one year. That is all.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: That is the way I read the bill. If the man in the example I quoted wishes to teach certain subjects he may qualify. Is that correct? I speak of a man who says, "I am married, with two children and I cannot afford to take one year in normal school." Yet this man is a graduate of high school with one year at university behind him. That qualifies him for normal school. Will the manpower officer be able to say to this man who wants to teach: "Yes, if your lack of training in this field is stopping you from getting a job teaching in the north we can pay you a training allowance while you go to normal school for ten months?"


Jean Marchand: Perhaps I have not made myself clear. I said that there is no occupational restriction. I do not think there are any. The only limitation is that we do not cover university training or training exceeding one year. That is all. Outside that everything is covered in the bill.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Can the minister not tell me whether the person I referred to could take a ten month course under this plan at normal school?


Jean Marchand: I think the hon. gentleman will agree that I cannot comment on the particular case he has in mind. That must be decided elsewhere. I defined the law and the

April 26, 1967
Occupational Training
reliance that is entitled to be placed on the act but, with respect, what the hon. gentleman asks is not part of my job.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I hope the minister does not misunderstand me. I am not asking about this specific individual so much as about individuals like him. Assuming he has the necessary abilities and talents, would he be allowed to go to a teacher training school for ten months rather than attending a ten month course in welding or sheet metal work?


Jean Marchand: Provided the course takes less than 12 months or 1,820 hours he can take any course he wishes to take to upgrade his skill and he will be covered by the act.


Mr. Allard:: Mr. Chairman, I have only one question to put to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand).
Yesterday, during the debate, I reminded him that, about a month ago, officials from the Quebec government came to Ottawa-I do not know whether they met the minister, but probably his officials-to discuss this federal legislation and probably also to explain the intention of the Quebec government to legislate or occupy completely or partially this field of occupational training.
That quick visit took place about a month ago and editorialists even talked about the eventuality of a crisis-but I would not subscribe to that because I am in favour of eliminating all crises-but I would like the minister to tell us whether himself or his officials agreed with the Quebec government on the characteristics of the federal act and the role or intentions of the provincial government in the field of occupational training of adults.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I have not discussed nor to my knowledge has anyone in my department discussed the intentions of the provincial government. The only thing is that the Quebec government, like that of other provinces, was aware in a general way of what we were planning to do. Negotiations, agreements, suggestions followed. I am not saying that the provincial government is willing to accept the bill now under consideration but only that all the necessary steps have been taken. Now, as far as the intentions of the provincial government are concerned, the hon. member would be well advised to contact the authorities concerned.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 2 carry?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, just a question to the minister.
When the time comes for the interested party to select the course he wants to take, will the official decides about the cost or will he be able to prepare a list and let the interested party choose among various courses?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I have already answered all these questions, and whatever I say, my words will always be twisted. I think the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) knows the answer and I have nothing to add.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, this is arrogance on the part of the minister, twisted or not, because I read his exact words. I did not read just anything. I repeated his own words, and I will quote him again:
I might point out that the people to be trained will not themselves decide to follow this course or that.
I am not twisting the minister's words, Mr. Chairman. They are taken from Hansard. Perhaps the minister would like to blame those who edit Hansard. I quoted the minister's words as recorded in Hansard.
The minister may be sorry. That is why I am giving him a second chance and asking him a simple question concerning one of his statements.
This morning-I do not have the whole text of Hansard, for it has not been printed yet- I asked him a specific question. I put it to him politely and calmly, and I do not understand why the minister took the bit between his teeth, why he suddenly became arrogant. I was merely asking him whether the individual will be allowed to choose from a list of subjects or courses, or whether he will be told by an official either to take a specific course or none at all. It seems to me that the minister could answer that question. Will the individual concerned be allowed to choose one of several subjects, or will he have to take the course picked for him by an official? That is what I should like the minister to tell me.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 2 carry? [Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: As I have not received an answer, Mr. Chairman, I have to accept it as such. I think that the minister does not want to answer, and what does that conceal, I do not know. Does the minister have something
April 26, 1967

in mind. I do not know. I think that the Canadian people, at least those who will benefit from these courses, would like to know whether they will have a choice between a series of courses, or whether one course will be imposed. That is the only thing I want to know, Mr. Chairman.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, if ever I want to acquaint Canadians with the scope of this legislation and the meaning of the words, I will not go through the hon. member for Lapointe.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, it is not acting through the member for Lapointe; on the contrary, it is acting through the whole House of Commons, and I think it is a proper medium to acquaint the Canadian people with the scope of this legislation. It is not up to the member for Lapointe to make publicity for the minister. By replying to my question, he does not reply necessarily to the hon. member for Lapointe but to the Canadian people who want to know what this is all about.
The minister might want to remain secretive about it, which seems strange to me. What I cannot accept is that the minister takes devious measures in order to avoid an answer, saying that he does not want to go through me while he would go through the House of Commons. It is not to me that he gives the answer, Mr. Chairman, because he does not have the right to address me. He has to address you and when I talk to him I do it through you. Therefore, let the minister be intelligent enough to understand that and let him answer me through you, Mr. Chairman. Then, it will be to the whole Canadian people that he will reply.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Jean Marchand: I am told it is not necessary to amend this or to try to find a new definition of "labour force". The lawyers say that the wording as it is covers the labour force anywhere in the world so this proposal would not add anything. In any case, this is what we intend to do and I am ready to make a statement to this effect.


David Lewis: I do not know whether I agree with the minister's legal advice, but if the minister indicates to the people of Canada that this is what he has in mind, this is how he will carry on, and an immigrant to Canada will be able to rely on work he has already done, I suppose that is as far as I can get.
Occupational Training
I know from my own experience that when I come up against a lawyer who has enough authority to make his opinions stick I had better not waste time in argument.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 3-Definitions. "Adult."


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, if it were not for the program we have before us today I would be tempted to make a longer speech on this subject. As it is, I wish to move an amendment to this clause and explain to the minister with all the non-partisanship I can muster the reason for this amendment. If he could tell me that it is not necessary the situation would be different.
Other members of the party to which I have the honour to belong have stressed our unhappiness at the introduction into this legislation of the Trudeau-Marchand-Pearson interpretation of the Canadian constitutional scene. The sudden refusal by the government last fall to accept a proposition upon which it had previously acted, namely, that there is a province in this country which occupies a particular place because of its function as the headquarters of French Canadian culture, has led the government to adopt policies which necessarily mean the eventual erosion of the influence of the government of Canada on important developments across this country.
In the bill before us the minister has produced what I believe to be an extremely important and valuable piece of legislation. It introduces an important principle into arrangements for training Canada's work force and retraining people who are displaced by technological change. For this, I give the hon. gentleman all the credit I can, and all he wants. I am not sure he is right in saying this is the first time living allowances have ever been paid to trainees. I know of other places in the world where this has been done and in any case some kind of allowance was paid under the old scheme. But if the minister feels happier in making that claim, it does not worry me. The legislation is important, and I admit it. But there was no reason, other than the demands of the doctrinaire constitutional position now taken by the federal government, for scrapping every part of the old program as this measure does instead of amending the old program and making the necessary changes so that federal participation in the training of young Candians might be wider than the adult training described in this bill. The old program could have been amended and this new policy could have been grafted on to it. Obviously such a course

April 26. 1967
Occupational Training
would have interfered with the determination of the government to follow the new constitutional policy about which we shall no doubt have an opportunity to speak on other occasions.
Introduction of this legislation by regulation has meant that the minister has had to be satisfied with the consultations which took place with the provinces during formal conferences in October and November of last year. I was aware of this, and other hon. members who have spoken were aware of it. But I am sure that the minister, as a practical person who for years was an officer and later the head of an important trade union organization, knows perfectly well that this kind of legislation, which is a practical piece of work involving the daily experience of people in the field, cannot be discussed adequately at ministerial conferences. Wide-ranging discussions between representatives of this government and people concerned with adult education and training in the provinces are a matter of necessity if these provisions are to work effectively. Such consultations have obviously not taken place, to judge from press reports, and I suggest to the minister that the result of the doctrinaire position he has taken may be dangerous.
I am uneasy about the proposal in clause 3 which defines an adult as a person whose age is at least one year greater than the regular school leaving age in the province in which he resides. I know the reason for this. The minister does not want anyone to come under this plan who would normally go to a vocational training school under provincial jurisdiction, and so on. All my studies of juvenile behaviour and the incidence of juvenile delinquency have persuaded me, as others have been persuaded, that the years which are most dangerous for the juvenile are the years immediately following the day on which he ceases to attend school. This is so whether a student has dropped out because he is not interested, whether he has dropped out for economic reasons or whether he has ceased to attend for psychological, emotional or any other reasons.
In Ontario the school leaving age is 16. For a young person having left school the year which follows may well be the year in which traumatic experiences affecting the rest of his life will be encountered. Yet this period of a year must elapse before such a person is eligible for training under this scheme, even without an allowance. What can these people do in that year? All they can do is enter the unskilled labour force until they have

reached the age of 17 and are able to qualify for the training for which this bill makes provision and which is likely to be more relevant precisely because the manpower officer is given authority to relate the training given to employment possibilities.
I do not understand why the minister and his officials have introduced rigidity into the program to such a point that regardless of the situation in which an individual may find himself he cannot participate in this plan, in Ontario at least, until he is 17. The minister tries to excuse himself by saying there is a 17 year old limit in the present plan and that he has not retreated from any position previously taken. I am sure he would normally be the last to stand by something merely because it was in a former plan. It was wrong there and it is wrong here. If the minister feels he must establish a no-man's land to obviate certain difficulties which he has contemplated, I would make a suggestion to him with the best of good will and ask him to discuss it with his advisers.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I suggest it is possible to provide that the manpower officers in the department would have discretion in special circumstances to make a program available to someone immediately after leaving school. Assuming that the minister's officers are people with some humanity in them, assuming they have some experience in personnel training, job evaluation and job placement, and assuming if they have not got it now they will acquire it in time-I am not trying to needle the minister; he cannot start with personnel who are not there and there has to be a period of training -assuming these officers have the qualities which are desirable they should be given some discretion. If they have statutory discretion or discretion under the regulations they will be able to catch the unfortunate situation where the individual, in their view, deserves or requires because of special circumstances to be placed under training, without taking the risk of his either doing nothing for a year or doing something that may psychologically affect him for the rest of his working life.
I find even more objectionable the requirement that a single person without dependants must be a member of the labour force, substantially without interruption, for not less than three years. That seems to me to be an unnecessarily and heartlessly long period, unless the minister has a reason for it. What this means is that a youngster who leaves
April 26. 1967

school at age 16 or 17 cannot obtain allowances under the training plan. I appreciate that he can get training but he cannot obtain allowances under the plan until he is 19 or 20. It means that a young person who has left school at 16 or 17, or for that matter at 18, cannot obtain the allowances under this plan until he is 19, 20 or 21 and during those three years he either must enter the unskilled, untrained labour force or be available for work, without any skill, without any training, unless he can find the means from his parents, his relatives or somewhere else to enable him to enter into a training plan without receiving the allowances which this bill provides.
For the life of me I do not understand why this long period is specified. Again I suggest to the minister it is possible to do incalculable and irretrievable harm to a young man or woman during those three years. All studies of juvenile behaviour have shown that is the case, and if those three years are hopeless for the young Canadian male or female, in many cases this will do incalculable harm. Surely what we are interested in doing under this bill is to make as certain as the minister and parliament can, that young Canadians will receive opportunities to get the skills which the modern scientific age requires in order to enable them to make productive use of their labour and to make a productive contribution to the country. Perhaps the minister can give us some reasons why we need this long period of three years before a person is entitled to this; at the moment I can see none.
Despite the comments made by the minister the same is true for a married woman who suddenly becomes a widow or, even if she is not a widow, her children have grown up and she desires to go into the labour force and wants some training in order to enter the labour force. Unless I misunderstand this clause, and I do not think I do, such a woman would have to wait three years in some sort of work or be available for some sort of work before becoming entitled to the allowances provided by this bill.
Again I say that I believe it is only a doctrinaire approach to this problem which has made the minister specify three years. I do not want to speak at great length, Mr. Chairman, because I know the program that is before us today. I think I have made my point as clear as possible without repeating myself. In view of what I have said I am not going to move an amendment respecting the one year period after school leaving age because that is a little complicated, but I hope 23033-974
Occupational Training
the minister will give some thought to my suggestion about giving the manpower officers in the field some discretion so they can deal with this situation. However, Mr. Chairman, I do move the following amendment:
That clause 3(b) (i) of Bill C-273 be amended by deleting the words "three years" in line 10 thereof and substituting the words "one year" therefor.
I point out before I sit down that this amendment would bring the clause in line with the first part of the provision and would wipe out some of the defects in the clause so that if the minister insists on the one year after school leaving age remaining a general rule, a person entering the training field would be able to do so without the deprivation which many will undoubtedly suffer as a result of the three year requirement.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I cannot but agree with the general principles outlined by the member for York South.
Naturally, I do not admit that the bill reflects a doctrinary attitude. It may reflect an attitude based on principle, but it is certainly not doctrinary.
Assuredly, it tries to set the limit between federal and provincial responsibility. Although the bill may be very specific, its scope is rather limited. Though it will have widespread results, and I feel that it is not intended to solve all the problems which may exist in the field of education and professional training of our young people or young workers.
I agree about the difficulties mentioned and the problems which will be created. I could state others. I could refer to 14 year-old children who, at a given time, have some problems and who also leave school, and this is tragic. What is done for 14 year-old children?
I am sure that the hon. member for York South is not ready to leave them aside; then, they should also be covered. This means that we must know where and when we really assume a responsibility, because if we were the only government and the only jurisdiction, I would agree with him completely, and those people would also have to be covered.
However, there is also the provincial government, and there are the municipalities, which have responsibilities, and I believe a line has to be drawn somewhere, and that is precisely what we have done.

April 26, 1967
Occupational Training
Now this does not mean that this program will forever remain as restricted as it is now. There are problems which we are considering. The member for York South himself mentioned, this morning, I believe, the quality of the personnel, the tools we need to implement such a bill, and he is right, because I find that before we venture too far in this field, without being theoretical, we must wait until we hold all the tools, well sharpened, in our hands.
Therefore, in any case, the amendment he proposes will, of course, bring about the situation I mentioned yesterday evening and this morning, which is that young people, one year after leaving school, become adults according to law and are entitled to receive an allowance.
So, he implies that he would not touch the first part, but nevertheless he touches it by touching the second, because by bringing back the definition of an adult and tying it down to a year in the labour force, this means that the youngster coming out of school and waiting for one year or working for one year is eligible for allowances at that time, and the effect is exactly the same.
So, I do not know-he understood my position on the first point, he does not seem to understand it on the second, although exactly the same situation is repeated.
Anyway, I believe this will upset the entire financial set-up of this legislation. I think the reasons given have no sense, and I do not believe that we could, at this stage, accept an amendment of this type and run the risk of severely upsetting our school system.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


David Lewis: which it seems to me the federal government has an obligation to give. This is the reason I simply cannot accept the explanation the minister has given for his opposition to the amendment.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say just a few words. Of course, if the hon. member does not recognize that there is a constitution in Canada or if he believes that we should not care about it-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jean Marchand: Well, there is a constitution and it means something.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. The minister has received from me, my colleagues and many other hon. members the courtesy of accepting his sincerity. Now he makes the kind of statement which turns me either into a moron or into something even worse. Whatever else I may be, I am not this. I know there is a constitution in Canada. I know there are divisions of power. I realize as surely as the minister does the difficulties which there are in any federal state. Those difficulties, however, are not solved by building walls such as those which divide East and West Berlin.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention whatever of insulting the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). Obviously, if a constitutional problem is involved, concepts may be quite different over the way Canada should operate and I do not see why I should be a depository of eternal truth and he should be mistaken, or vice versa.
So, I am not at all at that level, but as far as we are concerned we take the attitude that, in the field of education, the provinces have jurisdiction and should exert it.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Otherwise, we will always be faced with problems. It may be that our philosophy is wrong; in that case, we shall have to decide at the political level with the people involved, how the Canadian people conceive this country. This problem may be over my head, as well as that of some of my colleagues in this house, but the Canadian people will determine in what kind of a country we shall live.
As far as we are concerned, we believe that when a provincial jurisdiction is clearly established, the province should deal with it 23033-974J
Occupational Training
and we naturally should help, if possible. This is what we are doing. When the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) says: You have withdrawn from vocational training, thus depriving Nova Scotia of the necessary equipment and institutions, I must tell him for his information that I have mentioned several times that we have not withdrawn from this program; on the contrary, we have extended the provisions of capital investments in the area of vocational training. As far as cost is concerned, we are ready to pay not only the cost of operation and administration, but also part of the depreciation of invested capital, so that the province may be in a position to build schools and to equip them properly.
In addition, we are ready to lend money to the provinces to enable them to be adequately equipped for vocational training.
I cannot understand how the hon. member for York South can say that we have withdrawn from this field telling the provinces: You handle this responsibility by yourselves while, in fact, under this new program, we are doing more than we were doing before.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the concept will be settled outside the house, but I also believe that the House of Commons must leave provincial responsibilities with provincial legislatures. If the provinces have a responsibility in the field of juvenile delinquency, they must handle that; on the other hand, if they cannot assume their responsibilities, they can negotiate with the federal government, but it is not for us to get further into areas of provincial jurisdiction.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I believe the debate which has been going on for a while between the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) and the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) is a very good illustration of what I have always thought, namely that the constitution gives powers and jurisdictions to both the federal and provincial levels of government.
Mr. Chairman, we are precisely witnessing an effort to initiate an occupational training plan by a federal government which, because of certain jurisdictional limitations, keeps saying: We cannot do this, we cannot do that, because education comes under provincial jurisdiction.
The hon. member for York South is putting forward an argument which should be supported, in an attempt to have the three-year period, during which an adult should have

April 26, 1967
Occupational Training
played a part in the labour market or have been a member of the labour force, reduced to one year.
The Minister of Manpower and Immigration rises and says: I agree with the objectives mentioned by the hon. member for York South, it is good common sense, I would accept all that, but unfortunately, it cannot be done, because it is another government that has jurisdiction in the educational field. The legislation actually cannot achieve the objective that would be the most advisable and the most desirable, since there are precisely two different jurisdictions. The federal government appropriates certain jurisdictions, recognizes other provincial jurisdictions and the provincial government also has jurisdictions. Therefore, what will the legislation be?
Mr. Chairman, it is going to be precisely what the Minister of Manpower and Immigration stated, and it is going to be what the hon. member for York South would not want it to be, namely a compromise, precisely because there are two jurisdictions, and there will be nine provinces, driving at centralization, that are going to bear the consequences and the after-effects thereof. Nine provinces would like centralization in the field of occupational training and education and will not get it. Why? Because one province is against it and says: Education is our responsibility; it falls under our jurisdiction. The constitution grants us that, so we want to keep our autonomy in the field of education.
The federal government will reach a solution which, in the end, will only be a compromise and will have to take into account some constitutional acts, some jurisdictions, in short some touchy people. That compromise will only endanger the success of a piece of legislation which could reach its objective but will not reach it precisely because it is based on a compromise. As a matter of fact, that is how Canada has been forging ahead from one compromise to another since 1867.
Two trends have been clearly set forth this afternoon in the house. Nine provinces tend as much as possible toward centralization in certain fields, whereas Quebec is tending towards autonomy. There is a clash between the two trends which results in endless compromises and half-measures and, as the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) rightly said earlier, the piece of legislation we will pass today will only be a half-measure, precisely because of the two different trends.

They are opposed and harmful to each other; they cannot exist together and when they are made to do so, they are prejudicial to the full implementation of comprehensive pieces of legislation, either in the field of occupational training or in other fields.
Yesterday, Mr. Chairman, I proposed an amendment on this very matter in order to satisfy both aspirations and avoid the passing of half-measures.
If Quebec could opt out of this legislation and get fiscal compensation in return, the federal government could then legislate for the other nine provinces. But the latter would be ready and willing to give Ottawa as much jurisdiction as possible in this connection, and Ottawa would then be able to pass a much more complete legislation than the present one, because the other provinces would not be opposed to federal intervention in matters under provincial jurisdiction.
For its part, Quebec would get financial compensation, the funds necessary to enable it to administer this same act. The province could administer the act entirely, providing even greater help for those who are to benefit by this legislation. The two groups would be pleased and both aspirations would be satisfied-that of the province of Quebec towards autonomy and that of the nine other provinces toward centralization. The legislation could then be improved, in Quebec as well as in the nine other provinces, for Quebec alone would be in charge of the implementation of this legislation and, therefore, there would be no conflict of jurisdiction such as the one we are witnessing now.
This conflict was admitted by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration himself when he said: If there were no provincial jurisdiction in the field of education, I would agree with the remarks of the hon. member for York South, because we would then be the only government and the only jurisdiction involved.
Mr. Chairman, it is precisely there that something does not work. There are two different tendencies and they would like to compound both. Instead of leaving each one to its own, they try to check them. Quebec should be left free in its tendency towards autonomy and given fiscal equivalence which would give the province sources of income equivalent to what the federal government would spend. Then the Quebec tendency towards autonomy would be respected, and the other nine provinces would-
April 26, 1967


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak to a point of order. I do not believe the hon. member's remarks have any relevance to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for York South regarding a change from the three year period to a one year period.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, the reconciliation is obvious with the amendment, since the Minister of Manpower and Immigration said that he would agree with the hon. member for York South with respect to the amendment, and here I will add the words of the minister: If only we were the only government and the only authority.
I am just speaking about one single government and one jurisdiction, in order to reconcile it all with the notion of the member for York South, who would like to reduce to one year the period during which an adult must have belonged to the labour market.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
This can only be done if the provinces religinquish a portion of their authority in the field of education to Ottawa.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I believe there is an obvious link and I would ask the parliamentary secretary to the minister not to attempt to confuse things. I repeat. I say that this legislation represents another compromise, and one which will only compromise one thing, success.


Jean Marchand: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. It is true that I referred in a broad way, in a sentence, to the Canadian constitution, but that is not the point I was making. My argument dealt with the value of clause 3, or the possibility or desirability of reducing from three to one year the period during which an adult must have been in the labour force.
This is the clause before us now, and I think that if	the hon. member for
Lapointe is basing his discussion on a constitutional problem, he is not complying with the standing orders and we will never see the end of it.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. The
hon. member has presented his argument at length on clause 3. I think he has expressed his views in a rather elaborate way and I would ask him now to deal particularly with clause 3 and especially with the amendment submitted to the committee.
Occupational Training


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, this is exactly what I was talking about, the amendment that tends to reduce from three years to one year the period where an adult must have belonged to the labour force. This is what I was explaining, until the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) submitted his arguments in favour of reducing this period from three years to one year. Then, the minister stood up and said: That would be very good, I would agree with you, and then he added: I would agree, if we were the only government and if there were only one jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the minister is compelled to admit that the arguments of the hon. member for York South were valid and that his amendment would be good if there were only one jurisdiction. However, the minister says: Since there are two jurisdictions, we cannot accept this amendment and improve the legislation. This is what I talked about, and I say that it is precisely because of the permanent conflict between different jurisdictions that we pass measures that do not really achieve their purpose, and we always pass half-measures.
I wanted to suggest to the minister some means of improving the legislation, while respecting every jurisdiction and avoiding conflict. This would bring great advantages not only to those who will need them, but also to a greater number of people.
And this is when I stated that there would no longer be any conflict of jurisdiction, if tax equalization were handed over to Quebec-


Maurice Rinfret: Order. The hon. member has already moved an amendment on tax equalization. In fact, his amendment provided that any province which wanted to do so could establish its own system of occupational training for adults on payment of tax equalization. The house divided on his amendment which was negatived. Consequently, I do not think that the member for Lapointe can bring it up again after having already done so two or three times during his speech. I would ask the hon. member for Lapointe to keep to the amendment now under consideration.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I will not bring up again that problem of tax equalization. If the minister does not approve the idea of tax equalization-and he has shown it-I will ask him at least to find another means which would enable the government to bring in some measures which will not always give

April 26, 1967
Occupational Training
rise to conflicts of jurisdiction, in short some measures which would not compel the minister to say: We would accept your amendment which would improve the legislation, but unfortunately there is a conflict of jurisdiction. This is what the minister said earlier.
If the minister does not want to accept tax equalization, he should find another way, so that he would be in a position to say: We have settled the problem from a jurisdictional point of view. Your amendment, when it no longer conflicts with the different jurisdictions, will improve the act and we will accept it. Can the minister find a point like this one? Can the minister suggest something that would improve the act while taking into consideration the various jurisdictions? Now, we talk of three years, one must have been a member of the labour force for three years, substantially without interruption. What does "substantially without interruption" mean? He has not told us. It might be well for the minister to give us some explanation on this.
Mr. Chairman, according to the latest reports on unemployment-and if anyone needs training courses, the unemployed certainly do-of the 353,000 unemployed in Canada at the present time, 40 per cent have not worked in the last six months.
Does six months' unemployment constitute a substantial interruption? Could the minister answer me on that?
Well, Mr. Chairman, that is the case of 40 per cent of Canada's unemployed persons, more than half of those who will need those courses most. What is the minister going to do for them? Will the minister consider that this is not a substantial interruption?
Now, there are classes of workers who find work only in summer, others only in winter. Well, those people indeed are the ones who have the greatest need for occupational training. Will the minister consider seasonal employees as having been members of the labour force for at least three years substantially without interruption?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I might answer right away. It would be shorter. They will be considered as part of the labour force. If they are unemployed, they are available, they report to the manpower centre, so it does not matter if they are seasonably unemployed or have been out of work for six months.


Gilles Grégoire: Therefore, all of them would be eligible as long as they had been able to report to an office within the last three years?
[Mr. Gregoire.1


Jean Marchand: That is right.


Gilles Grégoire: Now, Mr. Chairman, I wish to congratulate the minister for his answer.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps it will be just as well to clear up this matter now. It seems to me that this amendment should be taken under advisement as to whether it is in order. If the three years is reduced to one year under clause 3 (b) (i) it will be necessary to increase the federal expenditure substantially in order to finance it. I think it is a well known rule that no member of the opposition is in order in proposing such an amendment. Therefore all this discussion is out of order on that ground alone.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, speaking to the point of order, surely under the bill-I am thinking particularly of clause 6-the contracts which the government may make with employers for in-plant training could very easily involve in that program alone more money than the total amount the government has included in the estimates for implementing this program this year. Obviously the government will have to make choices. It will have to make allocations of expenditure and decide how much it will permit to be spent on any part of the program. It seems obvious to me that if the committee were to adopt the sense of this amendment it would simply mean a reallocation of the way in which the money will be spent. There is nothing in the amendment which could change the total amount of money the government proposes to spend on this program. That being the case, I cannot see how the parliamentary secretary can suggest for a moment that the amendment is out of order.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. The hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Munro) raised a point of order about the validity of the amendment moved by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) and I am ready to give my ruling on whether or not this amendment is in order.
In view of the fact that the resolution was moved in very general terms, I feel that the amendment does not go beyond the resolution introduced by the government.
April 26, 1967



At this stage, may I be allowed to quote part of paragraph (3) of citation 250 from Beauchesne's 4th edition:
This principle, however, is apparently disregarded when the recommendation of the crown is given to a resolution empowering the expenditure of public money which, framed in general terms, places no limitation on the amount of expenditure to be authorized by the resolution.
I think, therefore, that the amendment as moved by the hon. member for York South is in order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, before the minister's parliamentary secretary can raise a point of order, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration-


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I would ask the hon. member for Lapointe to limit his remarks to the matter now under consideration, namely the advisability of voting for or against the amendment moved by the hon. member for York South and dealing with the length of time a person, particularly an adult, must have been a member of the labour force substantially without interruption.
Therefore, I ask the hon. member for Lapointe to restrict himself to the amendment, but he may perhaps make further remarks later on, if he so wishes.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I thought I was precisely dealing with the amendment moved by the hon. member for York South, because I endorse that amendment and I stated my reasons earlier.
Naturally, because of the technological changes being effected nowadays and of growing automation, young people tend very often to quit school before having received the proper training, and it is only after a year or a year and a half that they realize their education is inadequate. Now, if they have to wait three years, they can be hurt considerably, in fact, three years is a long time to help them to get back into vocational training.
So if, as the hon. member for York South suggests, they may undertake vocational training after only one year, I believe that one year is sufficient to show the drop-outs, whatever their reason, that they should pursue their studies.
To my mind, a one-year period is quite sufficient and after one year away from their studies, the youngsters can understand that they have not sufficiently advanced their training and their education and they will
Occupational Training
then understand that they need more vocational training. Then, they will have a responsibility. That is why I believe that the period of one year would be sufficient and that is the reason why I will second the amendment introduced by the hon. member for York South.


Maurice Rinfret: Is the committee ready for the question?
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, very briefly I would like to indicate why I and my colleagues, I believe, will support the amendment presented by the hon. member for York South. To save repetition I will make my argument by quoting two paragraphs from page 172 of the first annual review of the Economic Council of Canada which I think put the matter in very good perspective. They read as follows:
There are three major kinds of labour mobility: occupational, industrial and geographical. An unemployed worker may face the need to undergo one, or two, or all three. In some cases, a worker may become displaced because his skill has become obsolete, and cannot be transferred elsewhere.
May I add that this could happen even to a person with only one year of employment in a particular industry.
To be re-absorbed into the labour market, he will have to acquire a new skill. This means retraining. In other cases, a displaced worker may be the victim of a declining industry.
Again this could happen to a person employed for only one year in a particular industry.
This may or may not require his learning a new skill, depending on whether or not his present skill is transferable. If he lives in a community where there are no alternatives, he will have no choice but to move to a new locality if he is to find employment.
The importance of labour mobility has increased in recent years-
I suggest this is a very substantial part of the problem of labour mobility.
-largely as a result of an acceleration in technological change and a more closely interdependent international economy. Occupational skills can be quickly wiped out through a new technical process.
Again this can happen to a person who has been in a job for only one year. Why should he be required to wait two more years

April 26, 1967
Occupational Training
before some help is given him? I continue to quote.
Whole industries can be sent into decline, either from technological advancements, from increasing import competition, or from changes in consumer demand.
We know how rapidly change can occur in that field.
The day is probably gone when a new entrant into the labour force could reasonably expect to make one skill last throughout his working life, or, perhaps, to stay permanently in the same occupation, industry or locality.
These are words of great common sense. If a person, particularly a young person just entering the labour market who has had to put certain amounts of money into furniture, a home, a car and the like, loses his employment and we cannot give him immediate and fast relief, then we are not fulfilling our responsibility. For this reason the official opposition will support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for York South.


Maurice Rinfret: Is the committee ready for the question?
Amendment (Mr. Lewis) negatived: Yeas, 28; nays, 40.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a question to the minister.
According to clause 3(a):
-"adult" means a person whose age is at least one year greater than the regular school leaving age in the province in which he resides;
Could the minister tell us what will be that age in Quebec?


Jean Marchand: The age will be between 14 and 16 for the whole of Canada. I think it is 16 in Ontario and 15 in Quebec. I am not sure, but I can find out. It is between 14 and 16.


Gilles Grégoire: Will the age be fixed or will it depend on the grades completed.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to clause 4 which reads as follows:
That Bill C-278, An Act respecting the occupational training of adults, be amended by adding to clause 4 thereof the following subclause: Reports	"(3) Where the minister and the
or recom- government of a province have estab-mendations lished a joint committee as provided of joint for in section 13 to assess manpower committee needs in that province, each man-to be taken power officer in that province shall, into	in forming his opinion as to whether
account. an occupational training course will increase the earning capacity or opportunities for employment of an adult described in subsection (1), take into account any reports or recommendations made by that committee."


George James McIlraith: I so move.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, this amendment which refers to clause 13 provides for the establishment of an advisory committee, where the provincial authorities will be represented to give opinions or advice to our manpower centre on labour needs, on the possible orientation of the courses, so that the people having to take decisions are as well informed as possible on the local situation.
We have not given in detail, Mr. Chairman, the manner in which the committee will be set up, because we want to discuss this with the provinces and adopt ourselves to the circumstances in each province.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment, but I must have missed something. I do not see where clause 13 of the bill deals with the appointment of joint committees.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member is correct. There will be another amendment, which is why I referred to clause 13.


David Lewis: The bill before us contains no such reference.


Jean Marchand: That is the legal age, Mr. Chairman, which is established by the act.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Jean Marchand: That is right.


David Lewis: Do I understand that the minister intends to move a later amendment inserting such a clause?
On clause 4-Enrolment of adults in occu- Mr. Marchand: Would the hon. member be pational training courses.	satisfied if I read the amendment to clause 13?
[Mr. McCleave.j
April 26, 1967


David Lewis: I am satisfied now if it is the intention to move one.


Jean Marchand: I will read it.
The minister may, at the request of the government of a province, join with that government in the establishment of a joint committee to assess manpower needs in that province.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that in clause 4, subclause 2, the retraining assignment that a manpower officer may make must be to a public institution only. According to clause 5 the federal government has the right to arrange courses in schools other than those operated publicly in the province.


Jean Marchand: The last three lines of that subclause read:
-unless there is no such course suitable for that adult being offered at or in the vicinity of the place of residence of that adult, in which he may be enrolled.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: I did read that, but we are here getting into an area of decision. It seems to me that if the bill is to fulfil its objectives and is to work, facilities existing not only in the public but also in the private sector need to be utilized. I am wondering why it is necessary to include this provision at all. There may be cases where people have to travel quite a distance to attend a public institution which provides a suitable retraining course, whereas there might be a private institution right at hand such as a well established business college which could provide the retraining in the person's own neighbourhood, thus eliminating problems of travel, cost and so on.
It seems that we are delineating between the right of the province under the constitution to jurisdiction over education and the responsibility of the federal government in the field of adult and manpower training. Although the government is responsible for manpower training, it seems to me that through the provisions of this bill the provinces are being asked to take an interest in it. I am wondering whether the minister really sees any need for this provision. The manpower officer has to decide whether or not a particular type of institution can provide training. Provided a particular course meets the needs of an applicant, why cannot the individual concerned determine that he will go to a private school in the vicinity rather than to a public institution farther away?
Occupational Training


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I thought I gave a complete explanation of this. The provincial governments insisted on having some kind of control over this aspect of the legislation. They did not want us to bypass their own institutions. They want to decide at which institutions courses may be attended. As I say, this is because the provincial authorities want to retain jurisdiction and want the federal government to go through their own institutions, and we agreed to this.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I would liek to ask the minister for some information concerning clause 4, subsection (1), reading as follows:
-the manpower officer may, subject to subsection (2), arrange for the enrolment of that adult in any occupational training course that will, In the opinion of the manpower officer, provide training suitable for that adult-
Does that mean that the manpower officer will be able to express his opinion, or will have to express his opinion, and what principles will guide him then? Will he have authority to say that such and such institution, or such and such occupational training course provides suitable training?
Supposing the Quebec government were to put forward occupational training institutions which it thinks suitable, would the manpower officer be authorized to decide that a given institution does not provide adequate training? Clause 4, I repeat, stipulates that the officer may
-arrange for the enrolment of that adult in any occupational training course that will, in the opinion of the manpower officer, provide training suitable for that adult-
Does this mean that the manpower officer will have the right to decide whether or not an occupational training course offered by a province is suitable?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I shall repeat what I have just said, and that I have said many times before, that is: if the provincial authorities want to keep control over their institutions, we agree with them, and the department, the manpower centre, will be unable to assign a worker to a training course unless this course has been approved by the province.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, may I ask what the exact meaning of this sentence is:
-that will, in the opinion of the manpower officer, provide training suitable for that adult-

April 26, 1967
Occupational Training
On what will be based the opinion of this manpower officer? Will it be on the man? I would like to have some clarification on one sentence, before clause 4 is passed.
I am willing to believe the minister when he tells us that the provinces are going to keep their authority. I could be sure of it, but according to the letter of the clause-I do not say it is now in the mind of the minister-does not this sentence allow manpower officials to judge, at a certain time the institutions giving these occupational training courses?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, there is also clause 5 which will be even more precise. Besides, there will be an amendment to clause 5 which will indicate that the provincial government will have to agree, even as far as private institutions are concerned.


Maurice Rinfret: Does clause 4 carry? [English]


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 5-Contracts with provinces authorized.
Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to subclause 3 of clause 5. The amendment would be as follows:
Where, pursuant to section 4, a manpower officer arranges for the enrolment of an adult described in that section in an occupational training course that is not operated by a province or by a provincial or municipal authority in a province but that is approved by the government of the province in which the course is operated, the Minister may authorize the payment of such charges for tuition or otherwise for the training of that adult in the course as are provided for by the regulations.
Therefore, should the province be unable to provide a course required by an individual, well, the latter could be assigned to another course and even outside the province, with the authority of the province.

The Minister of Public Works is moving this amendment, Mr. Chairman.


George James McIlraith: I so move.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
[Mr. Gregoire.l
On clause 6-Contracts with employers operating training courses.
Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment of the same type. Clause 6 deals with occupational training in a plant, and provincial governments insisted on the fact that the requirements as to the courses provided in plants should be the same as those provided for other institutions.
Therefore, I should like to ask the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) to move the following amendment:
The Minister shall not enter into a contract under this section with any employer described in subsection (1) or (3) unless he is satisfied that the content of the occupational training course described in that subsection has been the subject of consultation by the employer with the government of the province in which the course is operated or to be operated.


David Orlikow: In a general way, can the minister explain how much the government contemplates spending on this part of the program? What percentage of the total expenditure is involved? Also, how will the department select employers from the hundreds of applications that employers in this country will very likely make?


Jean Marchand: Where courses are organized by employers we will not pay for equipment, buildings or depreciation. We will pay for the direct cost provided that the course is of direct benefit to the worker and is not related to a skill useful only to his employer. We are ready to pay living allowances to workers receiving wages provided they do not exceed the $35 to $90 a week figures set out. We may pay living allowances if the worker who is training is not paid his full wages. We will pay for the direct cost of the course and that is all, and we will pay that provided the course results in a skill useful not only to the worker's particular employer but useful in other industries. Those are the restrictions. That means that on-the-job training will not be paid for except where workers are likely to be displaced on account of automation or technological change. We will pay if the worker is to be displaced and retrains for a new job. Under those circumstances we will pay for on-the-job training, but that will be the only exception. Outside that we will pay only for courses that are general in character.


David Orlikow: That is very interesting but it is not what I asked about. I believe that for
April 26, 1967

the coming year $130 million has been estimated as the program's cost. What percentage of this amount will be devoted to the program 1 have referred to? Also, how will the department decide which applicants it will accept and which applicants it will turn down?


Jean Marchand: I can only answer the first part of the question. It is estimated that about 10 per cent of our total expenditure will be devoted to that part of the program.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Robert Jardine McCleave: I wish to ask the minister a question. Will he assure us that under this clause people in one province can go to another province for training? This matter is of vital importance to the Atlantic area which is becoming industrialized. Sometimes it is necessary to send our people out of the province to be trained and bring them back later.


Jean Marchand: I am not sure I understand the question. Does the hon. member mean, is it possible under this scheme to train workers outside their province?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Yes.


Jean Marchand: That is possible if the courses are not available in the worker's province, of course.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 7-Training allowances authorized.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Under this clause are the training allowances broad enough to include the cost of transportation for those people I referred to who have to seek training in another province? Would a person moving from Newfoundland to Quebec for special training receive a transportation allowance?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, $15 a week is provided in the global allowances for travelling. We cannot go beyond that. Under the mobility program announced a few weeks ago it is possible for travelling expenses to be paid. The hon. member must take into account expenses paid under the mobility program.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I was aware of that program but I thought its purpose was to move workers from one area to another where there were jobs. My question involves the moving of workers to other areas for training.
Occupational Training
If the minister is satisfied that travelling allowances are authorized in one way or another I shall be satisfied to take his word for that.


Jean Marchand: Yes, it is so.


David Orlikow: I wish to ask the minister about something which often arises. Let us take an example of a man who has passed his manpower interview and is authorized to take a course. It may be quite likely that because not enough people are ready to take a course its beginning may be delayed for some time. If the man has to wait for two, three, four or even five weeks he may become discouraged. He may decide to take another poorly paying job. He may lose his nerve or change his mind. My question simply is: Is there any provision for the payment of living allowances while he waits for his course to begin?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Chairman, allowances are not provided to cover this period. If there is such a period it will have to be taken care of by unemployment insurance and not by the living allowances under this program.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Robert William Prittie: I should like to draw attention to a point which does not involve the direct responsibility of the minister but which does concern the Minister of Labour who is in his place. The allowances to be paid under this plan will be more generous than the amounts now paid by the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Has there been consultation between the two departments with regard to this matter? Will unemployement insurance payments be kept at their present level in order to encourage people to take part in this program?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Perhaps I might be permitted to say a word on that question. It has already been announced in the house that consideration is being given to possible changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act and in the regulations. The matter is under active study by an interdepartmental committee of senior officials which include officials from both the Department of Manpower and Immigration and the Department of Labour.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 8-Rate of training allowances.
Alfred Dryden Hales: The amount to be paid per week is spelled out in subclause 1(a) but I do not see any definition of what constitutes a week. I take it a week will consist of five days. How many hours will it contain?

April 26, 1967
Occupational Training
I have another question to ask. As I understand it the provinces will be sending the federal government the bills with respect to this training. Will their invoices bear the stamp of the auditor of the province from which the invoice is sent? Again, will the provincial books be made available to the Auditor General or his staif?


Jean Marchand: Is the hon. member speaking of the allowances?


Alfred Dryden Hales: Yes.


Jean Marchand: They will be paid directly to the workers by our centres.


Alfred Dryden Hales: What about the definition of a week?


Jean Marchand: It is a five-day week, the normal week for training courses, and it usually corresponds to 35 hours.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Will the invoices submitted by the provinces bear the stamp of the auditor of the province?


Jean Marchand: As far as allowances are concerned there will be no invoices from the provinces. We do not act through the provinces at all. The allowances will be paid directly to the workers.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Yes, but before paying the workers the department must have an invoice. Otherwise there would be no means of knowing how much should be paid.


Jean Marchand: Of course we will have a certificate from an institution, I presume, saying that Mr. So-and-So attended a course as planned. But as far as allowances are concerned we shall pay them directly.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
On clause 10-Research and development agreement.
Robert William Prittie: There is one point here which bothers me. The minister has stated that the expenses of training are being undertaken completely by the federal government which is paying both the tuition fees and living allowances. This, he says, represents a new departure under the present plan. Could he tell us why the government is not taking over all the research costs necessary to maintain this program? It would be logical to do so when the central government is paying 100 
per cent of the other costs. Some provinces might have difficulty in meeting these research costs.


Jean Marchand: In all probability these research projects will not be confined to adult training. They might relate to some educational sector for which the federal government has no responsibility and this is why we have a joint program.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 11-Loans for purchase or construction of occupational training facilities.
Jean Marchand: I have an amendment to clause 11. It reads as follows:
That Bill C-278 be amended by striking out line 35 on page 5 and substituting therefor the following:
"11. (1) The Minister may, subject to regulations made by"
I will ask my colleague the Minister of National Defence to move it.


Mr. Hellyer:: I so move.


Jean Marchand: The purpose of this amendment is to allow the minister to approve certain loans once the general terms and conditions have been established by the governor in council. You will understand, Mr. Chairman, that it will be necessary to make many small loans of say $10,000 or $15,000, and provided the general conditions are accepted by the governor in council the minister should have authority to make these loans in accordance with those conditions.


Mr. McQuaid:: My question is directed to the main clause rather than to the amendment. The clause purports to allow a province to borrow from the federal government money required presumably for the construction of vocational training schools. The words are:
-for the purpose of assisting the province or a provincial or municipal authority in the province to purchase or construct occupational training facilities that will be used to provide training to adults-
And so on.
Could this be interpreted widely enough to allow provinces to borrow money to purchase equipment for these schools or to make additions to training schools which have already been built? I notice that while the scheme was in effect from 1961 to 1967 a total of $128 million was spent by the government of Canada on the provision of equipment and alterations to existing schools. This illustrates the cost of equipping and repairing these
April 26. 1967

schools. Could this clause be interpreted widely enough to allow provinces to borrow money for the purpose of adding to equipment, replacing worn out equipment or making additions to schools which are found to be too small?


Jean Marchand: I am sure it covers additions to buildings. As far as equipment is concerned I will try to have the information available before the end of this discussion.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Roger E. Régimbal: What will be done in cases where loans have been made and later the building in question is put to some other use by the local or provincial authority, the plan having been found unworkable, for example? What would happen in such a case?


Jean Marchand: We would not be concerned with what use was made of the building. But these are loans and they will have to be repaid even though a decision is made to use the building for some other purpose.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Roger E. Régimbal: Let us make up our minds. Is it to prepare training centres or not? Let us suppose they are maintained as training centres for two years and then put to commercial use or sold for some reason.
TTranslation]


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, it is difficult for me to foresee all the circumstances that may arise. The purpose of the loan is certainly to build occupational training institutions or establishments.
Now, it may well happen that, during the thirty-year period, those schools will no longer serve the purposes for which they were built. Obviously, in such a case, the loan would still be repayable. But I am not in a position to foresee all the circumstances. There is as much guarantee under those loans as there was under the old system of capital investment in occupational training schools.


Roger E. Régimbal: But I am referring to vocational school purposes.


Jean Marchand: That is not that certain, Mr. Chairman, and it is very difficult. Of course, when we lend the money, we will have to make sure that it will indeed be for that purpose. However, how can we tell whether that institution will always serve the same purpose? Well, then, that I cannot promise. The only thing I can say is that the loan will have to be paid back in any case.
Occupational Training


Roger E. Régimbal: Just the same, it is stated that the loan is made, but why? If the objective is not pursued, it seems to me that the answer should be available beforehand. We must not proceed at full speed toward a wasteland. It seems to me that this possibility should have been foreseen and maybe it was.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I think that when we reach agreements with the provinces we will try of course to foresee what might happen and how we will dispose of the properties when they are sold, if they must be sold or affected to other uses.
Now I will answer the hon. member who asked a question earlier.

It includes additions to machinery, equipment and so forth. The amortization period is a maximum of 30 years and less for shortlife equipment.


Melvin James McQuaid: Do I understand that money is available to purchase equipment repayable over a period of 30 years?


Jean Marchand: Yes, except for short-life equipment.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 12-Regulations.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I have two small amendments to subclause 2 to amend clause 12.
The first is as follows:
That Bill No. C-278, an act concerning the occupational training of adults, be amended by deleting paragraph (a) of subclause (1) of clause 12, on page 6, and substituting therefor the following:
(a) defining the expressions 'instruction designed for university credit", "full-time instruction", "part-time instruction", 'labour force", "training on the job" and "regular school leaving age" for the purposes of this act;


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I so move.


Jean Marchand: The purpose of this amendment is to relate clause 12 to the amendment we made concerning part-time courses. In the first text there was a limitation of 52 weeks for the training courses. We have changed that and used the expression 1,820 hours, and this amendment is just to relate clause 12 to the other one.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
April 26. 1967
Occupational Training
Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleague to move another amendment to clause 12 as follows:
That Bill C-278, an act respecting the occupational training of adults, be amended by deleting subclause (2) of clause 12 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
(2) Regulations made pursuant to paragraph (g) of subsection (1) may, after consultation with the government of a province, be made applicable specifically to that province or to specific areas within that province.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I so move.


Jean Marchand: The purpose of this amendment is to provide for consultation with the province on any regulations providing for a schedule or method of training allowances in that province which applies only in that province. We have discussed the question of regional differences, and some provinces do not like to have a fixed amount. Of course we will insist on the minimum and the maximum, but inside this minimum and maximum we are ready to make a schedule with the provinces.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the clause as amended carries may I ask a question. When this bill has been passed and the authority to pass regulations under it has been conferred upon the minister, making an honest man out of him, will the government be re-enacting the adult occupational training regulations which were passed by order in council P.C. 1967/585 on March 30? If so, will they be re-enacted in the same form or will there be alterations?


Jean Marchand: A few amendments are being made to the bill now and I think we will have to adopt new regulations that will take these amendments into account.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, these regulations which were conceived in sin will have a very short life.


Mr. MacRae:: Mr. Chairman, the minister knows that when I spoke on second reading I advised his able parliamentary secretary that I would be proposing an amendment in due course. The purpose of my amendment was to ensure that the resources of private enterprise, more specifically of private schools, would be employed to the maximum feasible extent in the various programs described in this bill. However, as discussion on the bill has progressed and as the minister has answered questions on second reading and in committee of the whole, I have come to the

conclusion that the government is indeed very sympathetic and very much aware of the problems of the private schools, their wish to participate, and also their ability to participate to the maximum possible extent. If I might again have just very briefly the assurance of the minister on this point, it would not be necessary to propose the amendment of which I believe he has notice.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I think we will be happy to collaborate with private institutions which are certified and recognized by the provincial government.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I have given a little more thought to the legal advice which the minister has had about the meaning of the words "labour force". I have discussed it with a fellow lawyer. Without entering into an argument on this point, I must say to him that it seems to me it would be absurd even to suggest that the words "labour force" when they appear in an act passed by the parliament of Canada would automatically apply to the labour force of China, Italy, France, Belgium, Denmark or the moon. This to me would appear to be legal nonsense. It seems to me that an act passed by the parliament of Canada when it talks about groups of people refers to Canadian people and groups of Canadian people unless the act specifically says it refers to something else.
I urge the minister to make this clear so that those persons who have not heard his explanation will know where they stand. I have in mind those who sponsor immigrants. This should be made clear so that the immigrant who comes to Canada will know that under section 12 the minister has the authority to define "labour force". It is so defined in respect of the illegitimate child conceived in sin to whom my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred a moment ago. I would merely urge upon the minister and his advisers that when they write the regulations defining "labour force" they do so in such a way that it will be clear in the legislation that the minister and the department intend to pay attention to the years of service in a labour force of an immigrant before he came here.


Jean Marchand: I understand. When we redraft or amend the regulations we will take into account the point which the hon. member has made.


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, before clause 12 is voted on I should like to ask the Minister
April 26, 1967

of Manpower and Immigration this question. Does he not feel that up to this time he has had all the authority he needed to make all the regulations he wished to make? If not, by what authority did he make the regulations I hold in my hand which run to 15 pages and bear a short title saying that these regulations may be cited as the adult occupational training regulations? How did these regulations come into force if it is necessary to pass clause 12 now stating that the governor in council may make regulations?


Jean Marchand: This question was raised in the house at least twice and has been answered. I have nothing else to add.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was raised but not answered.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, clause 12(1) (c) provides that:
(1) The governor in council may make regulations,
(c) prescribing, for the purposes of subsection (1) of section 5, the method of determining the costs incurred by a province or a provincial or municipal authority in providing training in an occupational training course to adults described in that subsection:
Does that mean that the amount of costs will be determined by federal regulations? What amounts will be paid by the federal government? Who will determine the costs incurred by the provincial government in connection with adult training? I should like to know how we will proceed.
It is stipulated here that regulations will be made in that respect. But will the provincial government calculate the costs of facilities, laboratories, teachers, paper, books, and so on, and present the bill to the federal government? Or will there be federal regulations stipulating how much an electrician, or a plumber, and so on, enrolled in an occupational training course will receive per week? Could the minister give us some information on this subject?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, we will take into account the actual cost. Naturally, we want to discuss it. We buy services. This cost will include not only tuition fees but administration and depreciation costs. Naturally, we want to be able to discuss the matter, but we are willing to pay for the actual cost of occupational training courses as calculated by the provinces and checked by us.
Occupational Training


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, if I understand well, it is more or less the provincial government which would send its bill, and paragraph (c) woud merely confer whatever authority is granted under these regulations, that is, to discuss fees if the department finds the costs too high. However, it is in fact the provincial government which will send the bill, whereas the federal government, under this paragraph, will be free to discuss the matter according to existing rules.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, we already have rules and standards. We shall discuss according to such standards and come to some understanding; however, the point is to pay for the true value of the courses provided.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask another question concerning paragraph (e) subsection I of said section 12. Paragraph (e) provides that:
(D The governor in council may make regulations
(e) providing for the charges for tuition or otherwise that may be paid for the training of an adult in an occupational training course that is not operated by a province or a provincial or municipal authority in a province;
Again, does this mean that, in the case of institutions that are not operated by province, the federal government can tell a private institution: Our regulations are the following. We pay so much for an occupational training course. Or will it be the private institution that will send its bill, subject to discussion with the federal department?
It is about the same kind of question, except that this has to do with a private institution and I would like to know if in the case of a provincial government, for instance, that government would be the one to send its bill, even if it had to discuss about it. I would like to know if it is going to be the same thing in the case of private institutions, since the wording is far from being the same.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
In paragraph (c), as regards provincial institutions, it is stipulated that there will be regulations prescribing the method of determining the costs incurred by a province, while in paragraph (e), as regards private institutions or institutions in other provinces, it is said that regulations may be established providing for the charges for tuition.
Paragraph (c) deals with the method of determination which may be followed jointly by the provinces and the federal government,

April 26. 1967
Occupational Training
while paragraph (e) deals only with regulations providing lor the "charges for tuition", which means more or less that the federal government will come forward with its regulations and say: "In our case, it is so much per week or per year for an occupational training course." I should like to know what the minister thinks about that.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, it has been agreed with the provinces that we will have some kind of contracts to arrive at the costs. Both parties have agreed to this. As for private institutions, if there is no contract, we will negotiate the costs and pay them whatever the costs are, if we agree on them.
No one will send us a bill without our being able to discuss the costs too.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I understand that because the minister told us this morning that he has his auditors. But here is what I would like to know. If, for instance, an agreement cannot be arrived at, what happens then?
In paragraph (c) is described the method of determining the costs incurred by a province. What happens then? Does the federal department come along and say: We have regulations prescribing the method of determining the costs incurred by the province. Therefore, you must abide by our regulations.
Supposing there is no agreement, in my opinion, the federal government then assumes a great deal of authority.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, this is a hypothetical question, because there are already agreements governing such matters.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a question to the minister. He has told us that up to now contracts or agreements have been concluded with the provinces.
With respect to the province of Quebec, has there been up to now any agreement concluded on occupational training courses and have the terms concerning the occupational training courses been established and agreed upon by the federal department when Quebec officials met a few weeks ago the officials of the minister's department?
Is there any existing agreement and has there been any arrangement about the enforcement of the federal legislation with reference to the part played by the provincial government in certain fields or has there been no agreement at all so far?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, we have been told about the technicalities of the courses; there is no understanding on this matter since it comes under provincial jurisdiction and we have nothing to do with it.
As for the rest, meetings were held with the high officials of the province, who made representations, and an agreement was reached. In fact, I believe that the province of Quebec, as the Prime Minister mentioned at the last federal-provincial conference, is ready to try out this legislation.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, the minister says that the matter of agreement is hypothetical, because agreements are already made; it is the minister who just stated that. Are we then to conclude that as far as vocational training is concerned, agreements were arrived at between his department and the Quebec government? Have such agreements been reached?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, there is no capital investment in the province of Quebec; that is under the federal legislation which has been extended. There is no special agreement; when the province wants the money, it can have it provided it meets the requirements of the act.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister failed to understand my question or it may be that I did not make myself clear, but paragraphs (c) and (e) have nothing to do with facilities or institutions. They deal with tuition fees for the adults who will take the training courses.
I asked the minister specific questions about that in order to find out who would establish the tuition fees should any disagreement arise. Will they be established under the federal regulations or according to the cost of the bill submitted by the federal government to the provincial authorities?
The minister told me then: There cannot be any disagreement since agreements have already been reached. That is exactly what I would like to know.
Have agreements already been reached between the Quebec and Ottawa governments about the tuition fees of those who will take the vocational training courses?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, how many times will I have to repeat it? He can ask the question fifteen times if he wants to, but I will say that we agree on the standards;
April 26. 1967

we know what scale will be followed to reimburse the provinces and the provinces have agreed to it.


Gilles Grégoire: Well, Mr. Chairman, if there is full agreement on the standards, why make regulations? That is the point on which I would like to know where we stand.
The minister says he has answered several times but I am not the first to say today that he does not always reply to the question, he sometimes tries to talk around the question.
What I want to know is not the standards of training, construction, accommodation and facilities, but school fees. What I should like to know, no more and no less, is that inevitably the federal government will have to pay something for that.
Is the federal department going to say: We have made regulations and we will be paying you so much per pupil? Or is the provincial government going to say: to give professional training to one person costs so much and here is the bill? What would be a second method.
Will there be a third method? Negotiations?
That is what I would like to know. Have agreements been reached between Quebec and Ottawa setting limits on the fees to be paid?
I am not asking about the cost of the facilities or buildings, but about the fees for training. I may have expressed my question poorly. Can the minister tell us if agreements have been reached, at least on that score?


Maurice Rinfret: Does clause 12 carry?


Gilles Grégoire: One last question, Mr. Chairman, on clause 12.
I asked this question yesterday, and I should like to get an answer, for it concerns the definition of expressions which is dealt with in paragraph (a):
-"instruction designed for university credit"-
Could the minister tell us whether that expression has been defined yet?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, there is an understanding with the provinces as to levels of instruction.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, that is not at all what 1 asked.
I asked whether a definition has been given to the expression:
-"instruction designed for university credit"-
Occupational Training
Although there may be an understanding with the provinces, we still do not know what definition has been given to that expression.
What I wish to know is whether a definition has been given to the expression:
-"instruction designed for university credit"-

Clause as amended agreed to.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I should like to introduce an amendment at this stage and, with your permission, I will ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) to move it.

That Bill C-278 be amended by adding, immediately after clause 12, the following clause:
13. The minister may, at the request of a government of a province, join with that government in the establishment of a joint committee to assess manpower needs in that province; and by renumbering clauses 13 to 23 as clauses 14 to 24, respectively.
This is the amendment I referred to earlier.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, could the minister indicate the necessity for the words "at the request of the government of a province"? I note the same words in the regulations. This is obviously a very important piece of machinery for any kind of civilized development. I do not suggest for one moment that the federal government should impose a joint committee because obviously if the committee is to be a joint committee it must be just that. Why can the minister not make a suggestion or request to a province in this regard? Why should he sit back and wait for a request? Surely this would not be an invasion of provincial authority.
I suggest that the clause should state that the minister may join with the government of a province in the establishment of a joint committee to assess manpower needs, whether the initiative is taken by the minister or by the province. I am sure he does not intend this, but as the clause reads now it appears that the minister is sloughing off the initiative to some other authority.


Jean Marchand: This involves the kind of committee we would not like to impose on a province. If all the hon. member wants is to preserve the right of the federal government to ask for the establishment of such a committee if necessary, I have no objection to the suggestion.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
April 26, 1967
Occupational Training
On clause 14-Recovery of overpayments.
Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, is this the clause which was formerly numbered 13?


Maurice Rinfret: This is clause 14 which was formerly clause 13.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I should like to refer briefly to this clause because it provides for the recovery of overpayments to those availing themselves of the privileges of this program. When my colleague, the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke, spoke on this measure yesterday he drew attention to the fact that in the past difficulty has been experienced in the recovery of other overpayments made in respect of old age pensions, war veterans allowances and so on. In many cases recovery has resulted in real hardship to people who have been placed in the position of knowing hardly where to turn in order to meet the requirement. What method does the minister propose using?
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
The clause says that the amount may be recovered at any time as a debt due to Her Majesty or may be retained out of any subsequent amount payable to the person as a training allowance. Does this mean, in the event the person is not still in training, that court proceedings can be taken against him and every possible method used in order to force him to repay something which he received through no fault of his, not because of false information given by him but solely because of an error on the administrative side? I wonder what method the minister is proposing to use in order to force these repayments.


Jean Marchand: This is quite a technical point, Mr. Chairman. I will give the information later to the hon. member. At this moment I do not know what method will be used.This is not a very satisfactory answer but I must confess I have not looked into that aspect of the problem.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I hope the minister will consider this matter very carefully because it is of real importance to those who may inadvertently be the recipients of overpayments. Therefore I hope the minister will give every consideration to this problem.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, the question here is to secure repayment from those who might have been overpaid. There are clauses like this in many bills and I have often seen

people who had to repay in other fields. For instance, I know of some people who were overpaid by unemployment insurance and later such amounts had been deducted from their old age pension when time came for them to receive old age pension, at the age of 68 today.
I should like to ask the minister whether someone having been overpaid under clause 14, formerly clause 13, could find the amount deducted from his old age pension, as has been done recently in cases of unemployment insurance?


Jean Marchand: I do not believe so, Mr. Chairman, but the only thing I can say to the house is that we shall proceed as humanely as possible, taking all circumstances into account.


Gilles Grégoire: This answer, Mr. Chairman, may be full of good intentions, but it must be admitted that the minister tries to answer as humanely as possible according to the circumstances. I admit that this comes from a good heart and I cannot but congratulate the minister, however, the experience of the past is there.
Take for instance, the case of a man who I know was getting unemployment insurance -that has something to do with the matter under discussion since it is a matter of interpretation and overpayments-and who had a dependant, his mother. A bachelor in his twenties, he was supporting his mother. Of course, with the $26 per week he was getting, he could not pay for everything. Since his mother was getting a pension of $30 a month, it was decided that he was not his mother's sole support. So, for the previous eleven months his unemployment insurance payment was reduced from $26 to $23, which means that he had to pay back an overpayment of $3 per week for 47 or 48 weeks.
I am sure that when the legislation was passed, that clause was inspired by humane and compassionate reasons and there was no question at all that the unemployed should suffer because of a defective wording. But this is happening because of a different interpretation given to such a section. That individual was even deprived of his unemployment insurance benefits during several weeks, even though his benefits had been reduced.
Therefore, I wonder whether clause 13, now renumbered 14, is specific enough. I wonder if a person is allowed enough latitude to prove that no overpayments have been collected.
April 26, 1967

They will tell me that, in this instance, it involves alleged overpayments by the department to an individual. They tell me that if the individual is not satisfied, he can always apply to appeal boards or state his case before the courts.
That is already the case for the Unemployment Insurance Commission but I notice, unfortunately, that individuals are not fortunate or do not have enough opportunities to assert their rights.
In order to avoid the dangers which were left in that legislation passed in too great a hurry in the past, because certain viewpoints were ignored, I wonder whether, in clause 14, the hon. minister could not provide for certain regulations, so that the individual who has been accused of receiving overpayments, might ascertain his rights without any obligation to assume all the expenses involved as, for instance, in the case of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
I wonder whether it would not be advisable to include in that clause provisions giving an individual from whom the department wants to recover certain payments, a chance to express his viewpoint without incurring too many expenses.
I wonder also whether the minister could not mention more specifically in the clause, that the old age pension of someone having received an overpayment will not be garnished.


Jean Marchand: We will take all that into consideration when implementing the act, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 15 to 20 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 21-Agreements authorized jor occupational training facilities.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, this concerns new clause 21, dealing with agreements with a province as to capital expenditures incurred by the province on facilities for occupational training courses.
Can the minister tell us whether, under that act, the province will be able to set up vocational training facilities, receive the contributions provided for from the federal government and, at the same time, give in these same facilities receiving federal contributions for construction and expenses, courses to
Occupational Training
trainees other than those taking vocational training courses under the act?
In other words, is it possible to build a vocational training institution, with the contributions and loans provided in the act, even though, besides the people taking occupational training courses under the present act, other students take courses there from the same teachers, using the same laboratories? Could the minister tell us whether that would be possible?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, those grants or those loans are made by the federal government in the case of occupational training schools. As regards implementation, this is a question of judgment and also of proportion, and I cannot answer otherwise than by saying this: should there be, by accident, students taking other courses, I do not think the purposes of the institution would be changed for all that, only there is a certain limit and one has to decide about each case.


Gilles Grégoire: Could we come to the following conclusion: According to reasonable limits, provided that there is no principle going directly against the admission of students other than those who are attending the courses, provided there are reasonable limits observed by the province. Is that the conclusion we can infer from the remarks of the minister?


Jean Marchand: I said precisely what I wanted to say, Mr. Chairman, I cannot say anything else.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 22 and 23 agreed to.
On clause 24-Coming into force. [Translation]
Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) to move the following amendment:
That Bill No. C-278, an act respecting the occupational training of adults, be amended by the deletion of clause 23 thereof.
It is the clause providing that the bill shall come into force on the first day of April.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister whether it would not have been a good idea to amend the clause to make it read, "This act shall be considered to have come into force on the first day of April", thereby covering the minister's sins?

April 26, 1967
Occupational Training


Jean Marchand: I do not admit I am guilty of anything, so I do not accept the hon. member's amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On clause 1-Short title.
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, on clause 1, a question concerning an item that has not been provided for in any other clause.
This legislation, Bill No. C-278, sets a limit of 1820 hours of occupational training for any individual.
Supposing someone is hired for a period of four or five years and there realizes that he is not sufficiently trained to keep his job or that demand has fallen off as far as this job is concerned and he loses his job. He will want to take further training. Could he do so under this act after a certain period of time?


Jean Marchand: Is the hon. member for Lapointe anxious to start his studies over again?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I believe this remark reveals the attitude the minister has adopted since consideration of this bill has started. I believe the minister could answer when the members ask him questions, instead of playing the smart aleck.
I am not the only one who complains that he does not answer. Several members here have said that the minister did not listen to questions and does not answer very much. Maybe it is because he is too tired. Maybe he is not used to work so long without interruption or maybe it is his trip in the Kenogami riding or the disappointments he had, which have put him in a bad mood.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask again my question which is quite in order. Can the minister tell us whether an individual who will have attended those occupational training courses which will have made it possible for him to find employment, and who after a few years, will realize that he is in a line which does not have enough openings for him to remain in it, or that he is not yet adequately qualified, will be able to take advantage of a second stage of occupational training under this legislation?


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Gilles Grégoire: It would have been so simple for the minister to answer me like that.


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


Hon. Jean Chretien (for the Minister of Finance) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-280, to amend the Income Tax Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) gave the house notice of his intention to introduce this bill at the close of business on March 10 last. Because it is provided in the bill that it take effect from March 31, 1967, he had hoped that parliament would be able to deal with it before that date. However, as hon. members know, the parliamentary timetable made this impossible.
The purpose of the bill is to terminate, effective March 31, the tax period to which the special 5 per cent refundable tax on business profits applies and also to terminate on the same date the period of collection of the tax from corporations. In the case of trusts which are subject to the tax, payments may need to be made in June or September, but the over-all liability will be reduced in the same way as for corporations. Corporations may have to make some adjusting payment after March where their monthly instalments have not amounted to the precise amount of the tax as and when it is determined. This means that payments of that tax for April 1967 will not be required.
It will be recalled that this refundable tax was imposed as a special temporary measure to divert and immobilize temporarily a modest portion of the flows of funds that are the chief sources of finance for capital expenditures of businesses. It has applied to all corporations that are liable for income tax and to those trusts that have income from a business or from rentals. It was made effective for an 18-month period from May 1, 1966 to October 31, 1967 and was made payable for corporations in monthly instalments starting on May 31 last.
The tax was imposed on a special base which was devised to approximate the cash flow of a corporation. For example, in addition to taxable income as computed for income tax purposes this base included the
April 26, 1967

amount of capital cost allowances and depletion allowances deducted in computing income. On the other hand, the base was reduced by amounts paid as income taxes and by amounts paid in repayment of long-term debt.
This short Bill C-280 is quite simple. It merely substitutes the words "March 31, 1967" for the words "October 31, 1967" where they appear in the present law. This will apply to the definition of the tax period, which will reduce the total liability for the tax to a corresponding degree. It will also apply to the dates on which payments of tax have to be made.
No change is proposed at this time in the provisions for repaying the tax. The law will continue to provide that the tax shall be refunded, with interest at the rate of 5 per cent, at such time or times as the governor in council may prescribe by regulation, but that in any case this time shall not be less than 18 months or more than 36 months after the date on which the instalment was due, or the date on which it was paid if that is later.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
My main remarks today relate to the reasons for proposing this bill. They apply, too, to an associated measure, which had the same purpose as this bill, on which action was taken by the government last month. This measure was the provision in the Income Tax Act regulations under which capital assets of certain classes acquired in the period after the date of the March 1966 budget but before October 1 of this year would be subject to deferred capital cost allowances. On March 22 last the Minister of Finance tabled order in council P.C. 1967-533 of March 21, which changed from October 1 to April 1 of this year the date at which this period was to come to an end.
It will be recalled that when the minister brought down the budget for 1966-67 on March 29 last year he reported the Canadian economy was under a good deal of strain. Most sectors and regions of the economy were working to full capacity and shortages of skilled labour had become evident. The pace of economic expansion was such indeed that unless some of the demands for goods and services and labour and other resources were moderated and postponed, the pressure upon prices and wages would become inflationary and there would be danger that the boom would culminate in an economic recession.
As a consequence of the conditions at the time, the Minister of Finance proposed a
Income Tax Act
number of measures designed to pace and to prolong the prosperity. Among these were two measures of a temporary nature designed to moderate the rate of increase in the capital expenditures of business and to stretch it out over a longer period. This included the refundable tax on the cash profits of corporations and certain trusts, the subject matter of the bill before the house, and a deferral of a portion of the capital cost allowances which could be claimed on assets acquired after the budget date. In explaining the purpose and advantages of these measures, he mentioned that each could be terminated on short notice without serious effects, should our economic circumstances change substantially. This was in accordance with the general policy he had stated in that budget of keeping our fiscal policies flexible and readily adaptable to changing circumstances.
During the months following the budget the necessity for restraint in the economy became even more evident than it had been earlier. The activity and market effects of the excessive economic demands helped to produce excessive price and wage pressures of dangerous proportions. Some moderation of these demands was evident during the summer months but was not sufficient to accomplish what was necessary in regard to the increases in prices and costs.
On September 8, therefore, the Minister of Finance made a major statement in the House of Commons in which he outlined certain decisions the government had taken in order
to further dampen the inflationary pressures on the economy. These related chiefly to government expenditures. He also called upon all Canadians to moderate their demands on the economy. Hon. members will recall the rather forceful public debates to which these measures gave rise, particularly of course the deferment of certain government programs.
The last three months of 1966 and the early months of this year have been moderation in the rate of increase in demands on the Canadian economy. It appeared by December that the rate of expansion had moderated to a much more sustainable level. Consequently the supplementary budget of December 19, introduced for the purpose of financing the guaranteed income supplement for old age security pensions, was essentially a neutral budget. My colleague the Minister of Finance said at the time that the economy seemed to be in a state of delicate balance and that our economic policies should be designed then neither to stimulate nor to restrain economic activity. He stated that should the economy

April 26, 1967
Incovie Tax Act
show signs of weakness we would be prepared to act quickly to relax the temporary fiscal restraints of the March budget.
I do not wish today to anticipate the budget he will be bringing down next month, nor the white paper on the Canadian economy which will accompany it. However, I will refer briefly to the events in 1967 which led the Minister of Finance to terminate the temporary measure introduced in the March 1966 budget. During the early months of the year the more moderate rate of growth of the economy continued. When my colleague introduced this bill in March, and when the government acted on the deferred capital cost allowances, it seemed evident that the rate of expansion this year would likely be considerably less than last year and within our potential capacity, taking into account the growth of the labour force and the increased industrial capacity acquired in recent years. Consequently he said that restraints upon capital expenditures seemed no longer to be required. The slower rate of growth in capital expenditures was subsequently shown in detail in the survey of private and public investment intentions, undertaken jointly by the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. It showed that planned investment spending in Canada in 1967 would increase only moderately over
1966	investment expenditures, in contrast with the large increases in 1966 over 1965.
We were also influenced in our decision by the signs of moderation in the rate of increase of United States economic activity. In particular, the survey of the intentions of American business in regard to its investment plans for 1967, conducted by the department of commerce and the securities and exchange commission, showed an increase much less for
1967	than for last year. It was not clear what was likely to happen to the rate of economic expansion in the United States in the latter half of the year, but it seemed fairly evident that during the first half there would be some slowing down. It will be recalled that President Johnson had recommended to Congress reinstatement of the 7 per cent investment credit that was suspended late last year and the accelerated rates of capital cost allowances which had also been suspended.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
The action that has been taken in regard to capital cost allowances, and that which is provided for in this bill in regard to the refundable tax will encourage businesses in

Canada to proceed with plans for capital expenditures this year and next year at more normal rates than would have been likely had these temporary restrictions remained. The 5 per cent refundable tax on business profits has been bringing in something of the order of $18 million a month from businesses to the government, which we have been deliberately holding idle in our cash balances, as he indicated was our intention last March. This flow of cash from business to the government has now ceased. We will feel free to utilize temporarily the funds that we have accumulated since last May. This will give us more flexibility in our demands upon the capital market during this coming fiscal year, although there is every indication that these demands will be high in any case, taking into account the high level of our expenditures and the very large amounts that we are lending, particularly through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for housing and urban development and also through the Farm Credit Corporation for farm purposes.
We have not proposed in this bill any change in the provisions of the law concerning the dates of repayment of the refundable tax. This is a matter which I believe should more appropriately be considered during the preparation of the 1967 budget.
The resumption of normal rates of capital cost allowances in April will have an effect upon our revenues this fiscal year. It is difficult to estimate these with precision at this time, but our advisers tell us that the action will probably reduce the income tax revenue by about $60 million compared with what it would have been had the original termination date of September 30 been left in the regulations.
In addition to this effect on our revenues, there will be some additional effect in the reduction of accruing tax obligations of businesses, which should have some influence on their behaviour.
It is our hope that the action provided for in this measure and that taken in regard to capital cost allowances, along with whatever action we may propose in the budget, will enable us to maintain high levels of employment, production and income while keeping the increases in prices and costs this year down to more modest and tolerable levels.


Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleion):: Mr. Speaker, Shakespeare had the words which adequately describe the laboured and unrealistic explanation of the new Minister without Portfolio-(Mr. Chretien) with respect to this bill.
April 26. 1967

Income Tax Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is so unusual about that.


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
The protestations of virtue which he made in the speech-he attempted to convert it into a mini-budget-were as unrealistic as they were unwise. This bill well illustrates the ad hoc, fire and fall back fiscal policy of this government. It is tap on, tap off, swap horses in mid stream. The premature repeal, sir, of this special refundable tax is a clear admission that the tax ought never to have been imposed in the first instance. On this side of the house we opposed the special refundable tax and opposed it vigorously. We welcome its early repeal, but I say simply to the minister and to the government that this premature repeal is another illustration of the type of ad hoc fiscal policy this government is pursuing to the great detriment of the nation.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: I welcome the new Minister without Portfolio in his first appearance in his new role, and wish him success. I regret, however, that the present and the former ministers of finance are not with us this afternoon.
As the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) has said, this measure reveals the hit or miss ad hoc fiscal politics of this government. I think this bill can hardly be discussed without considering another fiscal policy introduced by the former minister of finance; the attitudes displayed in these two pieces of policy are revealing.
As you may recall, Mr. Speaker, the former minister of finance instituted a tax cut on personal income which, at the time it was introduced, I criticized on the grounds that it was clumsy and unimaginative. That measure provided tax relief for many taxpayers who did not really need it and who should not have been afforded it, and it gave no real relief to those in the lower income brackets. I was interested to find that the former minister of finance apparently had never heard of the concept of tax credits, which might have solved his problem without the necessity of granting tax relief to those who did not need it.
Our present Minister of Finance has repealed that particular measure which was designed inadequately and clumsily to benefit some individual taxpayers, and now he proposes to repeal a tax placed on another sector
of the economy represented by the business interests of Canada.
When this measure was introduced I felt impelled to criticize it for its ineptitude and failure to follow any definite principle. I suggested that the Minister of Finance might with advantage read an article on the fiscal policies of the Swedish government. That government's policies with respect to refundable taxes is that they are funds which are neutralized until the government decides it is wise to release them into investment again. This measure, on the other hand, does not neutralize funds obtained from such tax, because 5 per cent interest, coming from the taxpayers of Canada, is paid on the amount gathered. The measure also ties the minister's hands.
Regardless of the developments taking place in the country, the minister applied the tax for a certain period, after which he would release the funds. Regardless of whether the economy improved or did not improve, stayed the same or did not stay the same, the amount so collected was collected for a definite period. This struck me, at the time, as an example of how this government has repeatedly acted. It makes a gesture which appears to aim in one direction and then it nullifies that gesture by a subsequent action.
As a means of controlling the economy it was obvious that the 5 per cent refundable tax, under the terms in which it was passed by this house, was useless. First, it was too small in scale; second, the minister, as I have said, had no freedom of action to use the funds derived from this type of tax in such a way as to control the economy, to stimulate it, or to curb it where it was necessary to curb it.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Will the hon. member permit a question? Does he not agree that the money so collected had an impact on the economy?


Colin Cameron: I doubt if the measure had any serious impact. It may have had a slight impact.
What has happened is a revelation of the different attitudes this government has toward the individual taxpayer, particularly the one in the lower income bracket, and the business world. That difference in attitude is exhibited in this measure.
The government is to remove the tax affecting business; I heard no suggestion of restoring the 10 per cent tax cut on personal

April 26, 1967
Income Tax Act
income tax. Perhaps that is because the present minister realizes that his predecessor in the area of this measure was somewhat inept and clumsy. I should have thought that the minister would have had access to more sophisticated thinking, and that he might have considered tax credits to overcome the problem of granting tax relief to those who do not require it. He did neither of these things. In the light of the public's attitude toward the Government of Canada-and that attitude is important whether one supports the government or not-I think the minister has been unwise. He has been unwise to reveal so clearly that this government is interested primarily in the business community and not in the ordinary citizen.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
The minister might have achieved the same result-the result contemplated in this measure-by the reinstatement in a sophisticated way of the 10 per cent tax cut with respect to personal incomes. He chose, instead of doing that, to place a time limit on the imposition of the 5 per cent refundable tax. We can be thankful that the other taxpayers of Canada will no longer need to pay 5 per cent interest on this refundable tax, a tax which amounted to a forced investment on the part of business in government at a certain interest rate; part of the profits had to be turned over to the government.
The present Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) should look at some of the speeches he made when members of this side of the house put it to him that he should be considering our fiscal policies in a much more comprehensive way than he has done so far. I recall several occasions upon which 1 was told I could not expect any comprehensive survey of our fiscal policies until the Carter report had been tabled. Curiously enough the only people who have said anything about the Carter report are members of this group in the House of Commons-perhaps representatives of the official opposition have made some comment on it-and the business community which, of course, has been squealing to high heaven. As far as the government is concerned the report has been received with a blank silence-not one word about it, except that it will not be implemented now.
The Minister without Portfolio might well suggest to his colleague the Minister of Finance that before he continues these ad hoc measures, changing one part of our fiscal policy here and another there, he should examine the Carter report to see whether we cannot

put our fiscal policies into a more coherent framework in order that individual taxpayers as well as the business community may have a clearer idea of what lies before them. If this were done the people of Canada would also be in a better position to judge what is the political and economic philosophy of this government when it comes to a choice between the various sectors of our economy.
I suggest to the Minister without Portfolio that by the repeal of this 5 per cent refundable tax his government is revealing itself as one which is firmly wedded to the interests of the business community. This is part of the doctrinaire approach about which I and others have complained freely of late-a concept that the purpose of government is to serve the interests of those who conduct the businesses of Canada. It is a concept which implies at least that the most important section of our community consists not of ordinary citizens in their capacity as consumers, workers and salary-earners but of those who are in the position of being able to profit by the operations of business.
The proposal before us does at least reveal the position of the government. But I would seriously recommend to the Minister of Finance that he begin to evolve a coherent economic and political philosophy and put an end to this hit or miss approach-this making of empty gestures in an attempt to convince the people of Canada that he has some coherent policy and is concerned about the welfare of the whole of the community. He will not achieve this object by the sudden removal of the refundable tax, with all its shortcomings and limitations when at the same time he does nothing whatever to restore the 10 per cent personal income tax cut which was allowed by his predecessor.


Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: A few words in connection with the short bill which is before us. I do not think there was any doubt in the minister's mind that this refundable tax was something of an experiment. I am pleased to see the tax is being removed.
I find myself both agreeing and disagreeing with what was said by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron). I do share his view that the average taxpayer seems very often to be "lost in the shuffle" when changes are made. We believe more emphasis should be placed on the ability of taxpayers generally to meet their obligations. I know that the business community to which the hon. member referred is highly
April 28, 1967

aware of the fact that little business is possible if people do not have money in their pockets to spend. Thus the business community is very much interested in the distribution of purchasing power in this country.
I do not think it is correct to suggest that we must take the side of business or else take the side of the individual taxpayer. The whole process of production and consumption must be considered as a totality; it cannot be divided into parts. No matter how it is organized the business community must provide the necessities of life to the individual. The better we organize ourselves and take advantage of cybernation, the more our standard of living will rise.
I am concerned that the government and the Minister of Finance have not as yet found a way of looking after those regions where there is special need for capital expansion. I realize that this may present difficulties when at the same time inflationary pressures are building up in other parts of the nation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to interrupt the hon. member because I doubt whether his present trend of thought is directed toward the principle of the bill now before the house.


Bert Raymond Leboe: I must, with deference, disagree. We are talking about a refundable tax and I am talking about the whole question of taxation in relation to this. When you are taking money away from business and business expansion you are lessening the tax base. I think we should concern ourselves with broadening the tax base. One of the reasons why a country can expand and lower taxes is if it has devised a way of increasing and broadening the tax base. I think it has to be done in Canada.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
So you will understand what I am driving at, Mr. Speaker, I shall relate this to the business tax. It was a blanket tax all across Canada. It did not matter whether there was a lack of purchasing power or a lack of credit in a particular region, or a need for capital, the tax applied in that region just the same as in any other.
I am not convinced that there is no way by which the Minister of Finance can organize things so that there can be differences where differences are required, such as between areas which are expanding and need capital, and areas which are under inflationary pressures. I would hope the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Bank of Canada could find means to make certain that areas 23033-975
Business of the House which need capital for capital expansion will not be hindered, and also find means to curtail inflationary pressures from building up to the danger point.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Batten in the chair.
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave now, and on division.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: the third reading of the bill.


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


An hon. Member:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if it would not be a good idea for us to take a little time off. We have done pretty well. We have got two of the four items done for the day. I suggest we rise for an hour, or maybe until eight o'clock.


Mr. Cameron (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask leave of the house to revert to motions in order to present a report before the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is acted upon.


Mr. Drury:: Mr. Speaker, I understand hon. members had made plans to get away. We seem to be making very good progress, and perhaps we could dispose of interim supply.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has the minister heard of such things as dairy policy, housing, and so on?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am sure we could forgo food in deference to discussing dairy policy.


David Lewis: You would have better humour in the house if we adjourned until 7.30.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: No.

April 26. 1967
Interim Supply


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did I understand that the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) flatly and arrogantly refused the suggestion that we take a little time off to eat?


Richard Albert Bell: Perhaps the minister will agree to adjourn until 7.30.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: As there seems to be a fairly strong opinion in the house in favour of no work, then if the house will agree to revert to motions we could well adjourn until 7.30.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Eleventh report of the standing committee on justice and legal affairs-Mr. Cameron (High Park).
Third report of the special joint committee on penitentiaries-Mr. Watson (Chateau-guay-Huntingdon-Laprairie).
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed now that this sitting be suspended until 7.30?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Maybe the house will also agree to go into committee of supply.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

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



INTERIM SUPPLY

['I declare the\namendment lost.\nResolution reported and concurred in.']
Herman Maxwell Batten: Pursuantto the order just made by the house this sitting is suspended until 7.30.



[Stage Direction]
The committee resumed at 7.30 p.m.
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Resolved, That a sum not exceeding $1,034,689,911.16, being the aggregate oi-
(a)	two-twelfths of the total of all the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1968, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, except Loans, Investments and Advances Item L40, for which no proportion is granted, $995,375,277.83; 
(b) an additional eight-twelfths of the total amount of Public Service Commission Item 5 (Schedule A) of the said main estimates, $798,000.00;
(c) an additional three-twelfths of the total amount of Privy Council Item 18 (Schedule B) of the said main estimates, $394,250.00;
(d)	an additional two-twelths of the total amount of External Affairs Item 35, Industry Item 15, and Loans, Investments and Advances Item L25, (Schedule C) of the said main estimates, $30,897,500.00;
(e)	an additional one-twelfth of the total amount of Energy, Mines and Resources Item 35, Fisheries Item 20, Forestry and Rural Development Item 15, Justice Item 1, Legislation Items 5 and 20, National Gallery Item 1, Secretary of State Items 35 and 40, Trade and Commerce Items 15 and 29, (Schedule D) of the said main estimates, $7,224,883.33,
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1968.
He said; Mr. Chairman, I should like to give the usual assurance that the proportions requested in this resolution and subsequently described in the bill are intended to provide for all the necessary requirements of the public service up to June 30, 1967. In no instance is the total amount of an item being released by this bill. The form of the bill is the usual one for interim supply bills.
The passing of this bill will not prejudice the rights and privileges of members to criticize any item in the estimates when it comes up for consideration in committee and the usual undertaking is hereby given that such rights and privileges will be respected and will not be curtailed or restricted in any way as a result of the passing of this measure.


Mr. Danforth:: Mr. Chairman, I think the people of this great nation of ours are very fortunate indeed that there are provisions in our parliamentary rules which make it possible from time to time in this particular debate to bring to the attention of the government grievances from those segments of the population which feel they are not receiving the treatment to which they are duly entitled or, on the other hand, bring to the attention of the government, on behalf of a segment of the Canadian population, a policy laid down by the government which seems to be placing a direct and dire hardship on that particular segment. It is in respect of the latter that I wish to speak tonight.
Mr. Chairman, you will recall that some two weeks ago an attempt was made to set aside the regular business of this house in order to promote with the government a debate on the plight of the entire dairy industry in Canada today. You will recall that parliament in its wisdom refused this debate on this
April 26, 1967

particular occasion, indicating that we would have a later opportunity to discuss this important matter. We on this side of the house felt that there was a great deal of merit in calling for the emergency debate, because it was our considered opinion that the government's new dairy policy which had been in operation for only a few weeks was creating chaos in the dairy industry and was bringing about a direct hardship rather than a benefit.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
Our feelings were borne out by the fact that wherever in this nation the dairy industry formed a great part of the economy, emergency meetings were held. At these meetings the dairy farmers expressed the feeling that this new policy would not suffice to meet their critical needs. Indeed there were and still are rumours about a parade of dairy farmers in the thousands to parliament hill to protest this policy. There also have been rumours that it might be necessary for these farmers to promote a strike similar to that which was held in the United States, including the dumping of precious dairy supplies on the ground and the selling of dairy cattle. This would cause a disruption which would be felt right through the economy to the consumer level.
It is our hope tonight that by bringing these problems to the attention of the government some measures will be adopted which will make such contemplated action in this country unnecessary. Surely it would be to no one's benefit to have food destroyed at this time when it is so precious to the peoples of this world.
This government took great credit for the proposals set out to the dairy industry when this new policy was introduced. Whether the government intended it or not at that time, it left the impression with opposition members in this house and with members of the Canadian agricultural industry as a whole that in its opinion the farmers had never had things so good. When the Minister of Agriculture announced the new policy he indicated, and I believe rightly so, that while this government had been in office the price per hundredweight of manufactured milk, based on a 3.5 test, had increased from $2.85 to $4.75. He seemed to take undue satisfaction from the fact that what this government had accomplished had been more than that accomplished by the previous government.
Let us examine the figures for a moment to see what has happened to the dairy industry.
Interim Supply
The $2.85 per hundredweight is presumably what the producers of milk actually received during the fiscal year prior to 1962-63, and the $4.75 per hundredweight is the amount the minister alleges will be paid to the producers this year. In the first place these figures are not accurate. The farmers will not receive $4.75 per hundredweight because, as it was indicated earlier, 10 to 11 cents per hundredweight will be required to finance the export of excess dairy products. In addition to that we must consider the 12 per cent sales tax which farmers must pay, the increase in old age pension tax, the contribution to the Canada Pension Fund-which in itself is a tax-the increase in income tax, the drastic increase in the cost of living and the tremendous increase in the cost of goods and services which the farmer must have in order to produce milk.
It is astonishing to find, after analysing the situation, that farmers in 1962 receiving $2.85 per hundredweight actually netted more than they will today under the new dairy policy. That may be astonishing but it is the economic fact. When we refer to the fact that producers of fluid milk are in dire circumstances due to the withdrawal of federal subsidies- and I want to be fair-I am sure members of the government will indicate that this is a matter of provincial concern.
These salient points are so important that some of my colleagues who will follow me intend to deal in greater detail with the causes of the direct hardships dairy farmers are now experiencing. In my view the dairy farmers have every right to parade to parliament hill to protest. If I thought it would add anything to their cause I would join them in this parade. We have learned from experience that representations to this government have little or no result so far as relief is concerned.
When these farmers come to parliament hill they can only once again present the facts and proposals which they have already presented. I might add, these representations were made to this government before this new policy was determined or announced. Certainly their problems are not new, but it is unfortunate that this government since it took office has never put into effect one single recommendation proposed by the various representatives of the agricultural industry. These representatives are directly concerned with this great industry and have every right to approach the federal government in respect of their problems. The plight in which they find themselves today is a direct result of the

April 26, 1967
Interim Supply
course of action of federal governments over the past years. These governments have interfered directly with the operation of this industry by establishing additional payments, bonuses, stabilization activities and subsidies. It is no wonder this great industry is out of balance from time to time.
Representatives of this industry proposed the formation of a national dairy commission which could deal with the industry's problems, so that permanent solutions could be found and concrete things done on their behalf. I believe this is a sound proposal. Apparently the government adopted the proposal, and in this regard we supported the government. But what happened? We find now that the government is in process of going in the opposite direction. The first thing it did under the new policy was to put the producers of fluid milk and producers of manufactured milk in different categories. This government cut the industry in half by putting one part under provincial jurisdiction and the other part under federal jurisdiction. We now have a national dairy council which can only concern itself with one half of the industry.
This government went a step further. We now have three segments of government looking after national dairy interests. We have the National Dairy Council, the stabilization board and the Department of Agriculture. I suspect that like many of the commissions set up by the government, the National Dairy Council, with all its good intentions and with its high calibre of men, will be hamstrung by direct interference from the other two levels of government.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
So we find that the dairy industry is now in chaos, it is in confusion and there seems to be no direct policy in this regard. As I said before, the government took great pride in the introduction of this dairy policy for the coming year. We used to believe that this government had no policy for agriculture, but this has proved to be not the case as far as the dairy industry is concerned, for here the reverse is true; this government has been in office for four years and we have had four distinct and separate dairy policies, one for each year. We ask therefore why will the government not listen to the recommendations of the industry and promote a policy for the welfare of the industry rather than for political expediency?
The Minister of Agriculture in his very capable way in the house, on the hustings, on radio and television has put forward the proposition that millions of dollars are being

poured into the dairy industry in the form of direct subsidies. He has said that the price obtained by the producers of manufactured milk is higher than it has ever been in the history of this country. The minister says that all is well in the industry, dairy production is as high as it has ever been and the returns are greater on a dollar basis than they have ever been.
Let us deal with these various assertions. First of all, with regard to the millions of dollars being poured into the dairy industry in the form of direct subsidies, if you look at the records of the stabilization board and the Department of Agriculture with regard to the payments made to the dairy industry-and I am speaking of net cost to the government-a startling picture becomes apparent. It seems that as far as dairy farmers are concerned the policy of this government is progressively to reduce the amount of stabilization funds, and not increase them. We find that whereas in 1963 farmers in the dairy industry received $117 million in subsidies, the figure was reduced to $55 million last year. This is a reduction of $62 million.
I point out to the committee that this industry is marginal and is struggling to maintain itself. The government tells us that the dairy industry never had it so good. This is the impression they wish to leave across the country. What about the status of the industry today? Dairy production is as high as it has ever been. However, this situation reflects absolutely no credit on the government; the credit is due to the men and women who look after the dairy herds. The average dairy farm production has risen to such a degree that it is maintaining the industry in Canada. But production has almost reached its ultimate. I believe that in the future we will see a drastic curtailment in dairy production unless action is taken now to halt the chaos that exists in the industry. As a matter of fact, the production of milk today has been kept on a par with previous years, although in the last four years there has been a reduction in top-notch dairy cattle and young stock of almost 600,000 animals. These are the best animals we have in Canada.
It is a sad sight indeed to visit the export ports of this country and see these fine animals with their excellent pedigrees, these foundation stock animals, being exported all over the world. Only two parties can profit from this type of action, the merchants concerned in the purchase and sale of the cattle and those in the foreign country who purchase the animals knowing their value. It is a
April 26, 1967

sad day when we see this decimation of our very best herds. This decimation is taking place at an alarming rate and I believe the figures published are in keeping with the actual fact. In my county alone, which at one time was a top producer of dairy products, I was very alarmed to find out from the Department of Agriculture a few weeks ago that the number of producers of milk, which was 18 to 35 on each of many routes, has dropped to only 72 in the entire county. This is the number of milk producers left in a county of
90.000	people.
It is said that we have never had it so good. Whenever we criticize the government they always come back with those two shop-worn phrases, namely what did you do when you were in office, and, are you against our present policy? As an indication of what we did while in office-and we were in office for only six years-I would point out that at that time the dairy products of this country were in excess. As a matter of fact, the main problem confronting the Department of Agriculture at that time was the storage of excess dairy products. It may be said that this government has depleted these stocks by supersalesmanship. This is not true. The stock of 200 million to 300 million pounds of butter was decimated by a fire sale in order to balance the government's budget for the 1965 election. This is what happened to the tremendous carry-over of dairy stocks; and now we are importing the very products which we gave away.
Hon. members opposite try to criticize us, but the record speaks for itself. They find it impossible to refute the fact that there are far fewer creameries in Canada today than there were just four years ago; there are fewer dairies in Canada today than there were four years ago; there are far fewer farmers in the dairy industry in Canada today than there were four years ago. To give the committee an indication of the reduction in the number of labourers on the farms today I would point out that with respect to a bill that was before the house a few hours ago, that concerned with the retraining of workers, it was said that provision may have to be made to retrain
500.000	labourers who are leaving the farms. This is the problem with which we are faced today. There is only one way to describe the condition of the dairy industry; that is, that there exists confusion and chaos through no fault of those in the industry.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
We feel it is time that this government started to formulate policies which will save
Interim Supply
the major industries of this country. The dairy industry today would not be able to support itself were it not for the tremendous immigration into this country in the past few years of top flight dairy farmers from the Netherlands, Denmark and from other countries. I have nothing but words of praise for the great effort put forth by these men, who are promoting the dairy industry against almost impossible odds.
I come back to the fact that the dairy industry is in trouble. Farmers would not be taking time off from their busy lives to go to meetings, they would not be promoting demonstrations for no good reason. They are fine, sound, educated businessmen, because a man who wants to stay in the farming industry today must be a businessman. When these businessmen take the time off to approach parliament hill it is because they feel the situation is critical. Therefore my request to the government tonight is to call in the leaders of the dairy industry, not just the few known party supporters but the men who are generally concerned with the industry and the future of the Canadian population. The government should listen to their representations and not just give them a polite hearing. It should analyse their propositions. These men are businessmen who have advanced these propositions only after thoroughly scrutinizing their feasibility and the ways and means to help this great industry. If they receive a sympathetic hearing from the Department of Agriculture, if new ways are determined to bring direct financial relief, and if the government brings the dairy industry under one jurisdiction instead of dividing the responsibility, thereby relieving itself of all direct criticism-which might be politically expedient but which does not solve anything-then we would consider this to be a step forward.
I think the time has long passed when this last mentioned method of dealing with the basic Canadian industry can be used. The government has announced a dairy policy but it has indicated that a year is needed to assess it properly. A year in the dairy industry will see a great number of remaining farms close down. It is not only the small farms that will be affected but also farms that are milking anywhere from 60 to 150 cattle, farms which, using the best businesslike approach, find it impossible to continue under the present circumstances.
This is not just a problem which faces the farmer and the primary producer. It faces also the manufacturer and the distributor.

April 26. 1967
Interim Supply
Now is the time When we should consider all aspects of the industry, so that all the cards can be placed on the table and a feasible method determined whereby each section of the industry will be able to continue to operate at a reasonable profit. This does not seem possible under the present government policy. The announcement of four policies in four years can only mean that the government has no basic policy and that it is experimenting at the cost of the industry.
The dairy industry of Canada has been patient far too long. It will not show sympathy for this government's experiments which are costly in men, in cattle and in our over-all production. If our immigration policies are sound in the next few years we will be faced with a tremendous influx of population. We will be faced with great expansion in the industry, if the economic climate is one quarter as good as is indicated by government spokesmen. If this takes place, there will be a great expansion in the dairy industry in order to provide the Canadian people with basic requirements in dairy products. Now is the time to take action, not a year from now. We cannot brook any further delay. The opposition in parliament is determined to see that the government is not allowed to forget this problem which is facing us.


Maurice Rinfret: I understand the hon. member for Yorkton has a question for the Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. Clancy:: Mr. Chairman, I do not really like to contradict one of my confreres, but can he tell me why several years ago milk for the children in the schools in Ottawa was replaced by orange juice? Let us be logical. Milk comes from Canada and orange juice comes from Florida. So every Friday I give my children some milk for their ten o'clock recess.


An hon. Member:: Speak to the point.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Mr. Chairman, this is relevant. I pay my taxes yet I have to give my children 55 cents every Monday for orange juice.


Maurice Allard: Why does the hon member not speak French?


Gordon Drummond Clancy: I will be bilingual, but if the hon. member wants to hear it, it will not be a compliment. Recently we have been fighting for a dairy policy. We want a branch of the department for our farmers and we want milk, butter and cream for our people. However, when a big area, such as the greater

Ottawa valley, switches from milk to orange juice, there can be no explanation. Their excuse for doing it is that milk at ten o'clock in the morning destroys the children's appetite for the noon meal. Let hon. members fight that one out.


William Arnold Peters: Not long ago I was asked by a farmer who represented the farmers on one of the provincial boards which was investigating the price of farm machinery whether I was not of the opinion that it was really too late for farmers to do anything about their particular problem because they had lost so many members that they ceased to be an effective pressure group. He asked me whether it was not a fact that as the number of farmers dwindled, their problem would receive less and less attention. I am of the opinion that this is not the case. I believe that although the farming community is decreasing because many of their members have left the rural areas of Canada to join the industrial segment of our economy, they are not doing so by choice. They are there because of economic conditions which force them to be there. In my opinion the children who have been raised on farms, with no opportunity to enter this industry, are bound to come to the conclusion that something must be done to develop an economic agricultural climate in this industry, and the government should learn this before it is too late.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
We listened this afternoon to another debate in which we were discussing the retraining of workers and at that time the question of the constitution was raised. I think we in this house are plagued with the raising of constitutional points of view on the part of one or two provinces which really have little basis in fact, and in any event have no basis of popular support.
We in Ontario were very proud of the operation which took place a year ago in the province of Quebec where that province gave a much larger grant to their manufactured milk producers than was the case in Ontario. The minister got himself into the middle of this particular constitutional problem. The minister of agriculture of Ontario, Mr. Stewart, said that this was Ottawa's problem, whereas our Minister of Agriculture said it was a provincial problem and he would not get involved in it.
A solution to the problem occurred last year with the promise of the minister to take up the 25 cents that was being paid in Quebec at
April 26, 1967

the time if the province of Ontario would pay the 25 cents on a temporary basis. We now have an arrangement whereby the federal government has decided to get into the manufactured milk field, and yet under the constitution can claim that fluid milk is not a matter that falls within their jurisdiction.
I am sure that many hon. members are confused about this matter. There are many farmers in the country confused over the problem of jurisdiction in this field. But surprising as it may be, Mr. Chairman, the federal government has decided it will enter the relatively uncontrolled field of secondary milk production for manufacturing purposes, at the same time leaving the fluid milk in the hands of the provinces.
Most provincial acts which govern the marketing of fluid milk originated in the province of British Columbia. I am not aware of the extent of the British Columbia legislation, except to the extent that it has been applied in other provinces. However, I think we should take a very close look at some of the problems which are going to develop out of the arrangements which have been made, and it may therefore be wise to consider what these arrangements are.
I have had considerable knowledge over many years of the fluid milk market. For a number of years my father was an executive officer of the Ontario fluid milk producers. He was a member of a number of agencies concerned with the development of fluid milk marketing legislation and over the years acquired some knowledge of this particular field.
Farmers producing fluid milk built up an industry that was considerably larger than manufactured milk operations. They were under strict control as to the type of milk they produced. All of their farms were inspected. The milk board established, through a co-operative arrangement with the producers and the marketing agency, quotas which imposed upon the producers many responsibilities, including supplying the quantity of milk that the quota called for.
As a result, Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) pointed out, there were built up not only in Ontario but in other provinces as well some very high grade dairy units. These fluid milk producers bred herds which have since been exported to places such as Guyana, France and Great Britain. In fact, our cattle, particularly our dairy breeds, have been exported to many countries in the world, with much credit to the producers.
Interim Supply
Over the years the producers negotiated with the dairies the prices for their products. I can remember when fluid milk used to be sold for $3.85 a hundredweight. That was not the price of milk from the ordinary type of farm. This was milk that had been inspected, had been given the bacteria colii test the result of which had to be within certain limits, and had been given the strep test. These controls were applied so as to protect the consumer, the dairy and also the producers. A great deal of money was spent on developing this quota system and raising dairy cattle. Negotiations were carried on over the years to set the proper price, sometimes with great difficulty. The last price I heard about in northern Ontario was something like $6.25 a hundred.
One of the problems which always plagued the fluid milk producers but which was a boon to other segments of the industry was the surplus milk that was produced. I had always thought the farmers might be wise to do what the miners did. When the miners decided to work an eight hour day, they worked eight hours only. They did not work an extra two hours because they were not tired; they decided that eight hours meant eight hours, not 10 or 12 hours, unless they were paid a premium for their extra labour.
What happened in the case of the farmer, Mr. Chairman? He found that having filled his quota the dairy did not require all of the milk. The dairy had over estimated their need and the farmer ended up with a surplus of milk he had to dispose of. It is interesting to note that while I was paying more for chocolate milk than I was for whole milk, this was really surplus milk for which in the early days the farmer was paid only $1.75 a hundred, and for which I as a consumer was paying more than I paid for the fluid milk for which the farmer received $4.25 a hundred. However, that is one of the anomalies of the fluid milk industry.
As the years went by the fluid milk producer found that his ability to increase his production, indeed his need to increase his production if he was to retain an economic unit, meant that he had far more milk available than he had quota to meet. This meant that his surplus of milk increased. I was talking to my brother recently, and he told me that not long ago, when milk sold for $6 a hundred in his local dairy under his quota, he was supplying over 50 per cent of his milk as surplus milk for which he received $2.85 a hundred. This meant he was getting less than $4 a

April 26, 1967
Interim Supply
hundred for the milk that he produced many months of the year.
In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, hon. members should consider this situation, because the government are now promoting this state of affairs in another way. The milk producers of Ontario, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, indeed most provinces in Canada, have developed a considerable market for fluid milk which has remained relatively stable but has not received the same impetus of growth that you would expect in other fields. This is emphasized by the fact that the farmer can produce a great deal more than he could originally produce.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
One year ago this problem blew up, with the Quebec farmers blocking the highways to draw the public's attention to their plight. The same situation later developed in Ontario, and when the farmers took their tractors out on the roads the government decided, on looking at the problem, that it was in the position to provide subsidies, and that the milk going to the creameries and dairies would run at least at $3.25. That figure has since been raised by federal and provincial supports to $4.25.
The minister made a statement in January saying that the matter was solved and that the farmers could expect no further assistance from the federal government. The price of this milk had been raised to $4.25, and with additional subsidies in the manufacturing field it went to $4.75, although 11 cents from that was deducted. I have always been curious about that 11 cents. I do not know what happens to it, neither do the farmers.
When the proposal to set the price at $4.25 was considered last year the federal government agreed to subsidize the surplus of the fluid milk producers. Within limitations it agreed to pay a subsidy on part of the fluid milk surpluses. That created some havoc, because producers of fluid milk who had originally sold half their production shipped their milk to northern Ontario under dubious sanitary conditions and competed with the producers up there. The whole problem blew up when Mr. Cooper, the president of the dairy council warned that there would be serious repercussions unless the federal government took active steps in the field of milk production to eliminate some of the difficulties.
To protect farmers it was recommended that the price of manufacturing milk be raised to $5.10. The farmers would break even at that figure and make no profit. That

advice was ignored, and the National Dairy Council considered the position of farmers and warned what such a refusal would do. Since then, as the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) has said, the government has taken little constructive action, though it must be aware of the storm centres that are brewing.
The provincial marketing board at Queen's Park has agreed to raise the price of milk to producers by 35 cents; considering that there are 38 quarts in a hundredweight, the net effect ought to be that the consumer will pay one cent more per quart; yet he will pay three cents more. Three cents more has been charged in some areas quite legitimately, but I would not wish it to be thought that such increase benefits farmers. The dairies, by charging this extra 3 cents, have seen a way to blame farmers and the government, and at the same time ease their own difficulties.
In an article from Queen's Park, Don O'Hearn says that the provincial authorities cannot control the situation, and that the Ontario government is in serious difficulties. Probably there will be a consumer outcry which will reduce fluid milk sales in Ontario, with the farmer gaining not one cent.
The minister is not unaware of the situation, because in his own area, Arnprior, 1,000 farmers attended a meeting to protest what is happening. For the sake of his future the minister ought to be interested in the implications of what is happening, because the farmers are not satisfied, and they are not going to be satisfied with the small relief given to them.
In one of its releases the dairy commission, on April 14, talked about price equalization. They said that only manufacturing milk and creamery shippers will be eligible for the subsidy. Furthermore, the commission says- and these remarks apply not to the big shippers shipping 10,000 or 20,000 pounds annually-that should any portion of the fluid milk producer's product be diverted to the manufacturing field, that fluid milk producer will not be eligible for any subsidy on milk that is delivered for manufacturing.
This means that many of the quotas which have been set are unrealistic, as some producers at some times have enormous surpluses. I know that the minister has had problems with quotas, but the position of the farmers is that they will not be able to sell their milk in the manufacturing field. What is the good of that? Quotas have been established, farmers have built up their herds and farms, and yet
April 26, 1967



they will not be able to sell their surpluses in the manufacturing field, since they would be forfeiting the subsidy on that milk.
Let us look at the figures. Taking into account the 11 cents that is deducted, the subsidy will be $1.10. That will bring the price of milk f.o.b. the factory, to the fluid milk producer, to $3.65. That is what the farmer will get for his fluid milk production. It should be borne in mind that the milk to be sold at $3.65 cost that much to produce. That milk was produced under the same conditions as the milk which fetches $6, $6.10, or, in some instances, $6.50. The upshot is that the farmer will produce part of his milk to be sold at $6, part to be sold at $3.65, and the average price he receives will be something less than $4.75.
Clearly, if what I say is correct, and I think it is, a farmer's best interest is to quit the production of fluid milk and go into the manufacturing milk business. The farmer will have his equipment, his investment, his herd, and he will have a guaranteed market for up to 300,000 pounds of milk. He will find he receives the same amount of money while spending far less money on equipment and far less time looking after the operation.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
I have outlined the problem facing the fluid milk producer. It seems that the Canadian Dairy Commission intends to establish quotas for producers of manufacturing milk; it will give quotas only to those who have produced over 10,000 pounds in 1966-67 and will only allow quotas for the following year to those producing over 50,000 pounds of milk. This quota, according to the dairy commission, would be their property. In one case the Ontario government will own the quotas of Ontario farmers and in the other federal government will own them. Now, one can go into the market place as though he were buying or selling a house and put a quota up in a magazine or a daily paper, and ask for quotations on it-"how much am I bid?" This will create chaos. It will mean that everyone who wants to buy his way into the dairy industry will be able to do so but it will be impossible to get into the manufacturing field without a good deal of money, and it will be impossible for young people to get started.
This might be all very well if we did not need farmers. The program put forward by the Liberal government in the last election indicated they were pledged to get rid of the small, uneconomic farm. Well, they have done a good job as far as the cream producers are concerned-such a good job that we now have 23033-976
Interim Supply
to import butter from New Zealand. We are not even fair about our butter imports. I understand that the price of a pound in Great Britain is 40 cents. If the Canadian Dairy Commission were to sell it at the floor price we have established they would earn enough money to subsidize some of the farmers who have been put out of business.
Not very long ago a great deal of cream was produced by small farmers who worked out. When they came home at night they milked two or three cows, separated the milk, fed a couple of pigs and a dozen hens and took their cream to the creamery at the end of the week, thus providing themselves with a small amount of spending money-sometimes it went to the wife as "cream money".
I invite hon. members to look around their ridings and tell me how many people are still milking two or three cows. It is no longer possible to do things in this way. We have discouraged the producers of cream to such an extent that there are very few farmers who still separate the cream on their farms and take it to the local creamery. Their milk is used for manufacture and it is the plant which decides whether it will go into cheese or casein, or into butter. The farmer no longer makes the decision.
I asked the minister to produce the legal documents which authorize him to participate in the manufacturing field. I defy the provincial governments to indicate the constitutional right they have to enter the fluid milk field. This does not apply to manufacturing milk because we are handling fluid milk in the provincial field in the same way as we are handling manufacturing milk in the federal field.
The government may be surprised to find that the farmers are not playing any more. The farm movement in my own area has grown by leaps and bounds since the tractor parades were held in Quebec and Ontario. Membership of both farm organizations has increased rapidly. Membership of one of them has, I believe, increased 15 or 20 times during the last year. This indicates that farmers are now aware that if they get together and make a good case something will be done-that it is not necessary for them to wait until the government is defeated at the polls before action can be taken to find a remedy.
We are being very foolish if we decide to force this type of exercise upon the farmers and try to deal with all these questions in piecemeal fashion. Consider what has happened to the farm machinery inquiry. Today

April 26, 1967
Interim Supply
this is a "dead duck" in Ontario. I had the opportunity of appearing in connection with this inquiry. The provincial authorities said this was a matter within federal jurisdiction and no doubt the federal authorities claim it is a matter for the provinces to deal with. The buck is being passed until the farmer is losing sight of it.
This should not be allowed to happen with regard to dairy policy. I believe the Canadian Dairy Commission should co-operate so closely with the provincial governments that arrangements for dealing with both fluid milk and manufacturing milk can be combined. Ideally, in my opinion, the Canadian Dairy Commission should be able to control the whole operation and utilize this dairy product to such advantage as to remove one of the problems which has always plagued the stabilization board. The board found that whenever the floor price of butter was raised in relation to cheese it ran into difficulty because almost immediately more milk went into butter than into cheese, and a surplus developed. An attempt was made to correct the situation by increasing the amount offered for cheese. Again, the balance was thrown out, simply because the board could not relate its actions to the whole marketing situation. One day the government will be obliged to consider the establishment of a national marketing plan involving the pooling of production from all the provinces whether the product is intended for home consumption or for export.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
They are going to have to come to some co-operative arrangement that will allow them to devise a constructive policy that will take into consideration fluctuations in sales and production and at the same time allow all the farmers in the dairy industry to make a decent living and overcome the cost-price squeeze which, if not overcome, will drive farmers off their land very quickly.
The minister and the country are going to hear a great deal more about this problem before interim supply passes tonight, and I for one would appreciate it if the minister would outline what he has in mind before we spend the next six or eight hours debating this matter.
I think the minister is well aware of the problem. He knows that there are 1,000 farmers in the Ottawa valley meeting in the town of Arnprior to discuss this matter. They are not meeting to discuss the weather; they are

vitally interested in this problem. The minister is also well aware of the fact that these farmers have some influence not only on the political scene but also on the news media. He knows their complaints will receive a very receptive hearing from the average Canadian who is sick and tired of finding the farmers always getting the short end of the stick. City and townspeople are well aware of this because when they drive out into the country on week ends to visit their friends and relatives, they discover that the farmer is not getting the benefit of the increased price which the consumer has to pay. The reason for this falls partly within the jurisdiction of the federal government, and thus is within our purview to review. If we do not get some decision on this matter, or an indication that something is going to be done about it, we would be well advised to stay here and debate interim supply for the next two or three days.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Chairman, I take the opportunity we are given tonight-really the first-to join the members for Kent and Ti-miskaming (Messrs. Danforth and Peters) in submitting our grievances to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Green).
We would have liked you to hear the voice of our electors, especially that of the leaders of our agricultural organizations, because had it been possible for the presidents of farmers' unions to speak in this house this evening, I feel the minister might sometimes change his mind.
On April 18, we tried to adjourn the business of the house. At that time the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste (Mr. Caouette) wanted to protest without delay against the new dairy policy announced by the minister. He wanted to tell him that his policy was simply antiagricultural.
Mr. Chairman, all the farmers in my district wonder if indeed they are not dealing with an antiagricultural minister.
Every possible representation was made way before the policy was announced. Our organizations did their utmost to influence the minister and obtain from the government, their government, justice and equity, so that the farmer might be able to earn a living as easily, and as honestly as people in industry.
I think the minister has always turned a deaf ear to those appeals. I can see him in his seat tonight and he seems somewhat ashamed to look us straight in the eye. When he visits our agricultural ridings, if he ever does, he
April 26. 1967

will be even more ashamed, because the farmers will show their anger.
The farmers did not ask for anything extraordinary, just for a fair minimum. They asked for $5.10 per hundredweight, which, I think, is a reasonable price. That is what I told the farmers on one occasion. I promised them I would support them completely. After all, we are simply the spokesmen of our large organizations and the minister or the representatives of the Canadian Dairy Commission should have listened to us.
If the minister were to establish the price of manufactured milk on a more rational basis, such as the price of fluid milk, I think this would be the best indication that the minister intends to be fair to the farmers, since the price of fluid milk is always more or less on a level with current prices. I do not know what was the basis used, and we may never know.
Who is responsible for this whole policy? For days on end, before the policy was announced, we tried to pry from the minister the secret he kept to himself, and we were answered only on the day he announced his policy, although he knew very well that all the farmers in our ridings had asked to see us in the preceding weeks. I myself met more than 700 farmers who asked me who was in charge of the dairy policy. I had to tell them that I knew no more than they did.
I think that the minister was partly prevented from disclosing anything by a feeling of embarrassment, because when we heard his announcement we realized that he had a reason to be embarrassed, for he had led us to believe that farmers would certainly find the policy satisfactory.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, we are now seeing the beginning of the farmers' answer, and I hope there will not be a repetition here of what took place in the United States.
I say that the government should be responsible enough to take action before those things happen, for it can certainly not claim that it was not warned in the process of making its decisions.
I am not the one who says that, Mr. Chairman. It is not a member's tale, as the saying goes, because I have here an issue of La Terre de Chez Nous, where one finds an article published following the meeting of the 23033-9761
Interim Supply
farmers with the Minister of Agriculture here in Ottawa. I quote:
On April 7, a group of about 20 persons representing member organizations of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture met with the Hon. J. J. Greene in Ottawa, with a view to acquainting him with their views on the 1966-67 dairy policy.
It seems to me that it was only natural that farmers should come and explain their needs to the minister and tell him what they expected from him. It seems to me that that was only natural but, judging from the minister's actions, even before that delegation arrived, the decisions were already made, everything was arranged in advance and not an iota was changed.
I read further from the article:
Mr. Lionel Sorel, president of the C.F.U., and Mr. Leopold Harvey, president of the Quebec Manufacturing Milk Producers Federation, took part in the meeting. Mr. Roger Perreault, a C.F.U. economist, accompanied them. Following is the text of the press release issued by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, after the meeting with the minister.
The minister was not alone, for it says later that he was accompanied by Dr. S. C. Barry, chairman of the Canadian Dairy Commission, and by Mr. S. B. Williams, federal deputy minister of agriculture.
As a matter of fact, that is what I had advised C.F.U. members in my riding to do a week earlier, that is to meet with the minister, to send their representative, to get in touch with the minister in order to influence him and tell him what procedure he should follow before making his statement.
But it has become obvious that the words of the senior officials and those of the farm experts are a little like those of the opposition members in this house when the government has decided on a piece of legislation. The debate may last 5, 10 or 15 days, it does not change a thing. It seems that the legislation is prepared by another group outside parliament, that everything is set and that the ministers have to conform, to agree. That is more or less our impression after five years in the house.
Mr. Chairman, I think that the minister will have to do something and before the end of this session. He should start getting letters because I told all my electors that the only way to protest was to swamp the minister with letters, to bury him under them. And when the minister has received enough letters, he might understand the needs of the farmers because it is the only way to wake him up or bury him forever.

April 26, 1967
Interim Supply
Mr. Chairman, the farmers have been made fun of long enough and I assure you that the fight is not over; on the contrary, it has just begun.
I shall side with the farmers and just wait and see who will win, the farmers or the technicians here who have never even set foot on a farm.
Mr. Chairman, there is a limit to such blackmail. In order to know the views of the farmers of my riding, listen to this further article written by Lionel Saurel, grand president of the Catholic Farmers Union. Here is what he wrote on the editorial page:
After taking numerous steps to obtain a fair dairy policy and, following the announcement of that policy, to have its main deficiencies corrected, the Quebec dairy farmers are greatly disappointed. The general public may have thought that the new policy ensured the farmers a $4.75 guaranteed price, but such is not the case. In spite of the increased funds provided by the state to help dairy farmers through a critical period, the efforts of the government are inadequate to meet the requirements of the dairy farmers, since the minimum assistance asked had been estimated at $180 million.
Now, the new policy provides for $120 million, perhaps $110 million, perhaps even $100 million, because all expenditures have been greatly reduced.
A slight increase has been granted for industrial milk, but quotas have been maintained, when our areas are known to have lost ground for the past three years with regard to dairy farming because of bad weather and illness of our cattle. In some areas, 50 per cent of the herds have been destroyed. And then, the grants have been set according to the quotas of those years.
Imagine, sir, the effect of the new policy in our areas especially. When I went to their meeting, mention was made of $4.75 per hundredweight. They said that the minister would not probably grant more than $4.75 per hundredweight. I said that if the minister granted $4.75 per hundredweight, inasmuch as we already received 25 cents per hundredweight, in Quebec, that would amount to $5. But the department played a real nasty trick on them. It forbade Quebec to give 25 cents. If it grants 25 cents, it will be deducted from the $4.75. This is the most nasty trick that the minister could play on them.
And they say that they want to help agriculture. And this is not all. Before that, there was a subsidy for fluid milk, and it was suggested during the meeting to ask the department to abolish the famous percentage of

120 per cent for surpluses of fluid milk; instead of that, the whole subsidy is abolished on fluid milk.
Well, work it out and you will see, Mr. Chairman, that the farmers are rightly dissatisfied.
And I will now continue Mr. Sorel's article:
The producers of manufacturing milk are not assured that they will be paid a guaranteed price of $4.75 per hundredweight of milk. It was announced in the first place that an amount of 10 cents per hundredweight would be set aside to pay exportation subsidies. Now, the Canadian Dairy Commission has just announced that an amount of 11 cents will be used for that purpose and will be earmarked for the entire production whether or not it comes under quotas-
This is a marvelous thing. Quotas will not be overreached to pay subsidies but the transport costs will be deducted from the entire quantity of milk. Can you see the advantages dwindling away, hypocritically, once again.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
-in other words the whole production comes from people subjected to quotas. The result is that producers will receive a subsidy which is substantially less than $1.11 per hundredweight.
The producer expects to receive $1.40 per hundredweight, and now we immediately reduce the price to $1.11, that is a ceiling of $1.11; well, if this is not lying to the farmers after all we promised them, I wonder what is the meaning of words.
The following factors will contribute to reduce the direct subsidy:
(a)	quotas
(b)	export subsidies
(c)	the deduction of 11 cents per hundredweight for exportation purposes on all deliveries made by those subjected to quotas.
(d)	possible government losses with respect to the sale of dairy surpluses.
Producers deplore the fact that at the time of the quota determinations they received little or no notice-
They have not been consulted at all.
-that quotas were set without prior study of the consequences and without their being consulted.
As it is, the system will result in placing in a very difficult situation those producers who intended last year to expand their farm to increase the efficiency of their operations. Moreover, quotas unfortunately do not take into account the regional damages caused by weather conditions or the losses of the producers as a result of cattle diseases.
That is what I was referring to, Mr. Chairman, because in the constituency of Roberval particularly-I am not fully aware of the situation in other constituencies-we have been sorely tried in these areas.
The new policy is unfair to producers of fluid milk. Last year, the federal government estab-
April 26/ 1967

lished a direct subsidy for part of the fluid milk which was not paid for at the class 1 rate or bottling price. This year, that subsidy is eliminated. As a result, with the new dairy policy, a large number of fluid milk producers will receive a lower unit price per hundredweight than before. This decision is unfair and backward. Furthermore, it will result in an increase of fluid milk prices to an undesirable level.
Even if they are fewer in number, the fact remains that cream producers are being handicapped.
Well, fluid milk producers are not the only victims; cream producers, the cheese producers were also left out.
In many areas of Canada, they have no other choice but to ship their cream to the butter-dairy. The new policy does not enable them to earn an income equal to that of the producers whose milk is processed into butter and powdered milk. The producers had asked for a special subsidy so that they might earn as much per hundredweight as those who ship their milk for processing into butter and skimmed powdered milk. The producers whose milk is processed for butter and casein are also in the same situation. As for those whose milk is processed into cheese, they could hardly compete with the dairy producers whose milk is used for butter and skimmed powdered milk. On the other hand, it is difficult to understand why the government did not decide to increase the support price for cheese.
Mr. Chairman, I believe the minister received many letters about this from cheese producers, with the support of dairy farmers, asking for more justice for cheese producers, because there is a gap. There is a gap between the price of butter and that of cheese, and I think that it is unfair for factories producing cheese only to absorb that gap themselves.
I read further from the article:
In the last several years, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture has been pressing for the setting up of formal consultation procedures between the federal government and farm producers' organizations.
That is what all farmers hope for, namely to be consulted in the making of any policy, whether they produce butter, cheese or manufacturing milk. It seems to me that the representatives of associations have enough contacts with the department for the departmental officials to be able to discuss with them and to get advice from them.
At this stage, I would ask the minister to take the information supplied by his technicians, who are not only technicians but practitioners because they live among the farmers 365 days a year and are familiar with production, and to give it to his officials so that they will make out of it a more concrete and more realistic policy for Quebec as well as for the whole of Canada.
Interim Supply
I will continue reading the article:
For all those reasons, the various associations of dairy producers asked the Minister of Agriculture on April 7 last to reconsider the dairy policy. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture stressed the fact that the amount put at the disposal of the Canadian Dairy Commission, that is $120 million, is clearly insufficient.
It surely does not make it possible to ensure income parity with that of all the other classes of society. It does not make it possible to encourage the dairy producers to make the investments needed to put dairy operations on an economic basis. The dairy producers are therefore considering the means to get justice.
Mr. Chairman, that is what I wanted to say tonight. I did not want to make a long speech and personally plead the case. I did it through technicians, the real farm experts in the province of Quebec. I hope for only one thing. That the minister will give them justice taking as a basis once again the price of fluid milk.
If, as it was done last year, up to $5.60, $5.80, $5.85 per hundredweight, is paid in my region for fluid milk, those prices should be taken as a basis and a policy should be elaborated to enable the producers of manufacturing milk to live like the producers of fluid milk because they have to face the same obligations and the same costs as before. I think that the Minister of Agriculture would then only be doing an act of social justice.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
1English1


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I believe this debate should have taken place following the announcement made by the minister several weeks ago on March 22. The minister will agree, I am sure, that I am not being unkind when I say the content of that statement and the statement subsequently released by the dairy commission on April 14 is not very enlightening.
The minister suggested that the amount to be made available to the dairy commission for the payment of subsidies was to be increased from $90 million to $120 million, but that does not tell the whole story. He also said in his statement that the rate for manufactured milk was to be increased by 85 cents from $1.21 per hundredweight. That does not tell the whole story.
When we look at the statement that was released, I am not too sure of the date but I think it was April 14, by the dairy commission outlining the details of its price stabilization and subsidy program for the year, we see there is a lot more involved in this problem than that contained in the minister's speech.

April 26, 1967
Interim Supply
For example, there was a little, but not a complete, indication that the fluid milk subsidy would be withdrawn. It seems to me that only a few months ago the minister had meetings with the ministers of agriculture of Ontario and Quebec to see whether they could find some means whereby there would not be a division in the jurisdiction in so far as the payment of dairy subsidies was concerned. If my memory serves me well, great dissatisfaction was expressed by some of the dairy producers in Ontario because they were receiving substantially less, net, for their product than the farmers in Quebec. The reason was that a subsidy was paid by the Quebec government and it was not paid by the Ontario government.
If that was a problem, and if there was some kind of agreement-which I believe the minister indicated in the house was the case-that the federal government would take over the entire responsibility for paying dairy subsidies and after a period of time the Quebec government would withdraw from this program so that there would be an equalization between the amount the farmers in the two provinces received, why is there now this complete departure from that principle?
The minister said in reply to a question I asked a few days ago that the whole matter of fluid milk, its control, price and so on, rests with the provincial governments. He said, furthermore, that if the fluid milk producers are to be paid nearly as much for their overquota milk, as manufacturing milk, they would have to look to the provincial government to authorize and make the payment. In this respect there seems to be a contradiction, and I hope the minister is now prepared to explain why he is taking this position.
I believe in recent statements the minister also said that in the new program the provincial governments would be entirely responsible for fluid milk sales and subsidies. I believe he said this was mutually agreed after consultation with the two provincial ministers to whom I have referred. Therefore we do not understand this change in policy. As a matter of fact, I believe that the subsidies paid should not be different from one province to the next. I think that if the federal government assumes any responsibility for subsidizing dairy products they should do so on an equal basis all across the country. We know there are many provincial milk control boards and provincial governments that do not pay a subsidy for fluid sales or surplus milk which

goes through this channel into the manufacture of other dairy products. I hope we are to have some uniformity in this respect.
Another thing I cannot understand about this new policy is, why is it that over-quota fluid milk is excluded? Surely the cream, butter and other products manufactured from over-quota milk is equal in quality and many other respects to milk obtained from any other source. In fact, I think it would be fair to say that the fluid milk producers in Canada are probably best able to produce a high quality product under sanitary conditions which gives us the very best available raw product from which to produce butter. If we take the position, and I think it is a valid one, that Canada is no longer producing all the butterfat we consume, surely we should be encouraging rather than discouraging the fluid milk producers to ship over-quota milk for the manufacture of butter. Yet this subsidy is being withdrawn. If you read very carefully the statement issued by the Canadian Dairy Commission on April 14 there does not seem to be any way at all in which the processor or the producer is able to obtain any federal subsidy for over-quota milk. The minister said that either the provinces pay this subsidy or nothing will be paid.
I do not understand how you can square that statement with the fact that we are losing so much of our dairy production that we are not even taking care of our domestic requirements. There are some other disturbing statements in the program outlined by the Canadian Dairy Commission. One is as follows:
Only manufacturing milk and cream shippers will be eligible for subsidy. Shippers are not eligible if any portion of their deliveries are used for fluid purposes.
I ask, what about those dairy operations- and we need them-which are just getting into business? Surely we are not taking the attitude that the dairy farms which we have today are the only ones we will need? If a small portion of a dairy farmer's product is used for fluid purposes, that farmer will not be eligible for subsidy. I think there are dairy farmers who are shipping a small portion of their production and trying to build up a quota in the fluid market; they are shipping some for manufacturing milk and are probably even shipping some cream. But this statement says that if any portion of their deliveries is used for fluid purposes, they shall not receive a subsidy. I do not think this augurs
April 26, 1967

well for the future of the dairy industry in Canada. This statement also says:
Each manufacturing milk and cream shipper will be allotted a quota, which will be his share of the total for which he will be eligible to receive subsidy in 1967-68.
This statement says further:
The commission proposes, in 1968-69, not to issue quotas to producers who delivered less than
50.000	pounds of milk in 1967-68. To provide the opportunity to producers whose 1966-67 deliveries were below that figure to expand, such producers will be allotted a quota for 1967-68 equivalent to
50.000	pounds of milk or 1,750 pounds of butterfat.
In other words, after this year, if I interpret this statement correctly, there will be absolutely no quota for any manufacturing milk shipper who produces less than 50,000 pounds. There may be some justice in this, but it appears also that there will be no quota allocated to any shipper of cream unless he ships 1,750 pounds of butterfat. If this is to be the situation, what will happen to the small farmer who tries to supplement his income by keeping three, four or five dairy cows on a part-year basis. No longer will he be eligible for any quota, and this statement says there will be no subsidy paid to anyone who does not have a quota.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, the statement goes on to try to explain this away by saying that this is done to avoid the perpetuation of non-economic units. Anyone who would have to take 31.24 cents per pound less for his butter than those who are in this production will certainly not even try it. Is that what the minister wants? Is he saying that the dairy commission is now set on a course whereby no one new will be allowed into the industry? Is he saying that the small producers will not be allowed any subsidy whatever? I realize that the policies of the Canadian Dairy Commission are only in the initial stage. I presume the minister will try to work out a policy by means of trial and error and that there will probably be adjustments from time to time. However, I think the commission is set on the wrong course if it is trying to keep anybody new from entering the business or if it is trying to squeeze out all the producers who produce less than 50,000 pounds of milk or 1,750 pounds of butterfat. This is what appears to be the result of the new dairy policy.
I do not intend to speak much longer on this. Perhaps it is unfair to say, as was said by the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) that the dairy producers are worse off today than they were two, three of four years ago when the
Interim Supply
price for milk was substantially lower. I do not think it makes sense to suggest that dairy producers are much worse off now, when the federal government is putting in something like $120 million for the support of the industry, than if they did not receive any of this money.
However, there are certain ramifications in the application of the policy which would lead me to believe, although I do not have the exact details, that some of the dairy producers will be worse off under the new policy. Therefore I hope the minister will not continue on this course, because even though there appeared to be a substantial increase in the price of manufacturing milk and surplus fluid milk since April 1, 1966, there continues to be a decline in the number of dairy producers in Canada. Furthermore, I am told there is a decline in the over-all production.
The government is creating new problems by keeping out small and new producers. I do not believe the federal government's subsidies should become a permanent part of farm income. I believe it might be beneficial in raising the selling price of dairy products for the farmer to bring in the total amount of his receipts over a long period of time, but when there has been an incorrect allocation of the farmers' income, subsidies do play an important part in the adjustments. I also believe we must recognize that the dairy industry has been neglected far too long. Certain policies have been continued over long periods of time owing to the resistance to change, and as a result the industry has not been particularly profitable.
Apparently we have reached the stage at which Canada is no longer over producing dairy products. We are still an expanding country, and we hope our standard of living will continue to rise. This would indicate that we need more, not less, dairy products both in the immediate and in the distant future. Surely the government's policy should encourage this expansion.
In closing I want to ask the minister again to try and give us some answers as to what will happen to the smaller producers. I am not concerned too much about the immediate future in 1967 and 1968 because they will get a subsidy according to the stated policy. But what about those who cannot deliver 50,000 pounds of manufacturing milk or 1,750 pounds of butterfat? Will they have to sell it without a subsidy, which will mean they will have to sell it for 31.42 cents below their neighbours' price.

April 26, 1967
Interim Supply
I would also like to have an explanation of the complete change in policy so far as quota milk is concerned, the price and control of which has been transferred to the provincial authorities. This seems to be a complete contradiction of what the minister told the house a few months ago when Quebec was paying a subsidy not paid by Ontario.
There is another matter concerning the new policy which disturbs me a little. We are told that quotas are the property of the commission and may not be sold or transferred by the person to whom they are issued. The statement reads as follows:
Reallocations of quotas will rest with the commission. In any reallocation of quotas in normal transfers of ownership the prime objective of the commission will be to so manage such reallocations as to assist existing quota holders to develop economic units and to avoid perpetuation of uneconomic units.
What will happen if a dairy farmer wishes to sell his operation? The statement goes on to say that the commission will consider application for the reallocation of quota from the quota holder to an immediate member of his family such as a husband, wife, brother, sister, son or daughter, but it does not say anything about what happens to the quota if it is sold, what is commonly referred to as being at arm's length.
Another point is that the acquisition of an additional quota, at least in the fluid milk business, is a very expensive undertaking. Dairy producers must ship above their quota and accept a substantially lower price for a long period of time before their quota is increased. As a matter of fact there are areas in Canada where the fluid milk quota sells for as much as $15 to $18 a pound. This is an indication of its great value. In most cases the reason that it is so valuable is that it is extremely expensive to establish in the first instance. In the province of Alberta-I am not certain about other areas-a dairy farmer must ship milk above the quota for many months before he can have his quota increased. He must sell milk above the quota at a 40 to 50 per cent reduction in price. In addition to that, even though he may ship away above the quota for a few months, in some provinces the quota is set at the lowest two months of the year. This means that his quota is set on the basis of those two months when his production costs are at their peak.
I suggest to the minister that the production of manufacturing milk or butterfat is almost as expensive as the production of fluid milk. Therefore it seems to me the farmer
[Mr. Olson.l
should be allowed to transfer quotas when the farm unit is sold, or even transfer his quota for a certain sum of money if he wishes to reduce his production.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
According to the information we have before us from the dairy commission, it appears that all quotas shall be the property of the commission and they will not be transferred for any consideration to the producer who has established that quota.
I am not going to detain the house further. These are important questions to the dairy farmers of Canada. While I said at the outset that we should have had this debate some time ago, perhaps the minister will now be ready to provide some illumination of the statement he made on March 22 and some detailed explanation about what will be the application of this new policy from the point of view of the farmer.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, it will be five years in June since I was first elected to the House of Commons and sat in opposition for ten months. Many of us were re-elected in 1963, and a larger number of Liberals having been elected the government and cabinet was formed by Liberals who sat to the right of Mr. Speaker.
I believe that every member of the house is well aware of the seating plan which is distributed to visitors in the gallery and to those who tour the premises when the house is not in session. Following the acquisition of power by the Liberal party in June of 1963, a very clever Liberal Gordon Moore from the riding of York-Humber came to Ottawa on business and one afternoon sat in the gallery. When dinnertime arrived I met him in the lobby and he greeted me with the statement that he would not be working for the Liberal party again after reading the seating plan of the House of Commons.
I asked him what had caused him offence, and he said to me: "This seating plan shows a little black fence around the cabinet ministers". I point out that this was in 1963. I said to him: "Certainly, it has been there for some time". He said: "But it is labelled 'The Government' ". And so it was, Mr. Chairman. Then he said to me: "What the devil are you doing sitting a couple of seats behind the government? I thought I and other working Liberals had elected you to the government, but I come to Ottawa and I learn something entirely different".
April 26, 1967

Gordon Moore was 100 per cent correct in his comments about the seating plan, which showed the government consisted of cabinet ministers and nobody else, though occasionally the whip has been shown inside the little black box which designates people who have been called-I prefer to use the word "called" rather than "chosen", but you might call them the chosen few. There used to be fewer than there are now; today there are 26 of them in the house. Anyway, this little black fence went around the chosen few who were labelled "The Government".
I directed a memorandum to the Prime Minister setting out Gordon Moore's comments on the situation, indicating that the seating plan showed the government consisted of the members of the cabinet and nobody else. I also made the comment that people who worked hard in constituencies to elect a majority of members so that an effective government could be formed were certainly disappointed to learn that their efforts were in vain if they did not elect a cabinet minister.
The next point I made in the memo was the suggestion that the ministry be designated as "The Ministry", and that those who support the ministry be designated as "The government party". I then had a visit from our very good friend, the hon. member for York Centre, who at that time was chief government whip. He came to me with my original memo which I had addressed to the Prime Minister, and up in the corner in handwriting was written: "Jimmy, R.B. raises a point that sounds as though it has some merit. Talk to him and see if this should not be rewritten".
I spoke to the hon. member for York Centre for a few moments, and he spoke to the then Speaker of the House of Commons and almost immediately thereafter there was a change in the written portion of the seating plan of the House of Commons in that in front of the seats of the ministers appeared the statement "The Ministry". Then in the written body of the plan appeared an expression for which I would like to give full credit to the Prime Minister, to the hon. member for York Centre as well as to the Speaker of the day, the former hon. member for Mount Royal. I do not know which of these gentlemen was responsible for rewording the seating plan, but in the ones that are handed out today-in fact, a new one came out this afternoon-you will find this sentence:
To the right of Mr. Speaker sit the Prime Minister. his ministers and other members of the government party (Liberals).
Interim Supply
I should like to point out that when we receive our calls to caucus, which meets nearly every Wednesday and sometimes more frequently, we still have the amusing notice that the supporters of the government are called to meet at such and such a place. I often wonder what the supporters are called, Mr. Chairman. The supporters of the government are asked to meet in a certain place. I do not know why the call could not refer to members of the government party, as is the case in the House of Commons seating plan; but then, Mr. Chairman, there are many things which go on in the House of Commons that perhaps one will never understand.
I give the committee this little episode in House of Commons history for one reason in particular. I wish to point out that the Prime Minister must agree that the cabinet is not the government. If he held to the belief that the cabinet is the government, he would not have changed the wording of the seating plan going on four years ago to the point where the cabinet is today referred to in the seating plan as "The Ministry", and the members of the Liberal party are referred to as "members of the government party (Liberals)". If in the seating plan the ministry is called the ministry, why cannot the cabinet be called the cabinet when it makes some announcement to this, that or the other effect?
Members on the government side of the house are everlastingly hearing on the radio or picking up newspapers and reading about the government announcing this, the government announcing that; that the government is doing one thing and has decided not to do another thing. It is the government that is making these announcements. Liberal workers come to us and say: "In the name of heaven, you are a member of the government; why did you allow this to go on? What is the matter with the government?" You simply have to say, Mr. Chairman, that you know nothing whatever about the matter, that you read about it in the paper as they did, and that the only information you have is what is vouchsafed in the newspapers, on the radio or on television.
In the book which has been the subject of discussion for some time written by Messrs. Saywell and Ricker, with regard to whom we are endeavouring to ascertain how much of the taxpayers' money the C.B.C. pays to these biased men who write that the printed word cannot be believed because it carries advertisements, whereas the C.B.C. can be believed because they just milk the common taxpayer,

April 26, 1967
Interim Supply
there is a paragraph about the unbiased nature of C.B.C. news coverage. There is also a paragraph pointing out that the common parlance of today calls the cabinet the government.
As a member of the Liberal party and quite evidently not a member of the government, I should like to emphasize that when the cabinet makes announcements that the government is going to do this, and that the government is going to do that, it nettles Liberal workers from coast to coast, who in many cases want to know whether the Liberal member for their local constituency has agreed to such statement on the part of the government. I am pointing out here as plainly as I can that in the majority of cases the Liberal member does not know anything about these so-called government announcements until he reads them.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
In my opinion nothing is the matter with the word "cabinet". It is not like "cabal" which has a derogatory significance and intimates some sort of crookedness. Why can't the ministry use the word that has always been quite straightforward. Why does the government not say: "The cabinet suggests this", "the cabinet is thinking of doing this" "the cabinet is thinking of doing that"? Or, do they not want the public to think that the cabinet has to ask permission from anybody for anything? Do they want to create the impression that they are all-powerful, beholden to no one, and that when they make an announcement it is like the law of the Medes and the Persians, subject to no change, not even by Liberals who might have been elected on the basis of the overthrow of the former government.
I did not mean to take part in the discussion on interim supply tonight but I felt that if I did not rise today and comment about some announcements which have been made in the name of the cabinet, the country as a whole might come to the conclusion that every Liberal in the country had acquiesced in those policy statements which have been issued, since no voice had been raised in protest. The longer the silence the more will be the uproar when in future, some objection is taken to a so-called government announcement.
I could give a few instances of these so-called government announcements, but tonight I shall only speak on two, and I shall refer to the subjects of abortion and this new system of honours and awards for Canada.

I have been a member of the Liberal party all my life and some people resent that I intend to die a Liberal-and I do not mean to die in the near future. I would point out that as a Liberal I have attended every Liberal party convention since 1921. You might say that in 1921 I was a minor; I was 19 years old, but I was a newspaper reporter; and if I was not voting at least I had a seat at the press table. I have attended every Liberal convention nationally, and in Ontario, provincially, from that time. I have attended 90 per cent of the caucus meetings since election, five years ago this June, and I have an idea of the thinking and the discussion going on at these affairs.
You will remember that last October we had a big hoop-la at the Chateau Laurier which was announced as the national Liberal party policy convention. All the time it was policy, policy, policy-policy all the way last October at the Chateau Laurier. I remember some fine westerners coming from British Columbia-the finest delegation in the entire convention-and they had a resolution on free trade which swept the Liberal convention at the Chateau Laurier. I was there when they carried the vote in committee; I was there when they carried it in the general plenary meeting of the Liberal party. The British Columbian men and women were very happy with the great acceptance of their idea of free trade between Canada and the North American continent.
That was the policy convention of the Liberal party, you may remember. It was advertised that way and reported that way. And you may recall that a few days later a voice came down from on high-and I do not mean from heaven; I mean from the top of parliament hill, which is higher than the Chateau Laurier-and it said: "You know, boys and girls, a policy convention is all right. After all, boys and girls get together, and they meet in halls and banquets. These do's are billed as policy conventions-but we will talk about that later on. Do not take it too seriously." This is how certain people would like to handle policy, even though those at the convention think they are making policy for the Liberal party.
In the Globe and Mail for Monday, April 24, 1967, there is a report of a policy convention which was held by the Liberal party for the province of Ontario in the Royal York Hotel, Toronto. In the same edition there is a fine report of the nomination of Joe Potts, past President of the Toronto and Yorks Liberal Association, who will contest St.
April 26, 1967

David. There is a full report of the policy convention of the provincial Liberal party. I might state that in Ontario there is no distinction between federal and provincial Liberals. In Ontario, once a Liberal you are always a Liberal. The last paragraph of the interesting report reads:
The Toronto and district policy conference last year launched the campaign that led to changes in the party constitution to provide that the right of establishing party policy belonged to the rank and file.
Well, the Globe and Mail had a lot of accurate reporters; perhaps the reporter who wrote that thought he was accurate.
I want to give two examples tonight, in passing, of where policy is evidently supposed to start. As I said before, I shall talk of abortions and the establishment of the new system of honours and awards in Canada. I happen to be a member of the House of Commons health and welfare committee and have taken a deep interest in its work. I have not missed many meetings; if I have missed any it is because the whip has dragged me out to form a quorum on the veterans affairs committee or the broadcasting committee-but my first preference was health and welfare. We spent much time this past fall and winter discussing birth control. Man, oh man, we know more about contraceptives and what they do to prevent births throughout the world than any other group of men in North America.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about it.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: It is too late tonight to tell you. But there were people running around the halls of parliament grabbing the coat lapels of the members of the health and welfare committee, whispering, "If anybody brings up abortions, we are not discussing abortions this year. Next year we will discuss them. If anybody asks you what you are doing about abortions just say that abortions are out this year; tell them they will be discussed next year. If they want to talk about contraceptives or birth control, tell them-don't discuss abortions. Tell them we are not discussing them."
It was most amazing, therefore, in February to be sitting in Toronto and to hear the announcement from on high that in 1967: "The government is going to change the laws on abortions." Well, that was interesting. That has never been discussed in caucus, never been discussed at a Liberal party convention and has never been discussed formally in gatherings of Liberals. But the abortion laws
Interim Supply
are to be changed in 1967 "by the government". This is a serious matter.
On the 17th of April, when we were installing a new Governor General the Toronto Star aptly said-and I would not refer to the Governor General in the House of Commons were it not for the direct references made to him by the right hon. Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition in the debates of parliament-in a caricature of the situation showing the installation of the Governor General there appeared the poor little taxpayer remarking to the man standing and watching all the pomp and circumstance go rushing by, with its plumes and horses and red coats: "Boy, we spend a lot of time in Ottawa keeping up with yesterday."


David Lewis: How long ago was yesterday?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Two hundred years.
Then on April 17 we had the announcement of the right hon. Prime Minister, found on page 14967 of Hansard:
I would like to announce to the house the establishment of a system of honours and awards for Canada. Practically every sovereign country has such a system which it uses as a means of recognizing merit or gallantry, or distinguished public service. I believe that recognition of this kind can strengthen national pride and the appreciation of national service.
Then he says:
The government considers that there is a need in Canada...
It is my pleasure to announce that on the recommendation of the government Her Majesty has approved...
That was an interesting announcement, and I was very interested in getting the details. It was the very first we Liberals had heard of this. I am opposed to titles and honours. I should stress that many, many other Liberals are opposed to any system of titles, honours and awards in this country of Canada.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
We have lived satisfactorily since 1919 under the impact of the Nickle resolution, which, of course, has been circumvented here and there just often enough to add a little spice to life. We find the Secretary of State for External Affairs writing letters asking people not to accept decorations from foreign governments because that is not in keeping with the policy of the Canadian nation. Then I have in my hand a press release put out by the Secretary of State for External Affairs announcing the award by France of the Legion of Honour to the Canadian ambassador to Switzerland. This is known as playing both

April 26, 1967
Interim. Supply
sides and keeping everybody happy; you might offend people you do not allow to take the medals but you please the ones you do.
This system of awards announced an April 17 which, as I have stated, was brand new to all those in the Liberal party, or perhaps I should say to all those in the rank and file of the Liberal party, has been given a lot of thought. There is no doubt about that. We are told there will be three types of awards. This means we shall no longer be able to talk about free and equal Canadians.
Under this system, as I say, we are to have three types of awards, which means there will be four kinds of Canadians. We are to have the companions of the order, the medal of courage, the medal of service. After that will come the fourth group-the hoi polloi. There is, in fact, a fifth, because the Governor General is now given the title of Right Honourable, this on the recommendation of the government, or, specifically, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.
So instead of having free and equal Canadians in the future we shall have five classes. We shall have the Governor General, to start with, with the title-"title" is the word used-of Right Honourable. After that come the Companions of the Order of Canada, the holders of the medal of courage, the medal of service and so on. We shall have five divisions and we shall all be Canadians and free, but we sure won't be equal.
I liked the announcement that the method of recommendation or selection to be used is to be based strictly on merit. That is the way we appoint senators in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: We all know the quality we have in the other place. The same system as is used to pick senators will be used to pick the Companions of the Order of Canada whose initials, in short, are C-O-O-C: pronounced "kook".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: We are then told that by limiting the number of recipients it is intended to maintain the quality of these awards. That is how we preserve such high quality in the Senate. There are only 102 of them and by limiting the number we have the very high quality we enjoy in the other place.
I have mentioned these two announcements of policy, which hit us like a thunderclap from on high. If we do not automatically

support these policies we are rebels, dissidents, trouble makers, disturbers, heretics and so on. One is certainly not asked in advance to give an opinion, because it may be in opposition to whatever has been decided by a few other people.
I am pointing out that the caucus is bypassed, that the party policy conventions are by-passed. And it is the simplest thing in the world to begin by-passing parliament itself. We hear a lot about unity in diversity and diversity in unity and flexibility with firmness or firmness with flexibility. Well, I am giving you a little talk on dictatorship in democracy or democracy and dictatorship, call it what you will.
We have had a little discussion in the last few days on a bill brought forward by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. This has not yet been proclaimed; it is not yet law, and any comment I might make in the next few minutes has to do only with the regulations promulgated on March 30 by order in council of the Right Honourable-no, pardon me, by the Administrator of the vice-regal office. I think it is interesting to bear in mind that interim supply was passed on March 22, the last day before the Easter vacation. We adjourned that night. March 24 was Good Friday, March 26 was Easter Sunday, March 27 was Easter Monday and on March 30 down comes a crop of regulations in connection with manpower. It has been proven in the course of able remarks by the hon. member for Prince, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the hon. member for York South. The hon. member for Peace River and others in this house during the last few days that here we have a case of regulations being put into effect and money being spent without parliament having passed the necessary legislation.
I have here in my hand, in case anybody wants to discuss it in detail, Bill C-278, an act respecting the occupational training of adults. That is what is printed on the front of it, together with the words "First reading, March 3, 1967". Then I have here the records of our House of Commons Debates and I find that on March 22 we passed interim supply. The house rose, and on March 30 out came the regulations by order in council from Government House. So the cabinet goes merrily on their way, hoping that parliament will pass the legislation necessary to legalize what is being done. As I say, it has not yet been legalized since this bill is not yet an act of the Dominion of Canada.
April 26, 1967

Interim Supply


Mr. O'Keefe:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Does he object to the spending of this money to remove people from Bell Island, where they were unemployed, to other areas, as was done under this legislation?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Not by any means. I do not know what that has to do with what I am discussing, that is, the legality of the action. I only wish they would move all those people from Bell Island to Toronto because we could do with people of that quality and ability. We have a few N.D.P. seats we want to win.
I want to point out that on Tuesday, April 25 the official record of the House of Commons tells us: "Debate was resumed on the motion of Mr. Marchand, seconded by Mr. Cote, that Bill C-278, an act respecting the occupational training of adults, be now read the second time." I also have a copy of Routine Proceedings for March 22, the day on which the house adjourned for the Easter recess, and on page 5 the top item shows the following outstanding: "Second reading of Bill C-278, an act respecting the occupational training of adults."
When the regulations were brought down by order in council the cabinet knew that the necessary legislation had not been passed by parliament. Yet they went ahead and began spending money under this heading without legal authority for so doing. They by-passed parliament completely.
I have given examples to show how the caucus has been ignored. I have shown how the recommendations of party policy conventions have been ignored. Now it has come to the point at which parliament itself is bypassed. I regret very much that situations of this kind occur from time to time. There are other examples I could mention.
There is the example of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. If he spent more time in Ottawa and less in the riding of Lapointe we might get more legality in the actions he carries on. I have been described as not being a typical English speaking Canadian. I know I am not. When the Minister of Manpower and Immigration spoke in Toronto about four weeks ago I was the only sitting member of parliament who went to hear him. There are 18 sitting members of parliament from Toronto. Seventeen did not go to hear him, and one did. That means I am not typical. If I had been typical I would have been one of those who did not go to hear him.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: But I would also point out for the edification of the minister that I am not a typical English speaking Canadian. I have no hesitation in going into any part of Quebec where my people have been living, working, marrying and dying since 1795. They don't have to send R.C.M.P. guards with me when I go into Quebec, nor any men in civilian clothes to protect me from my fellow Canadians when I go. I have always moved with ease among them, and always expect to move with ease among them. But that does not get around the question that hundreds of thousands of English speaking Canadians do not want to enter the province of Quebec. They don't like post office boxes being blown up in their faces. They don't like things going "boom" when they turn on the electric light in private homes. Many English speaking Canadians do not want to enter Quebec, but I never have any hesitation in doing so, never have had and never will, and so I am not a typical English speaking Canadian.
I would like to extend my thanks to another minister who went on a television network the night before I spoke in Lapointe and made the announcement to French network viewers that he would advise me not to go into Quebec. I did not know of that announcement. The trouble is, I went. I never thought to ask him for his advice. I do not think he could save me, even if he tried. I like to stand on my own two feet.
I am going to speak in Hamilton on Friday next. But I do not intend to ask, will it be O.K. with him for me to speak there. I say I can move anywhere in Canada that I wish to go, and I will go any place where I am asked by a responsible organization such as the College of Jonquiere. I enjoy meeting my fellow Canadians from coast to coast, and I hope I will always be able to speak in that vein.
I have taken up as much time as I intend to speak on interim supply, but I intend to speak again on the throne speech address in about two weeks time. I would like to give you a few more details, but there are others who wish to speak tonight. However, it is interesting, and I want to leave this thought with you, that on April 21, Friday last, we had the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister exchanging words over titles and referring to the title "Right Honourable."
I might state for your information that last July when I was in London I spent over four

April 26, 1967
Interim Supply
and a half hours with the officials of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom and the Colonies, which is its proper name. There is no such thing as an "Imperial Privy Council." That name is used by, shall I say, colonials and status seekers who wish to create the impression that they belong to something super-super. I am happy to remind you that the Prime Minister, in reply to the Leader of the Opposition, referred to "the Imperial Privy Council, so-called." He did not make the mistake of referring to the Privy Council of the United Kingdom and the Colonies as "Imperial Privy Council."
The thought that I want to leave with you tonight is that my good friend, Lord Thomson of Fleet, approached the right hon. member for Prince Albert, as a matter of fact in St. John's Newfoundland, on a certain visit and asked him if he would recommend him for a title as he, Roy Thomson, was living in Great Britain. The answer he got was a straight question, "Would you accept the governor generalship"? The suppliant was somewhat taken aback by the question and after maybe some three or four seconds thought said, "Well, I would take the governor generalship." Well, that was the end of that. Having been a Conservative candidate in Toronto York Centre in 1953 Roy Thomson did not expect any favours from any other party, so he made inquiry as to how he might acquire a title in Great Britain. He was advised by the people there that because he was a Canadian citizen, under the Canadian Citizenship Act, nobody in Britain would recommend him for a title. It would have to be done by the head of the state where his citizenship was, but it was pointed out that if he became a citizen of the United Kingdom and the Colonies they would be very glad to recommend him for a title.
Therefore, on June 5, 1963, Roy Thomson, as we all know him, applied for United Kingdom citizenship which was granted to him immediately and on January 1, 1964, lo and behold, his name appeared in that list of honoured citizens of the United Kingdom and the Colonies, and he was no more a Canadian citizen.
The Nickle resolution reads, and I have it in my hand:
We, Your Majesty's Most dutiful and loyal subjects, the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, humbly approach Your Majesty, praying that Your Majesty may be graciously pleased:-
(a) To refrain hereafter from conferring any title of honour or titular distinction upon any of your subjects domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada-

And down further there is a paragraph at the bottom reading:
A suggestion was made that the titles of "Eight Honourable" and "Honourable" be discontinued, but the suggestion did not meet with the approval of the committee.
I asked the officials of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom and the Colonies in London how it was that when my very good friend, Lord Thomson of Fleet, accepted that title he was forced to yield his Canadian citizenship in order to be nominated by the-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I must advise the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the committee to carry on.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Michael Starr: The Liberals don't like him speaking.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I thank the members and I won't trespass overlong-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order please. The hon. member does not have the unanimous consent of the committee to continue. The hon. member for Wetaskiwin.


Mr. Moore:: Mr. Chairman, I enjoyed the change of pace provided by my hon. friend from York-Humber and I am in complete sympathy with him, but I must return to the dairy policy and I would like to deal specifically with discrimination against two groups of Canadians. Those two groups are the ones who ship fluid milk and the people who drink it. This involves a lot of people, but the way things are going I am afraid both groups may become smaller.
Fluid milk shippers sell milk on a quota basis, and this quota is set by the needs of the pasteurizing plants, not by governments, commissions or what-have-you. However, they sell only a percentage of their total production. This amount varies from area to area, and it varies among shippers, even among shippers to the same plant.
I want to give an example, using specific figures which I obtained from Alberta. They happen to be figures from my district. I am interested in dairy problems all across Canada but, as I say, I have obtained these
April 26, 1967

figures from Alberta, and there might be a slight difference with respect to figures between the provinces.
These figures are based on a check for the last two weeks of March of this year. Tests of the milk in question happened to be 3.5 and since prices are based on 3.5 milk the figures give a good example. Out of a total of 15,618 pounds of milk sold by one farmer in two weeks, he received the quota price on 5,932 pounds, which was $5.60 a hundredweight. On the remaining 9,686 pounds he received the market price of $3.25 a hundredweight, making his average price $4.15 a hundredweight. This is a long way from the $4.65 that manufacturing milk shippers may receive this year.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
The use of the word "may" in this case was intentional. I informed this man that he would receive no quota, having shipped some of his fluid milk. I must say that he would not believe me. He said, "This could not be possible." He said, "We got it last year and will get it this year." Unfortunately he will be disappointed. We are talking about fluid milk shippers or shippers of distribution milk; it is the same thing. They ship to a plant which pasteurizes and distributes milk on the street.
The minister states that these producers are under provincial jurisdiction. Certainly their quota portion is under provincial jurisdiction because the price is set by commissioners or milk boards or some similar body in each province. The manufacturing portion of their milk is not under provincial jurisdiction. The minister cannot show me evidence that it is or ever has been. To say that it is, is ridiculous. The minister, however, has said this in the house over and over again. Let us be kind and say that instead of being guilty of perpetrating a hoax he just does not know the facts.
If this is so, if what the minister says is so, why did the shippers receive some subsidy last year? What has happened? In other words, what arrangements have been made with the different provinces? I mean by this that each and every province in Canada then would have to pay a subsidy on the fluid milk shippers' surplus. If they did, what would the other shippers think of this? What would their neighbours think? Just consider that. The new dairy commission is to pay a subsidy by quota, and that quota will be the same as the amount on which the subsidy was paid last year. What would happen if the fluid milk shipper was forced to switch to selling manufacturing milk? I should like to know
Interim Supply
how much quota they then would have on which they would be paid a subsidy. Will it be just the amount they received last year over 120 per cent of their fluid quota? If so, it could be very very little; it could amount to just a few pounds difference.
How should one expand under this new quota system? Is any provision made? If there is, it certainly is not spelled out. I cannot find it either in the dairy policy or in the proclamation by the Canadian Dairy Commission. Fluid milk shippers are so discouraged that many are contemplating going out of business. To prove this, all that is necessary is that one look at any weekly publication in any place in Canada; but of course, I only know about the publications in my own area. In one little paper I noticed last week that there were seven dairy disposal sales. These were sales involving 31 head of cattle, 27 head of cattle and so on. I do not think this is something which is normal. However, this is the situation all over Canada. In order to stop this, the provincial boards-and I am speaking now of the boards which regulate the price of fluid milk-are increasing the price of fluid milk. The price goes up on the street, and what happens? If you do not think it is going up, read the papers. Every day you will find reports that milk is going up, that milk shippers are to receive more money, and so on. This certainly is true across Canada.
The price of beer, liquor and cigarettes can go up with no seeming effect on sales, but let the price of milk go up and sales immediately drop. We cannot change human nature, so we cannot do anything to manage this. When the sales drop on the street the fluid or distribution shipper sells less milk on quota. I believe this has been mentioned before, but I wish to emphasize it because it certainly is true. At the higher price he sells less on quota. Therefore he gains little or nothing.
A ridiculous situation is arising where a man who has more money invested and extremely higher production costs in comparison to other shippers, and who operates under very strict regulations and inspections of premises, can, and in many cases will, receive less than his neighbour who sells manufacturing milk. I am certainly in favour of additional income for the producer of manufacturing milk. In some places he may receive $4.65 per hundredweight; in other places he may realize much less than the $4.75 which is mentioned in the dairy policy. This figure of $4.75 may be taken by some to be a guaranteed price, but it is not: It is just a hope.

April 26, 1967
Interim Supply
In comparison to this, cream shippers will not receive a better break, but they will find the increased subsidy of last year very useful, I am sure, to say the least. However, they certainly will not realize $4.75 per hundredweight on the same basis as for milk. I have a question which I should like to ask the minister in respect of the dairy commission report which was sent out I think on April 14. At the top of the second page the report reads as follows:
The deduction for the export equalization fund will be made on all milk or cream delivered by quota holders each month, not just on the quota quantity.
I could argue with that statement, but what I should like to know is the situation in respect of the surplus milk from the fluid shipper on which he receives a subsidy. Is he supposed to pay this too? I would hope not. It says here that shippers are not eligible if any portion of their deliveries is used for fluid purposes. At the bottom of the page the report continues:
The quotas will be determined on an annual amount but will be allocated on a monthly basis related to the average percentage of manufacturing milk and cream delivered each month. Should payments under the monthly quota not reach the annual quota allocated to a producer, there will be a reconciliation at the end of the year.
That part is fair enough but the question which I should like to ask is this: Can a quota be increased? This would not seem to be the case. If one cannot increase the quota, then I do not see how we can bring a substandard unit up to a point where it is a paying unit, or whatever the terminology is that the government uses in respect of such a unit. Farmers are always being advised to work this up.
To sum up, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that this is a discriminatory policy. I shall not presume to tell the government how much money they do have to spend in subsidizing dairies, but I do say that one group of dairymen should not be harmed. This policy most certainly does harm one group of dairymen. I might add that I hope this year the machinery for making the payments will function so that we do not get into the situation we had last year when payments in some cases were made months late. I know that the reason this happened has been explained; but the point is that it did happen and we hope that it will not happen again.
I urge the minister to have a look at the discriminatory features of this dairy policy before we lose more of our top flight dairymen, who will never be replaced. I say that

there is no continuity to the dairy policy year after year. What is right in respect of the dairy policy this year seems to be wrong in the next year. No one dares follow the advice of the government to expand into an economic unit, because the policy does not allow for any expansion.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
I hope the minister will consider this very important and pertinent fact.


Mr. Matte:: Mr. Chairman, may I make a few comments on agriculture while dwelling more specifically on the dairy industry.
I need not outline the precarious situation in which the farmer now lives, particularly in Quebec.
Everyone must be aware of the difficult conditions in which some farmers live, or as others might put it, in which they rot.
It is enough to know that the Quebec farmer earns 40 per cent less than the average income in Canada, while he has the same needs as the other classes of society.
The problem is there, but the perfect solution has yet to be found, although the government is setting up a long term national agricultural policy which doubtless will be an efficient means of development and readjustment.
We want and seek the best means to enable this working class, to which we owe so much, to have the same standard of living as other classes of society. It is essential for the farmers to share in the national economic life and benefit from it. To tell the truth, our present government has done much in the last three years but there is still much to be done. The fact that the price of manufactured milk was $2.62 three years ago and that it is $4.75 today is a practical demonstration that we are not unaware of the problem. We are the country with the highest price for manufacturing milk, including the United States, but it should not stay there.
The Canadian Dairy Commission was formed during this session and I am sure it will be very useful as will the Canadian Livestock Feed Board.
Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Agriculture who is totally devoted, made a statement some time ago on the new dairy policy for 1967-68. In spite of the numerous representations, we could have been more satisfied: I would have been much happier, very happy
April 26, 1967

indeed, if we could have agreed fully to the brief presented by the C.F.U.
If I had been in the opposition, I would have requested $6 and more, and even the abolition of taxes. It is so easy. But when you are responsible for the administration, you have to do with what you have and balance the budget the best you can. Every minister, every department has its objects and its requests. And every minister would like to get more. The government ought to protect the producer and the consumer.
We all know also that taxes are never very popular. However, Mr. Chairman, I must give credit to the U.C.C. for the extraordinary work it does mainly in the province of Quebec. The U.C.C. is a living force which will accomplish ever more so long as it gets support from all sides. And we must give it the greatest possible support.
Supply, Mr. Chairman, has to be passed even in spite of criticism. It is so easy. This government has shown that it has done more in the last three years than all the governments since Confederation.
We have every reason to expect that we will do even more just as long as it is possible.


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, in view of the lateness of the hour, I shall cut short the remarks I had intended to make tonight. But, since my constituency is partly made up of farmers, and the dairy industry in my area holds a predominant place, I cannot but take a few minutes to join with those who made representations to the minister in favour of more sustained attention and a better share of the national income for the farmers.
Some time ago, the minister set forth his dairy policy for the year 1967-68. It is a known fact that never, since the time the present Liberal government has been occupying the treasury benches, has a policy given rise to so much discontent. When such peaceful people as farmers decide to march on the Canadian parliament, surely there is cause for concern.
And it is our duty, as representatives, to take the necessary steps in order to remedy as quickly as possible the farmers' predicament.
I have here, Mr. Chairman, an article published in Le Devoir on Tuesday, April 18, 1967, under the following heading:
The C.F.U. denounces Ottawa's new dairy policy and attacks violently the federal members for Quebec.
Interim Supply
And under the signature of Mr. Gilles Gariepy, one can read in the second paragraph of that article:
At a press conference the C.F.U. and the Federation stated that they were "bitterly disappointed" by the attitude of the federal members for Quebec who with their colleagues passed the legislation of last April 1.
Here, Mr. Chairman, I think that the writer forgot a very important word. He should have referred to "the stand taken by the federal Liberal members from Quebec", because we, on this side of the house, have tried on many occasions to call the minister's attention to the problems of the dairy industry to have him amend a dairy policy that we thought prejudicial to farmers.
The same article further states:
According to the two organizations, that piece of legislation shows the "irresponsibility and the inaction of our Quebec members."
Here again, Mr. Chairman, reference should have been made to the "irresponsibility and inaction of the Liberal members from Quebec," because they did very little and if they made any representations, as they claimed and as has just said the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) I am inclined to believe that those representations failed to impress the minister, since he did not lift a finger to help the farmers.
The statements made by the leaders of the Catholic Farmers Union with regard to that new dairy policy are not very flattering for the minister.
The dairy policy set forth by the minister for the year 1967-68 is described first as inadequate, second as inconsistent and third, as unfair to the farmers. Despite that unfavourable assessment made by the representatives of the agricultural class, the minister keeps on saying that it is the best dairy policy ever given to the Canadian people and that the dairy farmers are more prosperous than ever.
However when we listen to farmers, and especially the dairy farmers, we hear quite a different version. The minister should adapt himself to the situation.
Mr. Chairman, it is not necessary to go through many farm publications to realize that the dairy policy of the Minister of Agriculture is completely unsatisfactory and unacceptable to farm groups.
I have here the "Farm and Country" of Tuesday March 28, 1967, where we find the following heading:
Interim Supply

April 26, 1967
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)

Ontario Industrial Farmers Must Have $5 Milk.
The demand for $5 per hundredweight for milk used for industrial purposes is neither frivolous, greedy or unreasonable. As a recent resolution of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture says, even this price is still short of economic equality for producers.
This should not surprise anybody.

This is an assessment from a group which represents the farming class.
In another publication, one can read the following:

Canada's 1967 Dairy Policy Not Acceptable.

And in the last paragraph, this is what we read:

Government policy is supposed to help the people, not drive them up the financial wall.
This is a thoroughly bad, thoroughly unacceptable policy. Mr. Greene was able last summer to divert the wrath of dairy farmers toward Queen's Park and Quebec City, thanks to the unsophistication of those heading the protest movement. If he hopes this year to continue avoiding criticism by putting up another false front in the form of the Canadian Dairy Commission he is wrong. Farmers now have a little less Greene in their eyes than they did.

Here are some really harsh articles for the minister who cannot maintain that he has not been warned.
I have in hand a copy of La Terre de Chez-Nous dated August 9, 1964 which says:
Ottawa turns a deaf ear. The C.F.U. is continuing its representations on behalf of dairy producers.
And in it, we can see that the minister has certainly welcomed the farmers' representatives, but that the latter returned dissatisfied with their unsolved problems.
We have there, Mr. Chairman, an idea of the unfavourable conditions against which farmers are struggling, especially when we know, for instance, that they have to meet ever increasing production costs, while the price of their products is stable or falling.
I have here a price list supplied by a farmers' co-operative in regard to the prices of meal as of June 15, 1966 and February 27, 1967.
It is astonishing, Mr. Chairman, to note the extent of the price increases.
IMr. Eicard.]
For instance, corn meal went from $3.50 per hundredweight in June 1966 to $4.05 in February in 1967. The other prices I will quote are for the dates referred to, that is from June 15, 1966 to February 27, 1967. Wheat meal, $3.55 compared to $4.00. Barley meal, $3.30 compared to $3.55. Oatmeal $3.30 compared to $3.50. Growing meal for hogs, $3.85 compared to $4.10. Dairy cattle meal $3.50 compared to $3.80. Bran meal $3.40 compared to $3.80. Shorts $3.50 compared to $3.85.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to tell the minister that the situation is serious among the farmers. The farmers came here with members of the C.F.U. to meet the minister and members of the cabinet only a few weeks ago and they have clearly established their positions, and their very difficult situation and unless the government takes the responsibility and decides to give them what they are entitled to I think it will be too late if a decision is delayed five or six months more. If we wait another five or six months, it will be too late.
If I had the time, I would like to refer the minister to the warnings we gave him in the last few months, to the criticism of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture	in
January last when they met in Winnipeg. I shall merely quote the first sentence of the first paragraph:
It is resolved that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture express in the strongest terms, its opposition to the suggestion of the federal Minister of Agriculture, to the effect that total subsidies to the dairy industry would be maintained at their present level.
And in the second paragraph, they say that a minimum objective of $5.10 per hundredweight of manufacturing milk is absolutely essential.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that those few remarks will convince the minister. It is high time for him to assume his responsibilities and to take the necessary steps to give the farmers a truly advantageous position.
Another topic on which I should like to dwell, Mr. Chairman, is the textile industry. As we know, this industry is the second largest employer in the province of Quebec. It gives work to some 52,000 employees at the present time, that is approximately 60 per cent of the total national labour force in the textile industry. The annual output amounts to approximately $850 million.
April 26, 1967

In the last few years, in particular, the textile industry, one of the oldest in the country and in the province of Quebec especially, has had to face the competition of developing countries which causes many problems for our Canadian workers and manufacturers.
When one reads in the paper, for instance, that an old Dominion Textile mill, the Merchants mill in Montreal, which employs 300 workers, will have to close down by next October, one realizes that the situation is really serious. On the other hand, the output of the Thor Mills of Granby has fallen off by 50 per cent and the situation is so serious that those textile workers have even decided to disregard the terms of their collective agreement in order to enter into a common agreement with their employer whereby they will go on short time so as to distribute among themselves the few dollars they can still earn through unfilled orders. Mr. Chairman, that situation is partially due to competition from developing countries that is not always quite fair. I have here a letter from a St. Hyacinthe textile manufacturer who complains that the labelling of products from an underdeveloped country is causing trouble for Canadian manufacturers. It seems that the buyer is being led to believe that the item is a Canadian product.
[DOT] (10:40 p.m.)
To clarify the thoughts of my correspondent, I shall quote part of this letter:
This sample as you can see is labelled (I will omit the name) and anyone who Is not too familiar with purchases can easily be misled, thinking he is buying Canadian goods, for the label is quite conspicuous, large and marked Montreal. However, if you unfold the pants you see on the inside a small label saying "Made in Japan".
Surely this shipper is using a method which is dishonest and detrimental to our Canadian manufacturers and workers.
I have contacted the hon. minister concerned and drawn this anomaly to his attention, so that it may be corrected.
There is also another field with which I should like to deal for a few minutes only, namely the shoe industry.
Yesterday we had a meeting with the manufacturers and the workers' representatives in this industry, which, due to foreign competition, is in the process of disappearing. I cannot help but blame the government for this decrease in the number of Canadian shoe manufacturers.
We know, for instance, that the Canadian footwear can be favourably compared with
Interim Supply
the footwear of any other country. But there are so many goods imported from emerging countries that since 1963, 29 Canadian manufactures were compelled to close. Of that number, 13 were located in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, when we think, for instance, that a manufacture such as Ludger Duchene Incorpore, which had been founded in 1907, was compelled to close its doors. Those who are interested in the welfare of Canadian workers have every reason to be concerned. We have lost 13 such factories since 1963, when the present government came to office.
But there is more, Mr. Chairman.
Imports increased by 8,565,730 pair of shoes from 1963 to 1966, with Canada's production over the same period decreasing by 1,102,857 pair.
While shoe imports represented only 5 per cent of Canadian production in 1951, in 1966 they amounted to 49 per cent of our production.
Mr. Chairman, there is cause for concern, and representatives of both the shoe manufacturers and the workers in the shoe industry, were right in warning us that they could not wait any longer. It is absolutely essential that the government do something, otherwise, this home industry which is in the process of disappearing, will surely and quite rapidly disappear.
If I took a few minutes to bring this question to the attention of the cabinet, it is because I have in my constituency, a half dozen shoe manufactures employing at least several hundred workers.
The consequences from a municipal point of view can be imagined if the employees were thrown into the street overnight and forced to find work elsewhere.
The shoe industry employs some 24,000 workers in 220 shoe manufacturing plants spread all over Canada. To this should be added nearly 15,000 other workers employed in other plants supplying the shoe manufacturing plants.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I should like the relevant authorities to take due notice of this warning that was sounded by the shoe workers and manufacturers. I should also like to ask the Minister of Industry and Defence Production (Mr. Drury) to bring all the influence he can bring to bear to convince his colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) to abolish this 12 per cent tax which hinders Canadian manufacturers in their efforts to compete with foreign products.

April 26, 1967
Interim Supply
I know that the representations came from all sides in that field as in others where the government turned a deaf ear, but I think that the government should at last realize that unless steps are taken without delay it will be too late and our whole economic structure will suffer.


Mr. Clermont:: Mr. Chairman, in this debate on interim supply, I should like to talk about the dairy industry and farming in general.
The hon. member who has just resumed his seat, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacin-the-Bagot (Mr. Ricard), insinuated that hon. members sitting at the right of the chair had not done anything for the dairy industry.
The minister is aware of the representations made by the Liberal members on various occasions. I thought the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot felt that the dairy industry was too important to indulge in petty politics about it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gaston Clermont: On March 22, 1967, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) announced to the Canadian people the dairy policy for 1967-68.
I am referring to page 2 of his press release.
While total returns to producers from subsidy and the market will depend upon the action of provincial boards and agencies in establishing minimum paying prices, I am informed by the commission that the combination of subsidy and price supports will provide for a total milk price in the order of $4.75 f.o.b. the factory for manufacturing milk testing 3.5 per cent.
We know, Mr. Chairman, that the associations representing the dairy producers in the province of Quebec and in Canada asked in several briefs that the price support be set at $5.10 per hundredweight of milk testing 3.5 per cent butterfat, either by increasing the subsidy or the retail price.
[DOT] (10:50 p.m.)
Recently a representative of the Ontario dairy producers association expressed some concern, Mr. Chairman, about price increases. He feared that if the retail prices were too high, consumption would decline.
We had a striking example of that, Mr. Chairman, in 1961-62. The hon. member for Kent (Mr. Danforth) mentioned that in 1961-62 we had surpluses-yes, I remember that in January 1962, we had more than 200

million pounds of butter or butter oil in storage and he was amazed that the present government had disposed of the surpluses and that we now had to import butter.
Everyone knows, Mr. Chairman, that the government, or the Canadian Dairy Commission thought advisable to import butter in February or March 1967 in order to have a reserve. According to members of the opposition, an unusual amount was imported.
The imported quantity, Mr. Chairman, was only 2,250,000 pounds and this was especially meant to protect our reserves in British Columbia.
However, Mr. Chairman, in 1962, we had reserves. Why? Because consumption had decreased from 18.5 to 15.5 per capita. This is why in 1960, 1962, a reserve had accumulated. Some people say among other things: perhaps the price was not the only reason why people could not afford to buy butter? However, you know, Mr. Chairman, that in 1962, we had around 1 million unemployed in Canada. And who ruled the country in 1961, if it was not the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker)?
Mr. Chairman, I also wish the dairy farmers to get the amount they are asking, that is $5.10 per hundredweight of milk and the Liberals had promised $4 per hundredweight in their program during the 1965 election.
Last year, dairy farmers obtained the price of $4. I admit that, in some areas, dairy farmers could not get 4 per hundredweight and that, in 1967-68, in some areas of the province of Quebec, for instance, they will fail to obtain the amount of $4.75 per hundredweight, less 11 cents for export. However, Mr. Chairman, according to an agreement entered into last fall, the province of Quebec, as of April 1, 1967, withdrew from the dairy products assistance plan. Since the contribution, I believe, was on an average 25 cents per hundredweight, this will have the Quebec treasury some $8 million. And why is it that the province of Quebec does not use this amount of $8 million to assist the areas which will not be in a position to benefit from the price of $4.75?
Mr. Chairman, I am also worried about quotas in the new policy. In an announcement made on March 22, 1967, by the Department of Agriculture, and in another announcement made by the Canadian Dairy Commission on April 14, 1967, the regulations under the new dairy products policy were made known.
April 26, 1967

And among other things, starting in 196869, I believe, any producer who has not delivered a minimum of 50,000 pounds of milk in 1967-68, will no longer be eligible for subsidies in the future. And I think reference is made also to certain limits.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the commission will consider special cases, such as that of the young farmers wanting to set up an agricultural establishment, who have no cattle on their farm and who cannot get a quota so as to benefit by this subsidy.
But I have confidence in that dairy commission. That is another promise to the agricultural class which the Liberal party has fulfilled. In the 1965 program of the Liberal party, we had promised to set up a dairy commission and the Canadian parliament, in this session has established a three-member Canadian Dairy Commission. I am pleased tonight, Mr. Chairman, to mention that one member, the one acting as vice-chairman, is one of my fellow citizens from Thurso who represents the producers.
I was surprised when the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Danforth) with whom I sat on the committee on agriculture and colonization used the kind of language he used about a possible general strike by dairy farmers.
May I refer him to the article written by P. E. Grandpre as published in "La Terre de Chez Nous", on April 19, 1967, and I quote:
Until now, we have read many statements, but no one has kicked up a shindy. Only veiled allusions from the minorities, and nothing for the immediate future. Apparently, serious people will continue to exert pressure, to negotiate in an orderly fashion, which seems preferable. In similar cases, there is always the danger of spoiling things by going too fast.
The present situation-
Mr. Chairman, here is a very important passage-
-has grown difficult and touchy because of what might be called a sin of omission: the increase in the price of industrial milk started two or three years ago-
It is not the Liberal party, nor the Minister of Agriculture, nor the member for Labelle who mentioned that, Mr. Chairman, but Mr. Grandpre in an article published in La Terre de Chez-Nous of April 19. And here is something about the strike in the United States mentioned by the member for Kent. What were its results, according to Mr. Grandpre? It entailed for dairy producers a substantial loss of money. The member for Kent mentioned some other figures, certain subsidies and support prices on farm products in
Interim Supply
Canada. He mentioned some but he did not say that in 1961-62 the support prices for the dairy industry only amounted to $16,481,000. Then we see that $100 million will be allotted in 1966-67. I too, Mr. Chairman, share the ideas expressed by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) when he says that our friends are not serious when they claim that nothing has been done to help the farmers, the Canadian dairy industry.
If the government grants subsidies of over $120 million to help our dairy producers, in the final analysis, neither you nor I, Mr. Chairman, are getting those $120 million.
Every month, the Department of Agriculture-from here on it will be the Canadian Dairy Commission for the stabilization board -sends cheques to the manufacturing milk and cream producers. I do not know whether the new or the 1966 policy applies to the cream producers.
And, every month or every three months, the cheques are sent out directly to the producers, and they are the ones who benefit from those subsidies.
The hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) said that the Minister of Agriculture should be ashamed to look at us or to look at the farmers. Personally, I say to the minister that he should not be ashamed to meet the farmers because the Liberal party has kept most of the promises it made them in 1965-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gaston Clermont: -and you proved it, Mr. Minister. You did not follow the policy applied by the previous government. And I am not the one who says this.
[DOT] (11:00 p.m.)
In fact, as reported on page 15061 of the French version of Hansard in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Bona-venture (Mr. Bechard), the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin) said that the previous government had done better than yourself and that at least it had listened. He was right, this is precisely what the previous government did, it merely listened. In fact here are the prices which farmers were receiving: in 1960, $2.78; in 1961, $2.77; in 1962, $2.68; in 1963, $2.74.
Now in March 1967, they were receiving $4 and this amount could reach $4.75 in 1967 and 1968. This means, Mr. Chairman, that the present Minister of Agriculture did not take the advice of the previous government, that is to listen, but that he acted and

April 26, 1967
Interim Supply
assisted the farming industry and the dairy producers.
My colleagues and myself, not only those of the province of Quebec, but also those from the other provinces, will continue to insist and make representations to the Minister of Agriculture, or the Minister of Finance and Receiver general (Mr. Sharp) in order that our dairy farmers may get what they are asking for. But I do not agree with the statement made by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) and some other members, to the effect that this government has done nothing for the farming classes-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I have never said that.


Gaston Clermont: The present government has done much more than the previous one, because if I recall a statement made by the former minister of agriculture during a banquet held in 1962, in honour of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, he is reported as saying on that occasion: "Now, we will take care of the eastern producers." Now, what did he do between 1957 and 1962? I think he had followed the advice of the hon. member for Charlevoix, he had listened to the grievances, the representations of the agricultural class, but he did not do anything for the dairy farmers.
As I said, sir, do not be embarrassed, do not be ashamed to meet the agricultural class, you have improved their lot. You did not fulfil their demands 100 per cent, but you are finally going forward and I hope you will continue to help the agricultural class, the dairy farmers. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that my colleagues in the province of Quebec and in other provinces will not listen to the advice of the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) when he said that he was not afraid to vote against the government to overthrow it.
Let us be serious. Most farmers would be loathe to return to the former government's policy.
Then, Mr. Chairman, again I assure the dairy producers that the Liberal members, as well as the other members from the province of Quebec and the other provinces-and I am much more open-minded than the previous speaker-that all the Quebec members, whatever their political label will keep striving to obtain for the dairy farmers the price they ask, that is $5.10 per hundredweight, for milk containing 3.5 per cent butter fat.


William Arnold Peters: Would the hon. member permit a question? Has he any information about the price the government paid for the butter which the dairy commission imported?


Gaston Clermont: The hon. member should address his question to the Minister of Agriculture who will have all the figures at his disposal.

Mr. Chairman, I know what price was paid, but I am not the Ministed of Agriculture and the hon. member should address his question to the person responsible for the Department of Agriculture.


Mr. Kindt:: I shall only take a very few moments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I am delighted to hear members on the government benches applauding that remark, because we have heard speeches tonight from down in that corner extending half an hour and more, leading one to the conclusion that those who made them were all vaccinated with a gramophone needle. We want to get out.
However, I have a problem to which I must call attention this evening. I would defer doing so if it were possible. I bring it up now because of the telegrams I have received. It is a joint matter which concerns the Minister of Industry, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Transport. Let me lay the groundwork. Out in the west for a period of years farmers have been buying surplus airplanes and using these aircraft for crop spraying, weed control and similar purposes. It is a new industry and that is why I am addressing these remarks to the Minister of Industry. It is something that fills an economic need. Farmers have been trying to build it up. They can economically spray crops and grasshoppers from the air, more cheaply and more efficiently than by using any other method.
[DOT] (11:10 p.m.)
They have bought these machines. Some are large, others are small. Some are surplus war material. The people concerned at Blackie and at Vulcan have given themselves the name, "The Flying Canadian Farmers." They are trying to perfect this new industry for the benefit of agriculture. The Minister of
April 26. 1967

Agriculture should be interested in it, and particularly the Minister of Transport.
Some time ago the Department of Transport issued a regulation and recently the Air Transport Board issued a circular based on it. Under the regulation these machines are not permitted to fly over a radius greater than 25 miles. Any man with one of these machines does not spray just his own crop; he does custom work. It, is similar to the old threshing machine in the west, which threshed different crops.
The people who own these machines have a big investment in them and they should not be hindered from doing custom work. Now they are going to be put out of business or seriously curtailed because of the restrictions placed upon them by the Air Transport Board. I do not think that was the intention of the Minister of Transport, and it certainly would not be the intention of the Minister of Industry or of the Minister of Agriculture. I ask that action by taken by these three ministers to look into this problem immediately and take the matter up with Mr. Westersund of Blackie, Alberta. He is a darned good Liberal, but he is a man who has always stood behind me and co-operated with me. I like him, and I got a telegram from him this morning about this matter. He is the executive secretary of the Flying Farmers Association at Blackie, Alberta.
I am talking not only for this organization at Blackie but also for the one organized at Vulcan. I hope the three ministers will look into this problem and will take up with the Air Transport Board to see if they can get these stupid rules and regulations eliminated, and let these people operate this new spraying business without government red tape.


Howard Earl Johnston: I would like to intervene briefly in this debate to state some arguments on behalf of the dairy farmers of British Columbia.
The debate has been interrupted by the introduction of one or two other topics. I really do not think that the hon. member for York-Humber interrupted the discussion of the dairy policy. Certainly he poured a great quantity of cold skim milk over the members of his own party. When his time was up, in perhaps what could be characterized as true Liberal policy, they decided he had had his quota and they cut off his subsidy.
Interim Supply
The question of the new national dairy policy and the dairy industry in British Columbia is a most urgent one. The bargaining system in the industry there is one which is unique in Canada. I am sure it will defy all the ability of the minister, his officials, the officials of the provincial government and the minister there, to separate the fluid milk producer from the commercial milk producer in any way that will make sense or be of any assistance to the industry in that province.
I should like to point out the breakdown in respect of the subsidy figures by province for last year. I note that in Quebec $33,208,000 was paid in terms of federal payment. In Ontario the amount was $22,429,000 and in British Columbia $1,054,000. The policy which has been announced is one which was designed with the provinces of Ontario and Quebec in mind, not particularly the province of British Columbia. If the policy is to be implemented as announced, I should think that this year the subsidy for British Columbia will be less than it was last year. Yet, this is a province in which the agricultural problems are great. This is a high cost province. Particularly in respect of the cost of labour, the farmer of British Columbia faces a problem which is greater than that faced by the farmers in other provinces.
I should like to draw to the attention of the minister and all hon. members a series of papers which we have received recently in respect of a national food and farm price policy from the Farm Conference Week, University of Manitoba. This is a very useful set of papers and provides a great deal of important information for anyone who is interested in either food prices or agricultural policy. In the paper, by Mr. C. Gilson of the Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Manitoba, the case for increasing farm production is put very very well. It speaks in terms of encouraging efficiency in the industry, in terms of Canadian farmers being dependent on international markets for the sale of their products, and mentions the importance of efficiency in terms of the world food supply where no nation, Canada included, can lag when the world situation in that regard is so precarious. He goes on to say that food consumers can rightfully expect farmers to produce efficiently. I believe, however, that the efficient farmer should expect reasonable compensation for his efforts. He says that a farm price policy should not penalize the farm innovator, the pace setter, the man who is willing to spend the time and take the risks

April 26, 1967
Interim Supply
associated with the development of a highly productive farm business. This is particularly true of the dairy industry in British Columbia.
[DOT] (11:20 p.m.)
I was invited to speak to the largest dairy co-operative in my constituency and I did not realize how completely the minister's announcement of March 22 had failed to convey any information to the farmers in Canada in respect of exactly what the national dairy policy was intended to do. I thought I was explaining some of the aspects of this policy but found myself to be the purveyor of disheartening news. I am sure the minister has felt the repercussions resulting from the realization of what this loss of federal subsidy will mean to that area.
This whole problem can be reduced to an individual thing. Farm innovators, pace setters and young men have expanded their production on the basis of the policy initiated a year ago by this government. Having faith in this government they have borrowed heavily and carried out those things expected of them by the inspectors of dairy farms. In this way they have brought their operations up to the standards required for fluid milk production. They have built up great surpluses of production at great cost. In this way they obtained small fluid milk quotas as registered fluid milk shippers. They are now faced with the possibility of receiving no subsidies at all, in spite of having done all those things we expect young, energetic and conscientious Canadian farmers to do. If their farm capitalization runs to $20,000 or $25,000, which is about what is required to bring a dairy farm up to standard today, the loss in income in some cases will be several thousand dollars. This will put these people in a very serious situation-almost a crisis.
I urge the minister to pay careful attention to the representations from British Columbia, to consider the unique position of that dairy industry and its organizations, and to clarify for the dairy producers of that province the new national dairy policy.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Chairman, I represent a riding where the vast majority are workers, industrial and commercial people. Consequently, some member may be surprised to hear me speak, this evening, on the federal government's new dairy policy. I do so because I feel that agricultural problems and the dairy industry, are part of the economic

mosaic of the province of Quebec and Canada; they must not rank second they deserve every consideration from the governments if we want to develop some equilibrium between Quebec and Canada as a whole.
Last Sunday, at 11 o'clock in the morning, I was invited to meet the officials of the Catholic Farmers Union, eastern townships section, and I must tell you, Mr. Chairman, that they were there in great numbers from all parts of the eastern townships. I must also tell you, even if it displeases the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Clermont) who praised earlier the recent dairy policy of the Liberal government, that those representatives and delegates from all parts of the eastern townships were extremely disappointed by the dairy policy announced in the house last March 22.
That disappointment was accompanied by a strong displeasure. And the hon. member for Labelle, who said earlier that he was not afraid to meet the farmers, will shortly have an opportunity to prove his mettle, as will his Liberal colleagues, because it seems that following the disappointment of the farmers and the dairy producers a monster march on Ottawa is being organized. Face to face with the representatives of the farmers and the dairy producers, I wonder if he will have the courage to talk as he did here earlier and to praise so freely the dairy policy which so greatly disappointed our farmers and dairy producers.
But what is that policy announced by the Liberal government last March 22? The farmers were asking for $5.10 per hundredweight and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) gave them $4.75 and from that price support of $4.75 must be deducted the 10 cent premium to pay for the export subsidies.
And as the provincial subsidy will be dropped this year, in the province of Quebec, the increase to the producers will be an actual 15 cents. That raise is still less because subsidies will apply only to milk produced within quotas prescribed by the government. The quotas were arrived at without any consultation, on the basis of last year's production. Finally the government has distorted the dairy policy by fixing an objective that would not cost more than $120 million to the government. That is an ill-assorted policy, a patch-up policy Which does not settle the problem of eastern farmers and of dairy farmers.
The main grievance expressed by the representatives of the eastern agricultural class and of dairy producers is that the present
April 26, 1967

government refused to establish a true agricultural policy, in consultation with experts on the matter, namely those who can explain to the government the real needs of the agricultural classes. And, in its ivory tower, the government keeps on preparing and introducing inadequate policies which as not based on real needs, which do not correct troubles, which do not alleviate the hardship that continues in eastern Canada's agricultural class.
Their demands, Mr. Chairman, have been fully explained by the different associations, including the C.F.U., and the Federation of Manufacturing Milk Producers. Those requests were fully explained to the federal government, which ignored them believing that government members, such as the hon. member for Labelle, were quite satisfied.
The hon. member for Labelle said that this policy is better than the previous one. We are not saying that nothing was done; we are saying that too little was done, that not enough was done for eastern agriculture-


Gaston Clermont: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. In concluding my remarks, I said that both government members and those who represent Quebec and Canadian ridings, will work together so that dairy farmers may obtain what they are asking for, that is, a price of $5.10. I did not say I was fully satisfied, but that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) should not be ashamed of his accomplishments up to now.


Gilles Grégoire: You shower fulsome praise and flattery on the minister. That is all you can do. Stop praising him. Stand up to him instead of kotowing to him.


Gaston Clermont: If I were like the hon. member for Lapointe, I would be asking for $10 per hundredweight, because he is totally irresponsible.
[DOT] (11:30 p.m.)
[English']	.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. The hon. member for Sherbrooke has the floor. Perhaps he will continue now.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Chairman, I am happy to hear the hon. member for Labelle say tonight that the Quebec members will now work towards the solution of agricultural problems, but it is too late. They should have done so and listened to representations a long 23033-977
Interim Supply
time ago, because being members of a political party, they should be able to get more results, which would show that they have influence in their party. However, the attitude of the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) gives a clear indication that in the Liberal party now, members have no influence, and that the minister remained in his ivory tower to develop policies which are not based on the actual needs of the various classes of society.
When I say that the eastern farmers and the dairy producers are not satisfied, I am not making it up all, and I say so to the hon. member for Labelle.
A while ago, in my opening remarks, I said that the representatives of the eastern townships, of the C.F.U. and of milk producers knew as much about this matter as the hon. member for Labelle. They are extremely disappointed. They will probably bring their grievances before the federal government, and I do hope that, on this occasion, the hon. member for Labelle will be there and will not be satisfied with shaking hands, but also say that he is not yet entirely content with this policy and demand, before the authorities concerned and the entire farming society, that the needs of the farmers be met; in short, I hope he will support their representatives by saying so and doing so, and not merely by arranging meetings behind the scenes.
Mr. Chairman, I can see that there is a response and it is a good sign. When there is a response, Mr. Chairman, it is because there is some unrest within the Liberal party.
When there is a response among the farmers and the members of the C.F.U. it is because there is dissatisfaction and discontent with regard to the Liberal policy of the Ottawa government which refuses to help eastern farmers. And we shall never say loud and eloquently enough that in this house there are some who for too long now have been drawing up policies in their ivory tower.
And often those decisions are not even taken by the minister but by the experts, the deputy ministers, and the poor minister must be satisfied to read them out in this house.
The other day, the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) said that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Mar-chand) was reading newspapers.
Well, there are too many ministers who read and not enough who are doing anything

April 26, 1967
Interim Supply
in respect oi the needs and requirements of the agricultural class and the dairy farmers.
The needs expressed by the members of the C.F.U. and the federation of manufacturing milk producers, could be summed up in the following manner:
It would be very easy to the hon. members, in considering requests and plights of the agricultural class and of the dairy farmers, to compare the recent position taken by the federal government on this matter to find differences existing between the needs and the requests of the dairy farmers.
What do these people want, Mr. Chairman? They asked:
1.	To guarantee milk producers a minimum price of $5.10 per hundredweight including an export subsidy of 10 cents per hundredweight for each of the various categories of milk products based on a butter fat test of 3.5 per cent and for all manufactured milk including surplus fluid milk, these being defined as including all milk that was not paid for at the Class I rate for the period between April 1, 1961 and March 21, 1968;
2.	To guarantee a minimum price of $5.10 per hundredweight, including a 10 cent subsidy for export per hundredweight of milk by increasing market prices on the one hand, by support prices and the appropriate export subsidies and, on the other hand, by including the direct subsidy for each of the main product categories more specifically:
(a)	by fixing the support price of Cheddar cheese at 45 cents per pound, by increasing the market price to a minimum level of 47 cents per pound through the appropriate export subsidy and by paying a direct subsidy to the producers of $1.40 per hundredweight of milk;
(b)	by supporting through purchases the price of butter at 63 cents a pound and of powdered skim milk at 20 cents per pound, and by adding an appropriate export subsidy for powdered milk, and by the payment of a direct subsidy to the producer of at least $1.35 per hundredweight of milk processed into butter and powder;
(c)	by increasing through the appropriate export subsidy the market price of casein at 57 cents a pound and by paying a direct subsidy of $1.50 per hundredweight of milk processed into butter and casein;
(d)	by granting an additional subsidy of 22.6 cents per butter fat pound to the cream producers;
(e)	in the case of casein and butter, by providing adequate funds at the earliest possible time to allow for the quick and rational updating of plants processing milk and cream into butter and casein, such amounts not calculated as integral parts of direct or import subsidies.
Mr. Chairman, I interrupt this list to emphasize how disagreeable it can be to hear the Quebec Liberal members mutter when I am listing the requirements of milk producers. I hear the Liberal Quebec members muttering and mocking the list of needs I am presenting. And the representative of those various

movements asks the government to protect fully the dairy producers against such imports as might be liable to compete unjustly with domestic products; to resort to imports only in case of need and, finally, to see to it that the activities of the Canadian Dairy Commission are co-ordinated with those of the provincial marketing organizations, and that the act establishing the Canadian Dairy Commission does in fact take into consideration special provincial legislation on marketing and marketing organizations.
Mr. Chairman, that is the list of the requests and grievances of the representatives of the CFU and the Canadian Federation of Dairy Producers.
When those requests are considered, it is easy to note the difference and the lag between the shabby dairy policy set forth by the government March 22 last. In my opinion those dairy farmers are justified in crying out loudly that they are faced with pressing needs and that their poverty will not be relieved by the present Liberal government whose policy is not geared to the people's needs, but who dreams and spends its time beating around the bush behind the scenes in ivory towers.
In the past year and a half, legislators in this parliament would gladly have discussed constitutional reforms, but what has just been announced? The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has just announced in his complacent way that a high official of the justice department will be appointed, probably upon the advice of the new Minister of Justice and Attorney General (Mr. Trudeau), to study the constitutional, fiscal and political reforms, while it is the responsibility not of a clan playing hide-and-seek, blind-man's buff, but of the legislators of this country who gather within these walls and are elected by the Canadian people "from coast to coast" from Halifax to Vancouver.
Mr. Chairman, it is our responsibility to direct the policy of this country; this does not rest with the officials at all, or with the bureaucrats who lead this country for too long a time and who in the field of dairy policy, have established standards which in no way answer the needs of the western farmers and of the milk producers of Quebec and Canada.
Mr. Chairman, the federal government has complete authority in that field, according to section 95. Indeed, pursuant to section 95, the central government and the provinces have a
April 26, 1967



concurrent responsibility in the fields of agriculture and farming and in that concurrent responsibility, it is provided under the constitution and according to judgments passed by the Privy Council that the central government has the priority.
This is precisely a field where the central government, which likes to claim that it must be strong and powerul, that it must have all possible authority to legislate and solve problems, should exercise its authority.
This is precisely a field, agriculture, where there is a constitutional and legal priority, and instead of exercising its responsibility adequately, according to the needs of our farmers and dairy producers, the present government prefers to keep all the money in Ottawa. It wants to intrude in fields under the provincial jurisdiction instead of exercising its full authority, its absolute discretion in fields placed under its jurisdiction by the constitution.
Thus, the present government prefers to establish education allowances for students, a field under the exclusive jurisdiction of provinces. The government prefers to set up retirement pensions, municipal loans, when such areas are within the exclusive jurisdiction of provincial governments. They would rather make loans to university students, when this is a field directly related to education, which is a matter of exclusive provincial jurisdiction under section 93.
The present central government would rather get into the field of hardship and poverty, infringing upon provincial responsibilities, paying old age security pension supplements which are already beginning to cause dissatisfaction among senior citizens and provincial governments. Again this afternoon, to the great satisfaction of Liberal members from Quebec, it pushed through legislation concerning the occupational training of adults, a field which falls, directly or indirectly, within the scope of education. It handles enough money to play the role of Croesus, to get in every nook and comer of the Canadian house when it does not behove him to do so. But when times come for it to use its authority, to legislate, to step in directly into the field of agriculture, to implement a policy aptly expressed by the representatives of the farmers and milk dairy producers, oh no. It would rather set an objective of $120 million. No one knows why. No explanation is given. I am quite convinced that the hon. minister does not know himself. It was probably set by some bureaucrat or other, on the third, or
Interim Supply
eighth floor of the building. It was set at $120 million.
And that is called agricultural planning in Canada. Setting an objective of $120 million without knowing whether it meets adequately the needs of the eastern farmers and dairy producers.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, which gives much pleasure and satisfaction to the Liberal members from Quebec who are looking at me, I say to the hon. minister, hoping that he is not asleep at this late hour, that it is time to convene the representatives of the C.F.U. and the Federation of Dairy Producers.
[DOT] (11:40 p.m.)
Let him not wait for the abcess to fester. Let him call them and set up a true agricultural policy on a short and a long term basis but through consultations with the organizations concerned.
Thus, when he announces the agricultural policy, either a comprehensive or a particular policy for industrial milk, he will be in a better position to meet the needs of the population.


Jean-Charles Richard (Jean) Berger: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


Maurice Allard: Surely.


Jean-Charles Richard (Jean) Berger: Mr. Chairman, in view of this new agricultural vocation discovered by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) who might deserve congratulations, if it were real, and in view of what he has just said a few minutes ago, I should like to know, when he was a member of a very strong party between 1958 and 1962, what great influence, what major role he played, particularly as far as dairy policy is concerned, as a member of a government which at the time was in a position to do much more, while he was one of the pillars of such an ivory tower or possibly a monument with feet of clay, what influence did he exert at that time, at a time when he was a member of an important party?


Maurice Allard: Mr. Chairman, I am most pleased to reply to the hon. member.
All he has to do is what some ministers are doing now, that is read Hansard all the time. Let him search through the index in the parliamentary library and he will see the numerous interventions I made to help solve the various problems of our people and those of the province of Quebec in particular.
So it is quite easy to reply-

April 26, 1967
Interim. Supply


Jean-Charles Richard (Jean) Berger: What result did you achieve for the dairy industry?


Maurice Allard: You just read Hansard from 1958 to 1962. In so doing, you win be in good company, with those who spend their time reading instead of doing something to solve the problems of Canada.


An hon. Member:: Did you ever call a meeting of the U.C.C.?


Richard Albert Bell: The hour of 12 minutes before midnight, in my experience and belief, is one for action and not words. At such an hour anything that cannot be said in capsule form is not worth saying.
This is my one minute submission on what I hope is the last night of the first session of the twenty seventh Parliament of Canada.
The dairy policy of this government has been monstrously inadequate, continues to be flagrantly defective and simply must be altered to bring justice and fair play to the most oppressed group of Canadian citizens and their families-the dairy farmers. The injustices visited upon the dairy producers of Canada simply cannot be perpetuated.
I speak from bitter knowledge. Milk at 80 cents a hundred in the 'thirties educated me away from the farm. In this day, the same discriminations which required me to leave the farm are working against young men and women of farm background. The price has not relatively improved. The most significant task for Canada in centennial year is to bring justice to farm people-a fair and reasonable share of the national income. The dairy farmers of Canada ask no more: They cannot be expected to settle for less.
I appeal to the Minister of Agriculture to act-and to act now. Nothing less than $5.10 per hundred for industrial milk will be reasonable or adequate.


John James Greene: fact that he is getting a good price is not going to be of much use to him.
I think the former administration, I am sure with the best intent, tried this method of raising the price through the support program when it raised the support price of butter to some 74 cents a pound. But this shrunk the market of the dairy farmer to the point that his situation was critical, and I hope to lay before the house evidence of the fact that in the minds of members of the former government, including evidence from the mouth of their own minister, they found this was not an adequate policy, that in fact it caused a very difficult situation in Canada where there was a surplus, to the point that all of the money that government could afford, indeed the largest sum the previous administration every spent in respect of the dairy industry, went to move a product into world markets at sacrifice prices from which the dairy farmer did not benefit in the slightest.
I merely point this out to indicate that price alone is not the question here. The question here is the maintaining of the dairy farmer's market in an adequate sense, along with a respectable price, and looking to that position so that the day will come, as the hon. member for Medicine Hat indicated, when the dairy farmer, the manufacturing milk farmer of Canada will get a good income, an adequate income from the market place, at prices people are willing to pay for his product. I think this is the basic concern of the dairy industry and the manufacturing area of it. There is no use in producing a product that people will not pay for at a rate commensurate with the investment and labour of the dairy farmer.
If our own people will not pay for it, and the farmers have to put it into world markets, I think we know full well that the Canadian dairy industry is not one that can compete in world markets. There are other countries better geared for world markets by reason of longer seasons, more grass, etc., to produce dairy products for those markets more economically than we can do here.
Surely therefore the basic need of the Canadian dairy industry is to produce sufficient product for our domestic consumption at prices that the people of Canada are willing to pay to give a just return to the dairy farmer. When I speak of volume, I think the figures I am about to give might be of some help to the house in trying to come to a rational conclusion as to the problems and the needs of the industry.
Interim Supply
I think it is singular that something like 18 per cent of the dairy farmers in the manufacturing segment of Canada produce less than 23,999 pounds of manufacturing milk, some 65 per cent produce less than 95,000 pounds, some 82 per cent produce less than
144.000	pounds and only 9 per cent produce more than 200,000 pounds of milk. In other words, we have only 9 per cent with more than 200,000 pounds, 200,000 pounds being the production of 20 efficient cows or, on the national average, a production of less than 30 cows.
We can see therefore that surely the fundamental and basic problem of the Canadian dairy industry in the manufacturing field is that the units of producers are far too small. When we find that 82 per cent have less than
144.000	pounds and 65 per cent have less than
100.000	pounds-the producer with ten cows-it becomes evident that it just is not feasible to have any form of dairy policy, short of sheer welfare which I am sure the dairy farmers of Canada do not want, which will ensure a good income to a man with only ten efficient producing cows.
There has been much discussion here concerning consultation with the various groups which represent the dairy industry of Canada. This consultation, of course, has been held, and I believe I can safely say that it is their view that we must have larger units and must have a policy which ensures a good income to the efficient dairy producer. I do not think the dairy farmers of Canada, any more than the general public, want a policy which will perpetuate an inefficient industry. I know that the farmers have been moving in this direction. I believe it was the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke who mentioned Professor Gilson and some of his views in respect of Canadian agriculture. Not too long ago, I believe when he was speaking in Winnipeg, Professor Gilson indicated that some $450 million had been poured into the dairy industry of Canada in the past decade or decade and a half, and that this very vast contribution had not contributed toward making the lot of the farmer better, or the industry more efficient. He said he thought the farmer was just as badly off today as he was before this money was poured in.
I do not pretend that this is the final answer, but we have here, for the first time, an attempt at an approach which will put this industry in shape so that some time in the not too distant future the day will come when we will have put this industry in shape and that

April 26. 1967
Interim Supply
the men who earn their livelihood in it are earning a good livelihood. We have not just accepted the situation and continued to perpetuate it as it was. When one attempts to rectify any ill of the past he cannot find an immediate answer for all segments of the industry. Surely, however, it is better to attempt to solve the problem than perpetuate it by continuing policies which we know will never provide a decent livelihood for those who are in it.
I should like to point out some of the approaches taken by the previous administration so that we will know where we started four years ago, know how far we have come, and know whether or not the progress in that period of time has been a responsible progress. First of all I should like to read from Hansard of April 23, 1959 at the time when the dairy policy of that year was announced.
[DOT] (12 midnight)
In that year the then minister, at that time the hon. member for Calgary North, announced the policy as recorded on page 2694 of Hansard for April 23 as follows:
The support price on cheese will be 32 cents per pound first grade f.o.b. warehouse in Ontario, 31] cents per pound delivered Montreal for Quebec Lheese. In addition, cheese producers will receive a payment of 25 cents per 100 pounds of milk delivered for the manufacture of cheese on the same basis as other milk delivered for manufacturing purposes. The support price, plus 25 cents per 100 pounds for milk, will provide an effective support price for cheese of 34.8 cents . ..
The support price on skim milk powder will be reduced from 15 cents per pound to 10 cents per pound-
We all know that the support price for cheese together with the support subsidy amounts to some 45 cents. Milk powder is being supported at 20 cents per pound today with a reduction of 10 cents to 13 cents as in 1959.
The hon. minister at that time then stated:
-after which date the support price for powder will be discontinued. In lieu of the reduction in the support price for powder the stabilization board will make a payment to producers of 25 cents per 100 pounds of milk for all milk delivered for manufacturing purposes, with the exception that no payments will be made to producers who sell a portion of their milk within the fluid milk market.
I am rather surprised that so many members on the opposite side of the house, who sat with that government and apparently supported that policy at that time, now take exception to the fact that fluid milk will no

longer be supported. Presumably they supported that policy during their entire tenure as members on the government side.
The then minister said:
The net result will be to reduce producers' returns by approximately 15 cents per 100 pounds on milk used for manufacturing purposes.
He then summed up the policy as follows:
The total effect of the change in the dairy price support program will be:
1.	The farmer who delivers cream for butter only will get the same return as last year.
2.	The farmer who delivers milk for cheesemaking will receive a small increase in his return.
3.	The farmer who delivers milk for manufacturing into products other than cheese will receive a small decrease, about 15 cents per 100 pounds less than in 1958.
4.	The farmer who delivers to the fluid milk market and who has been receiving a price in some cases of up to $5 per 100 pounds for this milk, will not be paid any subsidy for the milk which he diverts into manufacturing. Thus the returns to the dairy farmers who have been delivering to different types of markets will be brought closer together than they have been in the past.
That was the policy of that time. The basic principle enunciated was that as fluid milk producers were the greatest earners in the industry there would be no attempt to help them, and that any government funds available would be paid in the manufacturing area in order to bring up the income of the manufacturing milk farmer to something closer to that of his counterpart in the fluid field.
Again in 1959 the then Minister of Agriculture stated at page 3022 of Hansard for April 24, 1959:
As far as people delivering milk for general manufacture are concerned, rather than a loss of 40 or 50 cents a hundred pounds the biggest reduction they should get in any circumstances should be 15 cents per hundred pounds, and in many cases there should be no reduction at all.
That was the accomplishment of that year. Most would have a reduction of 15 cents per hundred pounds, and the others would be in the very happy position of not having any reduction at all.
I do not wish to refer only to that year. Let us see what the support program for dairy farmers was the next year. Let me quote from Hansard for May 6, 1960 at page 3656:
I think that is as plain as English can make it. Anybody who sells a portion of his milk in the bottled, fluid market is not entitled to the 25 cents. That has been made absolutely clear-
That was the subsidy being paid then as compared to the $1.21 today.
April 26/ 1967

Then he said:
That has been made absolutely clear, and there should have been no confusion at any time in connection with it.
The reason for that provision is, of course, that by and large the people who sell their milk in the fluid milk market-to the bottled trade-receive much higher prices than those who sell milk for manufacturing purposes. The idea of paying this 25 cents subsidy to those who sell milk for manufacturing purposes is in order to bring about to some extent an equality of price levels and to help to equalize the returns to the dairy farmer who sells to a cheese or butter factory.
That was the policy, apparently, of the Conservative party at that time. Perhaps it has changed; but if so, today is the first notice I have received of the fact that it has changed. What of 1961, when the hon. member for Qu'Appelle was minister of agriculture? What was the policy at that time?
I quote from Hansard of April 20, 1961, page 3826
Mr. Speaker, the government has authorized the agricultural stabilization board to continue the present level of price support for the dairy industry for the period May 1, 1961, to April 30, 1962.
They were going to hold their own from the previous year when they had had a cut-back of some 15 cents. I now quote from Hansard of March 10, 1961, page 2901. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle, then minister of agriculture, answered question No. 122 asked by Mr. Boulanger in these terms:
The subsidy of 25 cents per hundred pounds of milk used for manufacturing purposes is payable only to milk producers. The factory or factories receiving milk for manufacturing purposes, acting as agents of the agricultural stabilization board, pay the 25 cent subsidy and after proof of payment are reimbursed by the board. No subsidy has therefore been paid to the condensed milk processing firms referred to.
There again, we continue the subsidy at 25 cents. What was the picture in gross with respect to the subsidies that had been paid and the supports that have been given and are now given to the dairy farmers of this country? First of all I would point to the statistics as to prices received. Remarks have been made, and I think quite properly so, about the plight of the dairy farmer caught in the cost-price squeeze, as are all areas of the agricultural community, and the increasing costs the dairy farmer must bear for the goods which he buys in the marketplace. There is only one way in which we can enable him to meet those increasing costs and that is by increasing the price of the goods he sells in the marketplace.
Interim Supply
I should like to quote the statistics in that regard. In 1961-62, with all the subsidies, the manufacturing milk dairy farmer received $2.86; in 1962-63 the then government "improved" his position by decreasing his return from $2.86 to $2.62; in 1963-64 it was $2.86; in 1964-65, $3.16; in 1965-66, $3.52; in 1966-67, $4.00; and in 1967-68 with the 11 cents off-this is his net position-it is $4.64.
[DOT] (12:10 a.m.)
In the four years that we have been in office the price that he is receiving has been increased by some 70 per cent. I suggest there is no other segment of the economy whose returns during this time have been increased by so great a percentage. I do not claim that this is the whole answer to the problem, but I do say that an increase of this kind very clearly shows the concern of this government for the plight of the dairy farmers. It shows that we have not stood still, as the previous administration did during their tenure of office. It shows that we have recognized the need and have moved responsibly and quickly, and at a very considerable cost to the taxpayers of this country, to try and meet the problem.
We will be here until dawn if we have to, but the story of the dairy farmers and what has been done for them will be laid before the house to the best of my ability, just as the criticisms, some of them responsible and others completely irresponsible, have been before the house. In so far as trying to get us out of here because it is late is concerned, I can assure hon. members that when it is a matter of telling the story as best as I see it and as truthfully as I see it in respect of the problem of the dairy farmers, I will stay here as long as anybody else who wants to stay.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the minister answer a question?


John James Greene: I will answer questions when I have finished.


Gordon Minto Churchill: When will the minister finish?


John James Greene: It might be quite some time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is the minister not interested in interim supply for the government?


John James Greene: With respect to the actual payments made in toto to the dairy farmers during the time of the previous administration, which now is so critical of our program, as compared to the period when we were in

April 26, 1967
Interim Supply
office, in 1966-67 some $19 million were paid to dairy farmers. During the coming year our contribution to try and put this industry in shape, as hon. members know, will be some $120 million. As compared to this, in 1962-63 the contribution of the previous administration to the solution of this very grave problem, which I am sure was as grave then as it is now, was some $42.3 million in respect of the stabilization board subsidies and another $13 million in respect of the payments made at that time on butter. In 1959-60, it was $9.8 million; in 1960-61, $11.4 million. I cite these figures to show how we have dealt with the problem and in what degree as compared to the previous administration.
We heard criticism from the hon. member for Kent (Ont.), to the effect that our dairy production was decreasing. I am sure the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) would not want to mislead the house, the country or the dairy farmers. I know very well he is interested only in the truth and in facts, so I think we should lay those facts before the house. In
1957	the total dairy production in manufacturing milk was 17,000 million pounds, going up to 17.7 in 1958, 17.6 in 1959, 17.7 in 1960, and 18.3 in 1961. Today that production it at 18.4 thousand million pounds.
Some concern was also expressed with regard to the total income of dairy farmers. Let us take a look at that. In the six years from
1958	to 1963 the gross income of dairy farmers in Canada increased from $479 million in 1958 to $509 million in 1963, an increase during that six year period of $30 million. From 1964 to 1966 it has increased from $509 million to $581 million, a $72 million gross increase during a period of three years.
We also have some concern with respect to the consumption and production of butter. During the period between 1958 and 1961 the consumption was down by some 30 million pounds by reason of the policies then in effect. Consumption from 1962 to 1966 has gone up some 60 million pounds, thus increasing the volume of the market and improving the income of the dairy farmers to that extent.
With regard to the policies which were in effect when we came into office, so that we may determine whether or not satisfactory progress has been made I should like to cite one or two articles current in the newspapers of that day. I refer to the Globe and Mail for November 15, 1962, which contained the following paragraph:
Since May 1, butter consumption has gone up but so has output and agriculture minister Hamil-

ton has warned that price support cuts seem inevitable. In turn, Ontario milk producers have asked for a national dairy industry royal commission.
On November 12, 1962 the Ottawa Citizen had this to say:
The federal government will go into 1963 with 237,000,000 pounds of butter in storage, 40,000,000 pounds more than a year ago, and no immediate plans for preventing further growth of the butter surplus in the year ahead.
This was the dismal picture presented today as federal and provincial authorities gathered for their annual conference to review agricultural developments over the past 12 months and the outlook for the year ahead . ..
The minister indicated the government has not yet come up with an answer to the problem of butter surpluses.
We have had lots of answers tonight, however.
Mr. Hamilton denied that the buildup of surpluses was caused by the 64-cents a pound butter support price established by the federal government. This is equivalent to $2.50 a hundredweight for milk, less than the price at which a farmer could make a living, he asserted.
So that is what the farmer received in 1962, according to the then federal minister.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture, major spokesman for the farmers of Canada, also indicated it has no answer to the problem of growing butter surpluses.
"Dairy industry policy is a vexed question and it is no secret that at the present date neither this organization nor any other agency responsible for carrying out the recommending policy has a ready answer to it," it said in a brief presented to the conference by its president, H. H. Hannam.
I suggest that that statement was a responsible one.
The brief called for the formation of a national policy that would provide for an increase in demand and a contradiction in supply of butter stocks...
At the same time, the federation said the 12 cents a pound consumer butter subsidy established by the government earlier this year to counteract the sharp fall in demand should be followed by the establishment of some form of quotas to tailor production to demand.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I must advise the minister that the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the minister have unanimous consent to continue his remarks?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for York-Humber did not have unanimous consent earlier this evening so I do not think the minister should.
April 26, 1967


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member for
Rosthern.


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, do I have unanimous consent to continue or not?


Herman Maxwell Batten: There is no unanimous consent.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I want the minister to have the opportunity to continue his remarks because this is a very important subject. Therefore I will say a few words.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The hon. member for Rosthern has the floor.
[DOT] (12:20 a.m.)


Mr. Nasserden:: Mr. Chairman, I do not think the house has heard as much old straw threshed over for a long time as we have heard during the last few minutes from the Minister of Agriculture. He was the minister who was to take the farmers of eastern Canada out of the wilderness into which they had wandered during the years of the Tory government. He is the minister who represented a party that went to the peoples of eastern and central Canada with the election slogan: "Elect us and we shall do for the farmers of eastern and central Canada what Diefenbaker did for the farmers of western Canada." Now this minister comes before parliament with his swan song-because it can be nothing else. He has admitted that he can do no better than the government of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, during the period it was in office-all this despite the fact that more than double the subsidies today are paid to the dairy industry. I shall have more to say about that as I go along.
What has been the result of this govez'n-ment's policies? The result is that we have to import butter and cheese, and the farmers have been forced out of business. I wondered, listening to the minister's speech, how many dairy farmers went out of business as he talked, as he tried to tell us why his policies of the last three or four years had failed.
When Hon. Harry Hays was minister of agriculture he said, "If you have six cows you can make a living." "This minister tells the people, "To make a living now you must have ten cows." The minister's thinking shows why the dairy industry in Canada, under this government, has declined. Imagine, Mr. Chairman, you need ten cows to make a living under this government's policies. Those words the farmers of the country understand very-well.
Interim Supply
We could forgive the government if they had not the answers, but time after time, on platforms across Canada and in the House of Commons, they have claimed to have the answers. I see the Minister of National Health and Welfare is present. He was one who thought he had the answers for all these problems. Yet this government failed to do for the farmers of central and eastern Canada what the right hon. Leader of the Opposition had done for the western farmers.
The minister gave us figures. He said that in 1962-63 the subsidies had amounted to approximately $42.3 million and $13 million, making $55 million approximately. The government of that day had a 40 million pound surplus of butter, but that butter represented something tangible in return for the $55 million which had been spent supporting the dairy industry. This government spent $90 million, and our people have to buy butter from the other markets of the world, and our farmers disperse their herds. The minister has the audacity to come to the house and say, "You are not a dairy farmer unless you have ten cows."
I challenge the minister to say that in Quebec, to say that in the maritimes, in Ontario, in British Columbia or on the prairies. What kind of mockery have we today? Does the minister not realize that the small farmer is still the bulwark of agriculture in this country? Where are the promises and the answers which this party had to offer in two election campaigns? Today, in this debate on the eve of the ending of this session, we saw Liberal members rising to discuss the dairy question. Why? Because they realized, perhaps for the first time, that this government has failed miserably to solve the problems which face the dairy farmers of this country. The minister could not keep them quiet and the whip could not keep them quiet.
We think of what the hon. member for York-Humber had to say. It is all out of the bag, now. They have not had these discussions in caucus, of which we have heard so much during the last four years. This is the ministry which was supposed to bring the brass and the grass together so that the Canadians might have a better future. This is the ministry which was supposed to give all those engaged in agriculture in eastern and central Canada the equity and justice which is their right.
Tonight we heard the Minister of Agriculture giving his swan song-it cannot be described as anything else. As he admitted so

April 26. 1967
Interim Supply
freely, this government has failed to bring before parliament the type of legislation which would protect the dairy industry. I think he said the dairy farmers had not stood still. I believe those were his words. I agree that the dairy farmers of this country have not stood still: They have gone back while this government has been in office. Why else would they want to come to Ottawa en masse to place their case before parliament and the Canadian people?
These are reasons which justify the debate which has taken place in the last few hours. The neglect of a government which would not listen to the opposition in this house cannot be justified. Time and time again members on this side have asked that this question be given the consideration it deserves, before a crisis develops. But we have a Prime Minister who seems to want crises, a Prime Minister who revels in this type of thing, a man who never does anything until a crisis is upon us.
I sympathize with the Minister of Agriculture; I think he tried. But he had to contend with the Minister of Finance. He had to contend with the Prime Minister and others of his colleagues in the ministry. As a result, the dairy farmers find themselves facing the difficulties which they are encountering today. In these circumstances we cannot but wonder whether the government deserves the supply for which it is asking at this time. What we heard tonight was an admission that the government has no policy for the dairy farmers. This is very disappointing to me, because I had almost succeeded in convincing myself, after listening to members opposite saying so often that they had some of the answers, that such a policy did exist. But now we know they do not have the answer.
[DOT] (12:30 a.m.)
In view of the late hour I do not wish to take up any more time, but I feel we reached a milestone in agricultural history tonight when we heard the minister make the admission, passively accepted by his backbenchers from the dairy areas of Canada, that there has been defeat in meeting the problems that they came to parliament to solve.


William Arnold Peters: Had the minister started his description from the 1950's he would probably have found a great similarity between the program in force at that time and the present program taking into consideration that the earlier program was designed to take care of surpluses rather than shortages. The simple

fact is that the senior officials of his department are exactly the same people now as then, and the surprising thing is that the minister tonight admitted he is not making the policy, that it is his officials who are making it.
There has really been no change in policy at all, and it is not hard to understand why fluid milk shippers are not being supported. Can the minister explain why for the first time last year surplus manufactured milk coming out of fluid milk was covered by subsidy, but it has now been placed back under the old system? Members should note that the minister has not taken control of his department, that policy is not being designed by him but by the senior officials who are doing now exactly what they have done for many years.
The time may have arrived to take a further decision, which must be a political one, to arrange for the pooling of all milk so that it may all be brought under one control with no difference in respect to fluid milk and manufacturing milk. This is a decision which the minister will have to take, not his officials.
It was interesting that in the figures the minister gave us he mentioned that the domestic price for spray powdered skim milk was 25 cents a pound in 1957-58. Now the price in the support program is 20 cents.


John James Greene: Five cents.


William Arnold Peters: Then I misunderstood that, but I repeat that in the near future the minister will have to make a decision on total pooling. Also in the near future the minister should call a conference that all farm organizations have been seeking. When the agricultural committee was out in western Canada we heard the same plea in each province, that a conference should be called of provincial and federal officials at which the whole problem could be discussed by the various agricultural ministers, the farm advisers and the officials of the various departments. We should not be comparing one period with another. This only indicates that although we sometimes think we may be making some policy decisions, we are not really making any decisions at all.
All we are doing is rearranging the small changes which take place. When the minister refers to the Conservative legislation, this is one reason that I find no difference between that policy and the policy of the Liberal government, because really it is not the minister who makes the policy decisions, it is the senior officials in the department. This, probably,
April 26, 1967

will be amusing to the farmers who have known this for a long time. I believe this places all members who are interested in this problem in the position of perhaps being more sympathetic to the minister, who may have difficulties which we do not know anything about. Perhaps we should be more sympathetic toward the minister and provide more constructive criticism so that we all can help accomplish what I believe is inevitable; that is, an arrangement whereby all the milk can be pooled so that the discrimination will be removed. In this way the whole industry from coast to coast could be handled under the auspices of the national dairy commission. This should remove many of the anomalies.
We should be able to accomplish something in this manner and probably this would give the minister some encouragement to go forward from the present situation to one which, with the pooling of milk, he could arrange a meeting with the provincial officials as well as the farm organizations so that the matter could be clarified to the satisfaction of all parties concerned, and so that finally an arrangement could be arrived at whereby the duplication may be eliminated. I hope the minister will ask for the co-operation of the various departments of the provincial governments which will have to be involved in this, so that in the near future a policy may be arrived at which will provide for the pooling of all milk no matter which market it is geared to.


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, I think this theory in respect of the pooling of all milk in a single pool certainly is something which should be aimed at. When the manufacturing milk industry is in good shape and when the proportion as between fluid and manufacturing milk is such that it is in the interests of the fluid and manufacturing milk producers to pool, I think undoubtedly this will be the solution. I believe most people in Canadian agriculture would agree with this principle.
I do not believe, however, that this will be achieved overnight. Some of the people in the dairy organizations have indicated that they look forward to a period of possibly ten years before this can be achieved. I think we should move in this direction. I believe that manufacturing milk, on a quality basis, should be brought up to the standards of the fluid milk before this could be possible. The questions which were posed in respect of the removal of fluid milk from the support policy are valid. I should like to point to the arguments made by prior ministers which I think were valid at 23033-978J
Interim Supply
that time, and probably still are valid, to the effect that economically the worst circumstances by and large in the dairy industry were in the manufacturing segment. I believe such probably is still generally the case.
When government funds are available in respect of the manufacturing industry, historically the federal government has taken the responsibility to see that everything possible is done to improve the standards in the manufacturing milk industry and the income of the manufacturing milk producer. As both the ministers I quoted earlier stated, we must attempt to see to it that their income position is brought closer to that of the fluid producer generally.
e (12:40 a.m.)
You might well ask why we paid a subsidy to fluid milk producers last year. In the announcement at that time it was made clear and manifest that we were paying a subsidy to fluid milk producers of over and above 120 per cent of their quotas, because we foresaw that there might be a shortage and we wanted to increase production. It was made very clear that this might be a temporary thing because production was needed last year. I think the views of the experts were borne out by the fact that last year the consumption and production very nearly matched. Surely that should be the object of the game. There was no great surplus accumulated. We disposed of the product and we were not in a situation such as that which existed in 196162, where the price structure created such a great surplus we could not dispose of the product. Clearly that was the right thing to do last year.
This year, with the added incentive of the higher price, the best estimate we can get is that production will be adequate without encouraging further production of surplus fluid milk in order to meet the required need. I think it was made clear last year that the policy announced then was for one year to encourage production and that it would not necessarily be continued. This year it is not deemed that we will need an additional supply of fluid milk to meet the demand of our manufacturing milk market. Let me point out that the policy as envisaged, and to be carried out by the Canadian Dairy Commission, is that the support program will be applied to a global quota to meet the domestic market. In other words, the whole plan is that we will support and pay subsidy on the basis of the estimated requirement to meet domestic needs. I think most Canadians will agree that

April 26, 1967
Interim Supply
this is the proper approach, and quotas are set accordingly.	.
Some questions have quite properly been asked in respect of quotas and their purpose. The purpose of quotas is, of course, to arrange things so that we may do what has been done previously in the fluid milk industry. The complaints which have been voiced about the fluid milk producer and his position in respect of quotas can be answered by the fact that he is in exactly the same position as the manufacturing milk producer, and always has been. The manufacturing milk producer cannot get a quota in the fluid industry. We are providing quotas in the manufacturing industry in order to create a situation in which the supply and the domestic demand are as close as possible, and quotas will be established on that basis.
Let me point out further that the entire idea, which I suggest in the long run will improve the situation in the industry, is to use quotas economically to rationalize the industry. Quotas will be used to help the small producer. The hon. member for Rosthern chose to make light of the situation by cracking jokes about the fellow with ten cows. I do not think there is anything funny about this at all. The small producer is the man we want to help the most and that is what this policy is intended to do. It is intended to bring that small producer up to a position where he will ultimately have some 200,000 pounds of quota which will give him a decent income. I think the announcement makes it very clear that the quota will be used for the purpose of bringing the small producer to the point where he has a larger quota and can make a decent income. This has not been possible, as indicated by the figures I cited, when some 65 per cent of our producers today produce less than 100,000 pounds.
I realize that some of the very big producers probably are not too happy about this program because it is not meant to encourage further production or the establishment of huge corporate entities such as those which produce more than 300,000 pounds, as announced by the commission.
The quotas as they become available will be used to encourage the small producer to get bigger, so he can get the kind of income we would like him to have. I know this has never been tried before but I suggest that the experience in other countries and our own experience indicates that this is the best way, by the use of quotas, to bring the small producer into the economic areas.
[Mr. Greene.l
Then there is the question of the value of quotas. I think this point was very properly made. I want to assure the committee, because I thought it was a very valid point and one that should be answered, that the question of making the quotas the property of the commission rather than the property of the individual is to prevent this trafficking in quotas. This value in the quotas themselves, which in some areas of the fluid market has merely upped the price of getting into the fluid business and has ultimately upped the price of milk to the consumer, and the only person who benefits is the quota holder who gets the cash value of the quota.
The purpose is to have the commission deal with quotas at their discretion in the event of dispersal or sale, apart from the immediate family as pointed out in the release. The quotas will be used not to enable the person selling the product to get an extra buck for his quotas but to enable the small producer to become bigger and get himself in a position where he has an economic unit and can make a good income.
There has been some criticism that there are fewer producers. Of course, the dispersal of the herds is quite obviously, again, in large measure due to other producers becoming bigger and creating economic units. The cattle have not dissappeared or been shot. The fact that gross production has been maintained for the country quite clearly indicates, I think, that dispersal has largely been carried for the creation of larger and more economic units than has been the case in the past. With regard to the question of fewer producers, I know no answer to this problem. I do not know any way in which we can have just as many or more people than are in the industry today and still have them all making the kind of income we want them to make.
I think it is an immutable law of agricultural economics that the more prosperous a nation becomes, the higher becomes its standard of living, the more we expect to have in income return, the smaller is the percentage of the population producing the food for the rest of the country. The agricultural producers become more efficient; it is as simple as that. The agricultural producers in Canada in the past decade have been increasing their productivity by some 5.6 per cent per year, which is something like double the rate of increase in productivity in the industrial sphere, and even there it has been very good.
If one wants to go back to having more and more producers or just as many producers on
April 26, 1967

the farm as were there in the past, we have only to look at the situation in less developed countries which have a far lower standard of living than ours. In those countries 30 per cent or 40 per cent of the people are on the land producing the food for the rest of the population, but I do not need to tell hon. members that the standard of living for the farmers and others in that type of economy is far lower than ours. So if we are to have a higher standard of living and a better income, there will be a smaller percentage of the people in the dairy business, with larger units, and making the kind of income we want them to make.
You cannot make this kind of transition painlessly. You cannot make it without the price of change. I think that price should be nullified to the greatest possible degree in those areas where people are going out of the industry. We must do everything possible by way of ARDA programs, manpower training programs and location of secondary industry in those areas where a smaller percentage of the people will be concerned with dairy production. But I do not think we can ever attain the kind of progress we want by saying we have to leave things just as they are and keep the money pouring in and have no incentives or encouragement to create the kind of economic unit which will by its very efficiency give the kind of income to dairy farmers that we want them to have.
I think it is only fair to deal with the criticism of the price structure itself. I believe it is certainly the duty and responsibility of farm organizations to fight, as they have done, for higher prices and returns for those who support their organizations. Farm organizations must have a lobby, just as trade unions. They must work to improve prices for those who are their members and whom they are representing. Our farm organizations have done just this.
[DOT] (12:50 a.m.)
I would point out that it is quite proper for them to try to approach the $5 level, which is what they are after. I certainly do not think it is in any way irresponsible. When one considers that I have stated as an objective to be worked for in the very near future that the economic unit will have some 200,000 pounds per annum. This is the production of, say, 20 to 30 cows. Even at $5 that is only a $10,000 a year gross income, and when one takes all the expenses, taxes, cost of feed, fertilizer, and the capital cost of the establishment, surely this is not too high a figure for which to
Interim Supply
strive, and it is not irresponsible to say that the efficient dairy farmer should have a gross income of $10,000 per annum. However, this cannot be achieved overnight. It is something toward which we should work.
Someone asked what happened to the 11 cents. Again, this being a responsible program as I have said, it is geared to pay a subsidy and to support the dairy farmer for the domestic consumption. Canadians, by the price they pay on the marketplace, and by the subsidy they pay through their taxes, would I am sure want to see that the dairy farmer received a just return for what he sells domestically.
What is sold in world markets must be sold at prices less than our farmers can get in the domestic market. It is a two price system, if you like, and the 11 cents are used to dispose of that surplus product in world markets. It is the farmer's money. As you know, this year we did the same thing. According to my information it was not necessary to spend the whole of the hold-back this year, and there will be a return to the farmer of the portion that was not spent in putting the product in the world market. I would point out that the dairy organizations asked for $5.10. We have achieved $4.64 net, or $4.75 with the export subsidy. In the industrial area we see very sophisticated and highly skilled workers seeking parity of wages with their counterparts in the United States.
Let me point out that the price received by the American producer of manufacturing milk is less than $4 per hundredweight. According to my information prices have dropped even below that. This is why there is trouble in the United States in respect of manufacturing milk prices today.
Again I do not claim that we have achieved the millenium, but it is surely an indication of the fact that we have achieved a responsible price structure in Canada when the price received by the Canadian producer of manufacturing milk is 75 cents higher than that received by his counterpart in the United States. Some of those in the New Democratic Party who laugh should realize that they have not been able to achieve this for some of their industrial workers who are fighting for parity with their American counterparts. Here we have done better than parity in respect of our manufacturing milk farmers.
I do not deny for a moment that there is a great deal to be done, and there is much to be achieved. I suggest that what has been accomplished in four years is an improvement

April 26, 1967
Interim Supply
of some 70 per cent in the gross returns to the farmer. Certainly this far outstrips his increased cost of production in that time. I do not think anyone would suggest that his costs have gone up by an equivalent 70 per cent. The fact that our prices are higher than United States counterparts is surely an indication that we have moved a long way toward bringing the manufacturing milk farmer into the economic position he deserves. However, we should strive to do more.
I have great hopes for the dairy commission, though there are those who criticize it editorially. This commission was formed as a result of just the kind of conclave that hon. members have suggested-provincial people. Dairy organizations formed a committee which suggested a dairy commission of the type we have set up. To my knowledge all farm organizations support the idea of quotas. They appreciate it is the only way to bring stability to the industry.
In addition to this we are attempting to bring the industry, which obviously has been in bad shape, into better economic condition and adopt new approaches to maintain incomes during the period of transition. I suggest we have taken a very responsible step in this direction, and that this program brings the manufacturing milk farmers into a sounder position than ever before.
I admit there is more to be done. I hope we will shortly have a middle or long term plan to lay before the dairy farmers in Canada in conjunction with this year's program in order to show where we are going within the next five years. Our general direction is toward larger units where a decent income can be had. A better price must be offered in the marketplace. The dairy farmer wants a fair return from the marketplace, as does everybody else, and this policy is geared to that end.
In the meantime, while we are rationalizing the industry through the use of the dairy commission and quotas, we have put the dairy farmer into a far better position than he was when we took office. We have improved his income, his returns and his way of life in considerable measure.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Could the minister tell us
whether there is any way that a producer just commencing operation can enter the market under the quota provisions either by establishing a dairy unit or the purchase of an existing one, other than from a close relative? There does not seem to be any provision made for this in the statement of the dairy

commission, and I am wondering whether any provision is made.


John James Greene: My understanding of the administration of the quotas by the commission is that they will be used at the absolute discretion of the commission. The point they made about sale to immediate members of the family, and so on, is to assure the dairy farmers that in those situations quotas will be transferred automatically. You must still go to the commission, but the quotas will be transferred automatically.
[DOT] (1:00 a.m.)
In other cases quotas are used to rationalize the industry and to ensure that after the quotas have been in vogue for a reasonable period a large proportion, if not all, of the people in the industry have the kind of unit which will give them a good income. They have absolute discretion in this regard. I feel certain if someone were selling out and two producers, who had been too small, were living next door, that those producers would have the priorities in the quotas. The commission would have absolute discretion to grant them any excess quotas there were, always bearing in mind that the total, global quotas available to the commission are based on the domestic consumption in Canada. That determines the quotas available for distribution from time to time by the commission.
The general purpose of what is done and the general idea is to put the industry in good shape so that 65 per cent of the people do not have less than 100,000 pounds five years from now. The commission has wide authority, and the transfer of quotas will be at the discretion of the commission.


Mr. Coates:: It is my intention to move from discussing the dairy industry to discussing questions of legitimate concern to all Canadians. This week and in the days ahead Canadians will feel a true sense of achievement as they visit Expo '67, taking note of what has been accomplished in the creation of a world exposition, the equal of which must come in the future, as our expectations and the expectations of countries hosting similar expositions have been exceeded. I hope that Expo '67 will be tremendously successful financially and in developing a better understanding between Canadians of various races as they join together at St. Helen's island to see their tremendous agricultural and engineering achievement.
Much credit is owing to the many people who laboured long and hard to make certain
April 26, 1967

that the schedule was met. I earnestly hope that the citizens of Montreal and of Quebec will do their part to make sure that when visitors leave Expo '67 they will not have a bad taste in their mouths, with a feeling that they have been "taken" by the people of the area. The exhibition can help to develop national unity of purpose in the minds of Canadians but it can also do much damage, should English speaking Canadians visiting Expo and Montreal discover that every opportunity is taken to "take them", and should they be discriminated against because they speak English only. I hope such things will not happen, and I think the citizens living in the exhibition area must be careful to see that the right image of Canada is portrayed during the fair's existence.
Many visitors to Expo will visit the national capital. We are preparing ourselves for the visits of many heads of state. They will be impressed with what they see in Montreal, but I feel certain that they will be unimpressed and shocked and bewildered when they visit Ottawa.
For many years there has been talk about setting up a federal district encompassing Ottawa and Hull. Never has it been more evident than today that such action must be taken. After 100 years of nationhood our capital has little of which its citizens can be proud and in which they can express their identity.
I want to make crystal clear that I do not complain about the municipal government of Ottawa. The elected officials of this city have done their very best within the limits of their budget.


William Arnold Peters: Of their mental capacity you mean.


Robert Carman Coates: No, within the limits of their budget. The members of this house have not had the mental capacity to make certain that we do not see those things in this city we ought not to see. The streets of the capital are continuously being torn apart, as can be seen from the situation at this very time. Our parliamentary buildings are located in the most aesthetic and strategic position in the capital, but it is made almost impossible for visitors to see them. The Minister of Public Works has decreed that cars may not be parked on the hill-a laudable objective if there were alternative parking available nearby. But such is not the case. So we can thank the minister for making it impossible, cr next to impossible, for visitors to see what is really the only beautiful area in the city.
Interim Supply
There are other areas under development at a very slow rate by the National Capital Commission. If the present pace is continued, maybe if we are still a nation by 2067 we shall be able to say something kind about our national capital. But at the present pace it will not be before that date, and no doubt the potholes, the rough streets and the temporary buildings put up by the Department of National Defence on the corner of Elgin and Laurier will still be in existence.
It is evident that the government of Ontario has reached the point at which it realizes something must be done if we are to develop a national capital which will attract visitors. But the federal government continues to procrastinate. A great deal is said about a national identity and about national unity. Yet as a people we have little or nothing to point to by way of monuments in our capital to those in all walks of life who have made contributions to the building of our country. We have a government which is set upon destroying one tradition after another, showing quite obviously that it takes no great pride in our past achievements and is willing to substitute the symbols of our past for what it hopes will become the symbols of our future.
Surely, if we expect Canada to prosper and grow in its second hundred years we must begin by providing examples for Canadians which will develop within them a sense of pride which is not evident today. It is my hope that Expo '67 will assist in doing so. It is my further hope that the centennial commission will assist Canadians to relive pleasant memories of the past and develop in the minds of our young people a sense of pride, a sense of history and a sense of belonging which we did not take time to stress in our first hundred years.
I believe the small celebrations which will be held during 1967 in almost every community in Canada will do more than anything else to make Canadians aware of past accomplishments and anxious to maintain momentum in the years that lie ahead.
When one visits the city of Washington he is immediately impressed by the planning which has made such a large area so beautiful, despite its heavy population. It is not hard to understand why Americans feel a great pride in being citizens of the United States. The many areas set aside for parks, intermingled with residential and business areas, are a measure of the kind of foresight which American leaders displayed. In the

April 26. 1967
Interim Supply
Ottawa-Hull area we have the potential for a capital which would give the same sense of pride to Canadians.
[DOT] (1:10 a.m.)
We will have proven when Expo '67 opens that we are not pikers. Indeed, many may say we are penny wise and pound foolish when they discover the bill that must be met to put on this kind of world exhibition. We have never been willing to spend that kind of money on building a capital for Canada, and until we do we will never really develop that sense of Canadianism but will continue from a base that produces the misunderstandings and dissension so much in evidence at the present time.
Our end objective must be to have our citizens accept the simple word "Canadian" with no additions of any kind attached to it. This should be the final objective of every person who is born in this country and the ultimate objective of every person who comes to live in this country. It cannot be that I am a French Canadian, or English Canadian, or Italian Canadian-just Canadian-and we will only do that when we assume the obligations of a nation to produce a capital city that will give pride to its people.
It is my hope that the government will realize this fact as this year goes forward and will not spend time on petty politics, but take the initiative to set up a federal district, established in a non-partisan way, to honour the men who helped us get where we are now, and give the citizens of the future the kind of objectives that will make them want to build and not tear down-want to be Canadians.


Roland Godin: Mr. Chairman, just a few words for the minister. I should like to insist on the 70 per cent increase. In giving this figure, the minister was taking a chance because it is a figure that may prove false one day.
The minister should know that the farmers who have stayed on the job are honest workers. They know what to give their stock and how to build up their herd. Supposing the weather is helpful, an increase of 25 per cent can easily be achieved within one year. At that time, the quota which is suggested, that is 70 per cent, would be reduced to 55 per cent.
If this happens at the rate of 35 to 40 per cent, as it may automatically occur, the prices would be reduced to 40 per cent. The minister

should not lead us to believe that the Liberal party or the government have given $400 million to the farmers in ten years. The minister should not try to have us believe in such an enormous gift because $400 million is only one quarter of what national defence is costing us this year.
Four hundred million dollars for a period of ten years? That is a mere trifle compared to the amounts of $1 billion 600 million, spent on national defence in the 1967 budget.
With regard to taxes, the hon. minister would have us believe, once again, that there is danger in digging too far into the workers' pocket-books where he finds the money to pay subsidies to the farmers. I should say that there has been some improvement since last year. I must congratulate the hon. minister.
Last year, we had a budget of $146 million, of which contributions, allowances and subsidies represented as little or $30,370,201.
The remaining $115 million has been spent for administration. This year with $250 million we will have $133,582,000 for the farmers.
On the other hand, for the information of all taxpayers-because that is often overlooked-the figure which is given most often in the newspapers, on the radio and on television is the total budget for agriculture, that is $250 million.
I should like to say here that $72,052,500 were spent on salaries and wages paid to civil servants.
Professional and special services: $3,050,700. It means that we already have another amount of $75 million, which represents again 25 per cent of the budget for agriculture.
A little further one finds: office stationery, supplies and equipment: $1,941,900. Practically $2 million. I am not against well organized offices but I want to tell all the taxpayers that the offices of the Department of Agriculture are very well organized and that they do not lack anything because during the year about $2 million was spent on stationery, supplies and equipment alone.
With regard to the amount of $133,592,100, I should like the minister to tell us where exactly are those allowances, grants and contributions going? Will part of this money be given to sugar beet producers? Will another part be given to some wheat growers? And what about the dairy industry?
For the information of all Canadian taxpayers, I should like the minister to give us the above details.
April 26, 1967


Bert Raymond Leboe: Mr. Chairman, I should like to apologize to the committee for rising at this early hour in the morning. However, I do have a very definite grievance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't we all.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Someone said, "Don't we all". Perhaps the biggest grievance is the fact that we are still here at this late hour. I should like to refer to the Alaska highway and give a little of the background. I will not take very long.
Back in 1957 the then minister of national defence saw fit to let contracts for the paving of some 83 miles of the Alaska highway. Since that contract has been completed not one shovelful of pavement has been placed on that highway. That was ten years ago. I do not think that we can deal with this matter in terms of dollars and cents. When we speak of this highway and the paving of it, it is a matter of priority. Surely, with a budget of $11 million, we should be able to squeeze enough money by way of priority without raising taxes or budgeting for it so that we would be able to do something about this very important link with the northern part of Canada, namely the Yukon Territory.
On April 1, 1954, the transfer was made from the Department of National Defence to the Department of Public Works. I brought this matter forward on September 11 and 12, 1963 at a conference in Whitehorse. The then minister of labour was present at that time and spoke to this conference. At the end of the conference I had a long talk with Congressman Rivers. We knew the attitude of the government at that time. Basing our calculations on the plan of the government at that particular time, we concluded that it would be seven years before anything would be done on the Alaska highway.
Four of those seven years now have gone by and there is no sign of anything happening on the highway. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has said that it is very, very low in priority on the list of government business. I do not understand this, because the same minister was provided with a letter which was written by the minister of highways of British Columbia on November 13, 1963, in which the minister agreed that on the British Columbia section the province of British Columbia would take up one third of the cost if it was a three way split or half the cost if only Canada and the province of British
Interim Supply
Columbia were involved in the paving of the highway.
[DOT] (1:20 a.m.)
I notice, in a letter from the former minister of northern affairs, Hon. Walter Dins-dale, that he quoted the estimate as being $112 million. Now, in 1967, I would imagine that the price has increased to about $150 million or perhaps even more. Even at a cost of $150 million over a ten year period, with a three way split among the United States, Canada and British Columbia, the total amount required would be about $3,350,000 to $4 million per year. When comparing that amount of money to a budget of $11 billion, considering the amount of good this expenditure would do for the people in this part of the country-and we hear a great deal these days about the importance of development in the northern part of Canada-surely it is not too much to ask the government to reconsider its whole policy in connection with the priority to be attached to this project.
The economic survey which was made certainly does not indicate a very good picture from the point of revenue in dollars and cents which will be derived immediately following the reconstruction of this highway. When is it ever possible to develop a country on the basis of considering the exact dollars and cents revenue to be received immediately from a project?
The Roads to Resources program was developed under the Conservative administration. Surely that name indicates a vision in connection with the north country. What we should be doing is reconstructing a portion of this highway each year. I have before me a wonderful little brochure put out by the travel bureau. It tells us about the fine things to be seen along the Alaska highway. It states that on a dry day it might be a little dusty. Let me tell you that on dry days you cannot find yourself on that highway. Many individuals have passed vehicles on the highway only to find when the dust has settled that both vehicles are stopped within 50 yards of each other waiting for the dust to clear. It is very easy to find this highway when flying over it. You can see it for hundreds of miles because of the continuous cloud of dust. People are being killed on the highway because of dust conditions, and traffic is slowed down to almost a walk on many occasions.
Surely we could improve and pave those parts of the highway which meet alignment and grade requirements. If this were done

April 26, 1967
Interim Supply
travellers could pass long lines of trucks which use the highway very extensively. This is the only highway which can be used to move heavy equipment and material to Alaska. We should have a careful look at government policy in connection with the development of this project.
In closing let me say that Canada should construct this highway in co-operation with the province of British Columbia. We could then make an arrangement with the United States for the payment of its share of the cost. We need not put all our aces on the table. Some day the United States will want a right of way or rail outlet from Alaska. There is only one area through which such traffic could go and that is British Columbia. If the government of the United States would not play ball in connection with the development of the Alaska highway then we could say we will not play ball regarding a rail outlet. Under those circumstances I am sure the United States would go along with us. The correspondence I have received indicates that we have no problem with the United States. The problem is with Canada.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, before starting my remarks, I wish to thank the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates) who mentioned earlier the tremendous and sensational things that people from every country will be able to see and admire at Expo '67 which is opening today in Montreal.
The hon. member for Cumberland expressed the wish that Canadian citizens from whatever province they come will not suffer any discrimination or inconvenience even though they do not speak English when in Montreal.
Mr. Chairman, 1 can assure him that Expo '67 is an international event, that some visitors will speak Spanish, Italian, English, German, that all will be most welcome and that nobody, whether from Cumberland, Toronto, Vancouver or Winnipeg will suffer for not being able to speak French.
Quebec and Montreal hospitality is well known. I am convinced that visitors from wherever they come in Canada, whether or not they speak French, whether they speak English only or both languages, will have a friendly reception. I think we showed in the past that we were able to receive our visitors, whatever the language they use.
The hon. member for Cumberland also expressed the wish that visitors will not be
[Mr. Leboe.l
exploited. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think precautionary measures have been taken to prevent that. There will probably be abuses in some cases; then, if the hon. member for Cumberland has knowledge of some, it will behove him to report them. But I think that the necessary steps have been taken to prevent abuses and, at all events, I can assure him that the Quebec and Montreal hospitality will be shown to all Expo visitors.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to come back to the requests of the milk producers. I believe that at least some of us, the member for Labelle (Mr. Clermont) or the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) took the wrong approach to the way of dealing with the problem of milk producers.
We have too often used the argument that the present government has achieved a better job than the preceding one. We too often quoted the figures of 1960, 1961, and referred to what was done then.
Mr. Chairman, it is not by trying to compare two parties or two governments that we will solve the problem. The fact that the previous government did not succeed in solving the problem is no excuse for the present government.
The fact that the previous government did not assist farmers sufficiently is no reason why the present one should sit back in selfsatisfaction and self-contemplation.
Problems are never solved this way. I heard the Minister of Agriculture tell us over again, going back to 1958, 1959, 1960, what was done at that time, and I could not help thinking that farmers will not care to hear what the minister has to say about what happened in 1960.
Farmers and milk producers want to know what the minister can do in 1967 and 1968 for those we produce milk.
I could also hear the member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) and the member for Labelle saying: we will work to get what the farmers are asking. In the same breath they vied with each other in showering the minister with flattery.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to tell those hon. members that flattering the minister will get them nowhere. Congratulating him for what has been done will not get the farmers what they ask. Let the two members who were showering the minister with praise go and see him tomorrow, let them go and ask him what the farmers want.
April 26, 1967



The minister will have but one thing to do, namely get out today's Hansard and tell them: Are you serious, look at what you said in the house last night about the dairy policy. See how much you congratulated me. And now you are telling me it is not enough.
And the minister, will merely have to quote Hansard and what you have said today, and then you try and ask something of him. The minister will burst out laughing and tell you: Gentlemen, make up your minds. Are those mere compliments you are making or what?
Mr. Chairman, the minister admits that everything is not perfect. Well, that is what counts. When the minister is ready to admit that the farmers were not satisfied and that their income is much below that of any other class in Canada, then it is important not to rest on one's laurels and to help the farmers to get a certain amount of justice in this Canadian society.
The minister admitted that the farmers do not get a fair share. Well then, it is not a question of sitting but of finding a solution. And we are asked for this solution, we are told: you criticize a lot, have you got a solutions?
We are told: you criticize, you ask for more, you ask for 30 million more. Where is the money to be found? Will more taxes have to be levied?
Well, I have a solution. I would have a solution to offer to the Liberal members who agreed that the Minister of Agriculture was not offering enough.
If you take the estimates for the year ending March 31, 1968, about half way down page 318 you will see that the government will buy bombs. I repeat, bombs. $26,086,000 worth of bombs to drop on whose head? I wonder. Whom do we want to kill? That is discussed in 1967-68, $26,080,000 worth of bombs.
[DOT] (1:30 a.m.)
I will ask the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) to tell on what heads we will drop that. To the hon. for Labelle, I ask: On what country are we going to drop our bombs? Where? Then, we will not need those bombs, we will not need those bombs we will buy; we have been storing them since 1945 and we never drop them on anyone. The solution is there.
Next year we should try that. We should stop buying bombs and help the farmers, the most maligned class of society in our country; we should help them to catch up with the
Interim Supply
other classes of society and we will have some money left.
Moreover, do we know how many ships we will buy? For $61 million? Do we know how many tanks and armoured vehicles we will buy? For $14 million. That is a lot of tanks.
It is proposed to purchase $95 million worth of aircraft. Very well. Let them buy planes if they want to, but we do not need any bombs. Is that clear enough?
The hon. members for Champlain and Labelle congratulated the minister and hold him that was not quite enough. Let them go and see the minister to tell him: This year, instead of buying bombs, let us settle the farmers' problem. It would be very simple, with $26 million being available. They will tell me that this is $4 million short. Mr. Chairman, if I refer to the previous page, I find that $18,773,000 will be paid for telephones, telegrams and other communications during the year. If national defence officials kept their hands off telephones and stopped clasping hands across telephone lines, they would be spending $4 million less.
With the $26 million saved by not buying bombs, it will make up $30 million for farmers and then they will be given what they want. Is it not a solution?
If I suggest a free vote in this house, either to buy bombs this year, to-morrow or the day after, in short, bombs which will not be used, but will rust, or to pay $5 per hundredweight of milk to farmers, I would ask the hon. member for Champlain to tell me how he would vote. For bombs or for farmers? Would he be able to answer? For bombs or for farmers?


Jean-Paul Matte: Bombs are not bought just for fun.


Gilles Grégoire: He does not answer; I am surprised. And as for the member for Labelle-


Jean-Paul Matte: Bombs are not bought for the fun of it.


Gilles Grégoire: The member for Champlain tells me that bombs are not bought simply for the fun of it. Why are they bought then?
Mr. Chairman, I will ask the member for Champlain on whom he would drop those bombs? On whom? I am asking him a good question. How are those bombs going to be used? I will ask the member for Bonaventure

April 26, 1967
Interim Supply
(Mr. Bechard) what he would rather do: help farmers or buy bombs?
This is an embarrassing question!


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, could I put a question to the hon. member?


Gilles Grégoire: If the hon. member answers my question, I will allow him to ask me one. If the member for Bonaventure says whether he would rather buy bombs or help farmers, I will answer his question. Is he ready to answer mine?


Maurice Allard: Answer.


Gilles Grégoire: He remains seated.


Mr. Langlois (Chicoutimi):: This is silly.


Gilles Grégoire: Of course it is silly. That is obvious. I myself have no hesitation. Leave the bombs where they are, and let us help the farmers. The answer is obvious, and I do not hesitate. But you, you buy bombs. Hurrah for bombs! And where will we drop these?
Could the Minister of Industry and Defence Production (Mr. Drury) tell me on what country we are going to drop the bombs? On what country? On whom, Mr. Chairman?
For twenty years-


Jean-Paul Matte: On your yacht.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, there is no need for $26 million worth of bombs; for $26 million, I shall sink my boat. If that is all that can prevent the Liberals from helping the farmers, I shall sink my boat myself. But they need not worry, it will not cost them one cent for bombs.
But it is obvious, it is clear. And I could quote numerous such examples. We have the choice of either buying bombs or helping the farmers.
So, let the Liberal members tell the minister they have found the solution. They have the solution as far as they are concerned and that is the astonishing part.
As you stand, you know, hon. Liberal members, that the bombs we are buying for $26 million this year will not be used. That is the stupidity of the whole deal. They will not be used because there is not one among us willing to throw bombs on other countries. You know that. We have been building up a stockpile of bombs for 22 years and those we have bought ten years ago are rusty. Let us stop it this year-
[Mr. Gregoire.)


David Lewis: We need a little bomb for the member for Lapointe.


Gilles Grégoire: That is right. It might be a good thing but when the hon. member wanted to speak, I let him speak. If he has no farmer in his riding, we have some.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that the question is very simple. Some comparison might be drawn. When it is said that the government subsidizes gold-gold is the subject of subsidies-we know that an ounce of gold, once taken out of the ground, costs about $70 or $72. However, the selling price is $35. Who pays for the difference? The government, at the rate of $35 per ounce. Figure this price per hundredweight. The result is $56,000. Imagine, $56,000 in subsidies from the government for some hundredweight of gold. And the farmer asks a subsidy of $1.25 per hundredweight. Well, this is too much. As concerns gold, my friends, you take it and bury it in vaults, in a hole in the United States. On that score, you will supply $56,000 in subsidies. Are you serious? Is this your policy? And after that, you dare ask us where the money will come from? Did the government ask where to find the money to apply subsidies to gold? No, not at all. You did not even say a word for anybody, you fell silent and you paid subsidies so that you might go to the United States to bury gold in caves and in holes. If only you had helped one of these dairy farmers, but nothing is done. I hear the member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) say that it is discouraging. True: it is discouraging, and I agree with him. It is discouraging, Mr. Chairman, to see how our governments can respond. The Minister of Agriculture raises his arms and says: "The dairy farmers belong to a class of our society which is not treated justly."
A solution is given to him: stop buying bombs and help farmers. No, nobody wants to follow the suggestion. I have the solution. There is no question of taxation. And if necessary, let us vote here to see what you will choose: bombs or farmers. Well, it is up to you to make your choice. I will tell you a fact: farmers are human beings; bombs are engines for the destruction of other human beings. The choice is there.
I think that these few remarks should convince the Liberals. I will agree with them that the price of milk per hundred pounds has increased; I will agree with them that the subsidies have increased; I will admit all that. They admit it. So much the better. The minister has admitted that farmers are not fairly
April 26, 1967

treated today. Economically, it is the most ill-treated class in Canada, the most pitiful social class in Canada. Now that all that is admitted, now that praise has been cast your way because you accomplished something, now, you will ask us for a solution. I will give you one: let us vote supply not only those for agriculture but also those for national defence.
Refuse to pass item 15 on page 318, refuse to pass vote $26,086,000 for bombs. That is all I ask of you. Refuse to pass that and tell the minister to put that in for dairy production, at the service of dairy producers and your problem will be solved. I trust that consideration will be given to this and that the members will take the necessary steps to change the credits so that bombs will not be bought which will never be used, but that instead the most unjustly treated class of society will be helped.
The Liberals tell us that they bring their pressure to bear in caucus, well-


Mr. Laniel:: With the Creditistes, money is no problem.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, we realize that the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel) is not serious, when we are precisely trying to give him the answer to the problem. He and others in his group asked us to put forward solutions. We give him some, but there, you see that they are not serious. That is the big problem, Mr. Chairman, there are too many members in this house who are not serious, who are not ready to take and envisage realistic solutions, e (1:40 a.m.)
There are too many here who serve their party first when they should serve their electors first. There is the problem and the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel) has just given us a striking proof of it.
His question was most stupid, especially when it is about such a serious matter as this one.
Mr. Chairman, I feel that if the people in Quebec were aware of the attitude taken here at times by those hon. members, in short if they were aware of the submission, the bowing and scraping of several hon. members, they would get rid of them quickly.
Mr. Chairman, it is time that the Quebec people knew that the members they sent to Ottawa have not been representing them properly for too long and that they are here
Interim Supply
to serve their political party rather than the national interest. That is what is discouraging and disgusting on the part of some members and I realized it. I was not afraid to speak out for my constituents, to speak my mind on their behalf, and I am convinced that my constituents, as well as those of Beauharnois, of Champlain or of Labelle fully endorse my request, that is, that the purchase of bombs be stopped in order to help farmers.
I challenge the hon. member for Beau-harnois-Salabery to gainsay it.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I shall not talk about the farming problem, coming from a constituency not concerned with it. Other members know more about agriculture than I do. However, I am reminded of a remark the minister made not long ago in Charlottetown on being questioned about the merits of being a lawyer and also being the Minister of Agriculture. As I recall his reply it was: "You need not be a farmer to be minister of agriculture; after all, in Ottawa we have a lawyer who is Minister of Justice." He was referring to Mr. Cardin, and added: "You can see the mess they are in." That may illustrate the minister's approach to the farm problem.
On several occasions I have tried to bring a question before the house on the late show; consequently I am taking this opportunity to talk about problems of development in Cape Breton. Some important questions ought to be answered. After the Prime Minister's statement of last Thursday about the urgency of getting on with the country's business, I am surprised to see that four cabinet ministers, three of whom have recently been appointed, should be present tonight. All evening the debate has been going on in the absence of ministers who are supposed to be responsible.


An hon. Member:: That is not true. Where were you? You have just arrived.


Malcolm MacInnis: Members opposite are saying it is not true. Last week the house was exercised because the unparliamentary word "lying" was used. I would ask the Minister of Public Works, who has been present for the last two hours, though he has not been with us, to get up and make an issue of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture made a mistake and did not realize his microphone was open. Let him make an issue of the four-letter word which was used by the Minister of Agriculture when speaking to the Minister of Public Works. I know no other example of

April 26, 1967
Interim Supply
such a thing happening between two ministers of the crown, taking it out on each other because they were not satisfied with the way the debate on interim supply was going. I am telling the truth. The minister opposite me to my left has just come into the house.


Mr. Sauve:: Mr. Chairman, I have been here since 8.30 this evening.


Malcolm MacInnis: I will put a question to the hon. gentleman I see on the government front bench over there. I say to the Solicitor General: You have just come into the house.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I would ask hon. members to deal with the subject before the committee, which is interim supply.


Malcolm MacInnis: With all due respect I had the impression that the question before us was the question of the truth, and it was raised by members on that side of the committee. The minister of health and welfare, and this is to his credit-he represents a riding in Cape Breton-has been sitting here all the evening along with the Minister of Industry. The Minister of Public Works was in a back seat. As I said before, he was present but not with us. The Minister of Forestry and Rural Development said he had been here since 8.30. I say that is not the truth.


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, I have been in this house since 8.30-not always sitting in my place but elsewhere in this house. Other members will testify to this. The hon. member should mind his own business.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Malcolm MacInnis: I was
talking about being in this chamber. There are probably another 50 or 100 members in the house. We were discussing those who were present in this chamber.


An hon. Member:: Call in the members. Say something intelligent.
[DOT] (1:50 a.m.)


Malcolm MacInnis: If there are many more interruptions my time will run out, but I shall have an opportunity to rise again. The Minister of Agriculture set that example tonight. He took two half hour periods, to the agitation of the Minister of Public Works, and I could use the same privilege if members opposite push me to it.

There are only two ministers present on the government benches, and this is the government which said only last Thursday that this, this, and that must be passed by parliament, urgently. It said the unification debate had to be cut off in order to get on with the urgent business of the house. But once the unification bill was passed it was announced that we would be given a couple of days off, and those days off have now been extended despite the fact that the Prime Minister said he wanted to deal with urgent business.
Under the rules, if a member is not satisfied with the answers given him by a minister, the member has an opportunity to come on in the late show and discuss his question. I was given one such opportunity and I was provided with answers that were most ridiculous by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Following that I raised my question again during the question period, but again unsatisfied with the answer I referred it to the ten o'clock adjournment period. However, I was refused this despite the fact that the answers were unsatisfactory. Not only were they unsatisfactory but they were far from accurate, and so I now take this opportunity to mention the lay-offs at the Fortress of Louisbourg.
The minister responsible has indicated that 44 men were hired recently. This is a lot of nonsense because last November 58 men were laid off. Those men were returned to the job after a lot of pressure was brought to bear, and in fact the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development said it was because of the representations made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare about making further representations and to look at the statements made by the minister of Indian affairs and northern resources during the adjournment debate. That minister said that the funds were exhausted, but 13 lines further on in his speech he said they were staying within their budget.
It is important that every bit of help that can be given should be given to Cape Breton. I am surprised that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has not informed the government as to the facts. The facts are that a minister of the crown indicated to the people of this country that the government is paying subsidies to the coal industry to the extent of $7,000 per year per man. That is a lot of
April 26, 1967

absolute nonsense, but I was denied the opportunity to question it. I was given an unsatisfactory answer and I was denied the privilege of discussing it at ten o'clock.
We are grateful that the government has introduced a 15 year phasing out plan for the coal mines of Cape Breton, with guarantees of ultimate employment to be provided for each and every miner before he is displaced from the mines. This removes the uncertainty and makes the position of the Cape Breton miner more satisfactory than the situation under which he has been labouring for years gone by. It is a good move.
However, I would say to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who does not know what he is talking about, that if it were costing the federal government $7,000 per year per man, in the interests of good business the government should make a flat offer to the Cape Breton miners of $5,000 per year, and close the coal mines out now.
The statement made by the minister was silly, but if they want to save $3,000 per man, why do they not close the mines and pay the miners $5,000 a year until other work is provided? This makes as much sense as the argument advanced by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Let us get back to the basic fault in respect of this problem. There is no reason why the Minister of National Health and Welfare should not make the Prime Minister aware of this. The minister has made the mistake. I do not see why he does not take a look at this question, so that he will not make the same mistake of referring to subsidies in respect of the Cape Breton coal industry. The minister should make his colleagues aware of the fact there is no subsidy paid to the Cape Breton coal industry.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: They do not know the difference.


Malcolm MacInnis: We
realize that the government has provided aid by making provision for the marketing of coal outside of Cape Breton. Without this, it would be impossible to keep any mine in operation. We realize that this assistance is directly beneficial to the Cape Breton coal industry. It is time, however, that this government became aware of the fact that these are not subsidies; they are subventions paid to the carriers. In other words this money is paid to the transportation industry, whether it is the water carriers or the C.N.R. We can break this down and see what this subvention which is paid to the
Interim Supply
carriers means to the miners of Cape Breton. In any circumstances one could not arrive at the $7,000 figure mentioned by the minister. If we break it down and apply it to the number of people employed by means of the employment which is provided on the railway lines of the C.N.R.'s operation, or by the other carriers, we would find that the subsidy which has been referred to actually is a subvention from which we benefit greatly, but which nevertheless does not provide the answer to the fact that there are lay-offs at Louisbourg.
I am quite happy with the end result; that is, that the miners today, because of the policy announced, will be ensured of employment until other employment is provided through legislation which will be forthcoming. I can assure the minister now-and I think I speak for the other Nova Scotia members-that we will be only too happy to co-operate to the fullest extent when this legislation is brought forward. If there is anything we can do in the way of liaison between here and Cape Breton, we will be only too happy to do it. But, stop raising the bogeyman.
I might mention here that the area which the Minister of National Health and Welfare represents holds a great potential for Cape Breton. When something is good for Cape Breton, it is good for Nova Scotia, and when it is good for Nova Scotia it is good for Canada. Why in this area, where the need is the greatest, has there been this cut-back? Why was the money which was spent down here for almost two years for a hole in the ground not spent above the ground?
[DOT] (2:00 a.m.)
This project has cost about five times its originally estimated cost. It was originally suggested to help offset unemployment created by the closure of mines in Cape Breton. This government can dig up money for its own pet projects but it cannot find money for projects of this kind. If the Minister of National Health and Welfare is as strong in the cabinet as the image he likes to project in Nova Scotia, why does he not support this project in his own constituency. Why does he not make representations to his colleagues, particularly the misinformed Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, to continue this project in order that the miners who have been layed off can be rehired? Apparently he has abandoned that end of his riding, but why does he not support his own end of the constituency? After all, anything of value that is done for one part of Cape Breton is of

April 28, 1967
Interim Supply
benefit to the whole island, the entire province and Canada.
I think if I set out the total amount of subventions paid in respect of my own province the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development would be very surprised, indeed. It is not surprising that he does not know about these things, but when I tried to raise a question today I was told that I was out of order. In my opinion any wrong that is done to a constituent is a reflection upon the member who represents that constituency in this house. I suggest that what the Minister of National Defence said regarding the question I raised today was a reflection upon me as the representative of my constituency, and I believe I had a legitimate question of privilege. The rules of this house apparently do not mean a great deal because one can always find six or seven interpretations for each rule. By my own interpretation I believe I raised a proper question of privilege.
During the last several weeks we have heard a great deal about unification. If we follow the suggestion of members of the New Democratic party, that each member of this house should be entitled to speak for half an hour, we would require 182 hours to consider every piece of legislation placed before the house. On the basis of the hours we sit each week, we would only be able to pass seven pieces of legislation each year. In spite of these figures, members on the government side have accused us of carrying on a filibuster in respect of unification. According to the formula suggested, hon. members in the Conservative party are entitled to 143 hours. We did not spend 143 hours in total during the debate on unification.
I think it is important to change our rules. Important issues come before this house and every member should have the right to use whatever time he has available to bring his views to the attention of the government. We do not require seven weeks to debate each issue which comes to our attention. But let us get back to the minister, and the erosion that has been going on in respect of Canadian traditions.
I am reminded of historical events. In August, 1914, when the Germans thought they could conquer Europe in about 39 days and were approaching Paris, which they thought they could take very easily, they decided they would have to violate the neutrality of Belgium. They therefore decided they would just cut across the corner, and excused themselves

by saying, "Well, this is a violation, but it is a small violation." The Germans thought everybody would forget about it because it was a small violation. I now come to the hearings of the defence committee. In those hearings a similar type of statement was made by the chief of defence staff, General Allard, who said the measure being discussed was only a little error. Is not there a similarity between those two statements?
Today I raised a question with respect to another tradition, one that provides that when a ship is decommissioned, if it has been named after a community in this country the bells of the ship are presented to the community after which the ship was named. The house may have thought this was not an important matter. The ship in question was the New Waterford and it was definitely named after the town of New Waterford, Nova Scotia, which as I said this morning has provided this nation with more volunteers, on a per capita basis, than any other community in the country.
When the ship was decommissioned tradition called for the bells to be presented to the town of New Waterford. Suddenly we find there is a town called Waterford in Ontario with which the Minister of National Defence has a very close association. As I said this morning, my knowledge of Waterford and whatever water surrounds it is only that it comes through the tap. It has no association whatsoever with the navy which is situated on the east coast. This ship was definitely named after the town in Nova Scotia but the minister, because of his close association with Waterford, has made available to that town in Ontario the bells of this decommissioned ship which rightfully belong to the town of New Waterford, Nova Scotia.
I received some sort of explanation in this regard. I accused the minister of breaking another tradition. There is in this matter a similarity between what General Allard said to the defence committee and the excuse given by the Germans that their action in 1914 was just a small violation. The chief of defence staff said before the defence committee that the action being contemplated was only a little error. Now we have the Minister of National Defence defying traditions. Can hon. members not see the similarity in these two approaches? We have had examples of small errors and defied traditions. This type of thing has been going on for the last two years under this Minister of National Defence. Unification got the axe. There were some
April 26. 1967

really priceless arguments put forward in defence of unification.
[DOT] (2:10 a.m.)
A member of the New Democratic party used the argument that any sailors to whom he had spoken about unification first asked what was the admirals' stand on this issue, and when they were told the admirals were against it the sailors' reply would be to the effect that in that case they are for it. The implication was that as long as the top brass in the service was for something, the rank and file would be against it. Suppose we accepted that approach. We know very well that General Allard and his staff are in favour of unification, but if we used the same approach would it not follow that in that case everybody in the army would be against unification? If we took a poll on this there is no doubt we would find that unification would not be accepted by the forces. However, as I said, this is a silly argument in the first place.
The Minister of National Defence has not accomplished that which he set out to accomplish without giving any thought or consideration to the evidence placed before the committee. Again I will point out that a colleague of the minister who saw fit to agree with the point under clause 6 later voted against the amendment put forward by this party.
At the time we also heard the silly argument advanced by a member of the New Democratic party who did not believe in giving the service personnel the opportunity to opt out. It is quite all right to give them the opportunity to opt in. So a form is put before a member of the services and he is told that he has the opportunity to opt in. If he does not opt in he has automatically opted out.
Again a silly argument was put forward by a member who made a flat statement with regard to this problem. He told the minister the kind of answers that were required or otherwise he would vote against the bill. He never got the answers but the government got his vote.
I think it is a well known fact that the Minister of National Defence is looking for a way out. Come fall, it is his ambition and his hope, so the story goes, to occupy another cabinet position. If this government is bent on suicide, this is all they need to do. Things are bad enough in every department of the government and there is only one way to make them worse, that is to transfer Hellyer around from one department to the other. That will sink them for sure.
Interim Supply
Now we come to the Minister of Public Works. I know he is annoyed and agitated, although I may say he is sitting more quietly than he was when the Minister of Agriculture was speaking. At that time his agitation was great. Yet the government still finds some way of accusing hon. members of keeping this debate going. Will there be any publicity of the fact that the Minister of Public Works attempted to put the Minister of Agriculture down? Will there be any publicity regarding the remark made by the Minister of Agriculture to the Minister of Public Works when the latter tried to make him sit down? No, the Liberal propaganda will be spread out that the Tories are this and the Tories are that. The government has been given the opportunity on several occasions by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre who proposed that we get on with the nation's business.
We sat here and listened to the plea made by the Prime Minister last Thursday. He outlined a program which will keep us here, if we are interested in the nation's business. Mind you, last Thursday we were very interested in the nation's business. There was nothing more important than the urgent business which we brought before parliament in order to keep this nation on the tracks.
But how long did the government's interest last?


Maurice Rinfret: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.
Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall I rise, report the resolution and request leave to sit again?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should simply like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Sherbrooke, an amendment which reads as follows:
That the resolution be amended so that the two-twelfths of the amount of $26,086,000 provided for vote No. 15 of the Department of National Defence, for the purchase of bombs, be reduced to $1.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The resolution was carried. Having been carried, it is not now amendable. It was after Your Honour asked the committee whether it should rise and report the resolution that the hon. member rose to take part in this debate and move this amendment.

April 26, 1967
Ways and Means


Gilles Grégoire: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Maurice Rinfret: would ask the hon. member for Lapointe to kindly resume his seat.

With regard to the point of order raised by the Minister of Public Works, I had started to ask whether I should report the resolution but failed to see the hon. member for Lapointe. The hon. member had risen so I now recognize him. I understand he wishes to move an amendment to the resolution.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard):
That the resolution be amended so that the two-twelfths of the amount of $26,086,000 provided for vote No. 15 of the Department of National Defence, for the purchase of bombs, be reduced to $1, in order to enable the Minister of Agriculture to meet the just demands of the Canadian dairy producers.
[English\
Amendment (Mr. Gregoire) negatived: Yeas, 7; nays, 48.


Maurice Rinfret: I declare the
amendment lost.
Resolution reported and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Drury (for Mr. Sharp) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-293 for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of [Mr. Mcllraith.j
money for the public service for the fiscal year ending the 31st March, 1968.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a second time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: the second reading of the bill.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: I object, Mr. Chairman, and until the minister has given satisfaction to the farmers, I will object to that bill, until the end, to third reading.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 2-$1,034,689,911.16 granted for 1967-68.
Richard Albert Bell: Would the minister give the customary assurance that the bill is in the standard form and contains nothing that is not usual in such a bill?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I shall be glad to give such assurance.
Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive carried.
Schedules A, B, C, and D agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
On the preamble.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the minister tell us why in the preamble the administrator is referred to, since we now have a Governor General?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Without being too certain I think that the message in fact came from the administrator, prior to the appointment of the present Governor General.


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


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: No, Mr. Speaker.
April 26, 1967


Gilles Grégoire: No, Mr. Speaker.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: No, Mr. Speaker.

I am asking to deter the third reading to the next sitting of the house, Mr. Speaker, in order for the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) to have sufficient time to give satisfaction to farmers.
As I said when I spoke this evening, I will fight up to the end and farmers will no longer be treated with indifference and contempt. The minister should stop talking and start acting. Let him take action, and we will then give our approval. There will not be any unanimous consent this evening, Mr. Speaker.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I would like to say a word. I think the Minister of Agriculture did make a very sincere effort, as one of the hon. members who spoke pointed out, to provide a long and detailed explanation for the benefit of the house and also of the farmers, particularly those in eastern Canada, and I would ask the hon. member whether, rather than uphold consent now, he would not take the time to read Hansard at his leisure tomorrow or the next day and allow the house to proceed with the passage of this bill.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, to answer the minister's question, I will tell him that I do not have to read Hansard. I have been here all day. I have listened to the minister, to his attempts to comfort the farmers; it is only an attempt, as he stated it so well himself. Now, we do not want words but action. We want him to act. If farmers have asked for $5.10, let him give it to them. It is only on that condition that we will agree to third reading tonight.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. You are fully aware, Mr. Speaker, that to proceed immediately tonight with the third reading of the bill, the unanimous consent of the house is required.
Ways and Means
The hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) has withheld his consent. My question of privilege is as follows: standing orders cannot be disregarded. The Speaker is supposed to be here to see that the rules are applied. I would ask you to take into account the objection raised by the hon. member for Roberval and his refusal to grant unanimous consent.
If an objection has been expressed so categorically, Mr. Chairman, I do not see why you should move that the bill be now read a third time, especially when the unanimous consent of the house is required and the hon. member for Roberval refused to grant it.


George James McIlraith: On the point of order raised by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) I should like to call attention to the fact that unanimous consent is not required for the third reading of this bill in circumstances as they are tonight, which are extraordinary circumstances.
Standing order No. 75 states:
Every bill shall receive three several readings, on different days, previously to being passed. On urgent or extraordinary occasions a bill may be read twice or thrice, or advanced two or more stages in cue day.
This is an extraordinary occasion having regard to the special order of the house made yesterday at eight o'clock under which the sittings were extended sharply for a specific purpose, and that purpose was indicated. This is not an ordinary occasion. It is an extraordinary occasion affecting this interim supply bill at this particular time. Perhaps the extraordinary nature of our consideration of this bill is indicated by the time of sitting.
[DOT] (2:30 a.m.)
Perhaps it could be demonstrated more directly by that than by any other fact. We are now sitting at 2.30 in the morning when, in the ordinary course of events, the house would have risen at six o'clock last night, so that we have been sitting some 8] hours since the normal time of adjournment. I would also point out that this morning the house met at eleven o'clock instead of 2.30, the normal time of meeting. I could develop the argument but I think it is clear it is an extraordinary occasion, just such an extraordinary occasion as that rule is intended to cover.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, may I just say that the other day the hon. member for Me-gantic (Mr. Langlois), representing the party

April 26, 1967
Ways and Means
to which the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) belongs, gave a firm assurance to the meeting of the house leaders that this session would come to a conclusion on Wednesday night and that interim supply and the other items that were mentioned would be passed. Now the hon. member for Roberval, if he is refusing to give consent, is unfortunately, perhaps not realizing it, breaking the word given by the house leader of his party.
When that word was given it was accepted by the rest of us as binding on our various parties. I gave my word for this party consisting of 96 members and we are attempting to meet our part of that bargain. I think all this goes to show that this is an unusual and extraordinary occasion. If we cannot make these arrangements and have these honourable agreements kept, then of course the institution of parliament cannot run in this way. My understanding was that all parties would abide by the decision reached by their representatives who attended that meeting.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the speaker who just resumed his seat said that I have broken an agreement. I think that the first one to break up an agreement is the minister and I will give my consent on the understanding that the minister accepts our request, that is the request of farmers.
If the minister agrees tonight to grant $5.10 to farmers, especially by not increasing taxes, I am ready for unanimous consent and I will give my consent right away. But something new occurred tonight, the minister did not move from his seat and has not changed an iota to his dairy policy. Because of that, Mr. Chairman, I honestly cannot-I am speaking sincerely-give my consent.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, the point of order raised by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith), concerns only a question of procedure.
In regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill, this concerns the party of my colleague from Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) and I have nothing to say about that. However, the Minister of Public Works quotes section 75, which reads in part as follower:
On urgent or extraordinary occasions, a bill may be read twice or thrice, or advanced two or more stages in one day.

Mr. Speaker, I shall now ask the Minister of Public Works to read Standing Order 42, which says:
A motion may. in case of urgent and pressing necessity-
This is the point which the minister intends to raise-
-previously explained by the mover, be made by unanimous consent of the House without notice having been given under Standing Order 41.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, under those two standing orders, the house cannot proceed with more than two stages on the same day and the motion for third reading cannot be accepted now unless it is an urgent matter. And if this is an urgent matter, standing order 42 requires unanimous consent.
So, standing order 42 is a very good complement to standing order 75. If it is true that standing order 75 recognizes that there may be urgent cases which would set aside the general rule that no more than two stages may be proceeded with on the same day, then third reading would constitute the fourth stage.
Therefore, as a rule, third reading should not be proceeded with. Standing order 75 says that it can be done if the occasion is urgent; but standing order 42 provides that it may be done in cases of emergency, subject to unanimous agreement.
I merely wish to rectify the point of order the hon. Minister of Public Works raised. I believe standing order 42 is very clear for it completes standing order 75. I admit there can be third reading in a case of emergency but in that case order 42 stipulates that there must be unanimous consent of the house.
As for the agreements which may have been reached, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the point of order raised by the member for Winnipeg South Centre, I was not aware of them and neither was the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard). We knew nothing about them because we did not attend the meetings of the house leaders. We were not even invited. Consequently, we did not know what might happen in the house seeing we were kept in the dark. The two of us, we are the white niggers of parliament. So we are not told when anything happens. The house leaders may decide that the house will sit tomorrow morning at seven o'clock but we would not be here; not having been invited at the meeting, we would not attend.
So, Mr. Speaker, I should like to protest against such methods of decision between
April 26, 1967

house leaders meeting and forgetting the Independents. In the future, if decisions are to be taken, let us be invited and we will be pleased to attend. Then your decisions may be respected.
I should like the government house leader to know one thing: True, there are only two of us. But we are here and we are here to be taken into account. We are only two but, as the hon. member for Sherbrooke said a while ago, we are worth many Liberal members.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The point of order raised by the hon. member is quite clear and I not think it is necessary for him to speak at greater length on the subject.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I think the point of order which has been raised by the Minister of Public Works and house leader is well taken; that is, it is possible for the house to pass through more than one stage on an urgent or extraordinary occasion. Citation 424 of Beauchesne's fourth edition reads as follows:
"It Is occasionally the custom to pass bills through their different stages at one and the same sitting. That course, however, is never taken except in cases of extreme urgency and with the general assent of the house."
This, Mr. Speaker, is a precedent taken from 1880. Since that time the word "extraordinary" has been included in standing order 75. Therefore, I should like to suggest that the precedent applies to the word "extraordinary" as well as the word "urgent". It does not say there must be unanimous consent by the members of the house that it is an extraordinary occasion. It says there must be general assent of the house that it is an extraordinary occasion.
Therefore, sir, I believe it is quite proper within the rules for Your Honour to determine whether there is general assent that this is an extraordinary occasion and that it is possible to pass bills through more than one stage at the same sitting.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In order to give the Chair an opportunity to consider this very interesting point, I wonder whether the house at this time might consider it advisable to go on with the next item of business. Is it agreed that we revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Ways and Means


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: that the first report of the special committee on procedure of the house, presented to the house on Monday, March 20, 1967, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: that the second report of the special committee on procedure of the house, presented to the house Monday, March 20, 1967, be concurred in.
[DOT] (2:40 a.m.)
He said: Mr. Speaker, in moving concurrence in the second report of the special committee on procedure, I wish to express my appreciation to members of the committee for the way in which they carried out the assignment given to them by the House of Commons. I do not propose at this stage to make an extensive review of the reasons parliamentary reform is such an important issue both in this house and in the minds of the general public. All I want to do is sketch, as briefly as possible, the nature of the report so that hon. members will have in Hansard at least a skeleton outline of what is involved.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted I should like to suggest that we dispense with a discussion on this report, it now being 2:45 in the morning, following a very long day. Surely we could hold this discussion during the next session of the house.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to allow this motion to pass without discussion if that is the general wish of the house.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: We shall now revert to the point we had reached a moment ago.
Ways and Means


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, as far as this problem is concerned, and since the Acting Speaker was in the chair, a while ago, when I presented my argument, would you like me to repeat it


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think it is necessary. Although I was not in the chair, I had the privilege, the pleasure, and the advantage to hear the hon. member behind the curtains.


Gilles Grégoire: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your kindness.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that someone is trying to aggravate the present circumstances, but I am wondering if, after a whole day of discussion on agriculture, that is considered as an extraordinary circumstance to accept a point as important as this one.
We have been considering interim supply since noon and we have dealt with the matter of milk. Mr. Speaker, I believe that three or four days' discussion on this point is not too much, in my opinion, since a way was found to debate the unification plan for our armed forces for three weeks. And the house would not take the time to discuss this matter at leisure, for two or three days?
I find the circumstances really extraordinary on account of the discussions 1 have heard.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether I may be allowed to say a word or two for the benefit of the government house leader in respect of the problem which confronts us. I do not know how long the house intends to debate this procedural point. But it is after 2:45 in the morning, we have put in 15 or 16 hours in a day that makes this the longest session in our history, so if there is a problem, why should we not meet on Friday morning at eleven o'clock to give third reading to the interim supply bill?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was a member of the group of house leaders that reached the understanding that we would finish the business tonight, and the motion that was passed at eight o'clock the night before last seemed to imply that. But it is not crystal clear. It said we would continue to sit in an effort to dispose of certain business. We knew what that was supposed to mean, but if Your Honour rules otherwise, you are the one who makes the decision. But I suggest that rather than our 
April 26, 1967
going on to discuss a procedural point for an hour or so, we might consider taking Thursday off, as was planned, meet on Friday morning at eleven o'clock-there will be enough of us here to give third reading to the bill-and then carry on with the plans the government has for the rest of the session.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, there may be one thing that has been missed so far, in the discussion on this point of order. I should like to read Votes and Proceedings so that the house will know exactly what was ordered. The following appears at page 1752 of Votes and Proceedings of Tuesday last:
It was ordered (1) that the house continue to sit this day beyond 10.00 o'clock p.m.;	(2) that
prior to the adjournment of this sitting, private bills shall be considered; and (3) that the house meet at 11.00 o'clock a.m. tomorrow, Wednesday, April 26, 1967 and, subject to consideration of a probable suspension for luncheon and dinner periods, continue to sit in an effort to dispose of certain specified business before adjournment.
The specified business included the item of interim supply. I respectfully suggest that there having been a special order of this house, it becomes an extraordinary matter within the meaning of standing order 75 and we therefore, as of right, may proceed with the three readings on the one day.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, if you would allow me to comment on this question of procedure, there is a point which has not yet been settled by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith).
I should like you to note that I do not want to oppose him, but merely to express my point of view on that procedure on which we are now basing a precedent.
In the first place, in the motion brought in and read by the minister the provision: "Notwithstanding the sections of the standing orders which could be against the motion" does not appear. This has always been the custom and the Minister of Public Works has always complied with it, when bringing in a motion contrary to the standing orders of the house.
So this is the first point which contradicts the minister's argument.
Second, as the minister said: no item has been mentioned, and the minister says that items would be implicitly recognized. But this was only recognized during a meeting of "house leaders" where we were not called and where the majority of the members of this house were not admitted.

April 26, 1967

Third, Mr. Speaker, the motion states clearly: an effort will be made. This does not show that it is a direct order of the house. So I think that in view of these arguments, there is no other solution than to abide by rule 42 of the Standing Orders which was not set aside in the motion put forward by the Minister of Public Works, a few moments ago.
[DOT] (2:50 a.m.)


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this particular hour to urge you to consider the position in which the house finds itself. We have now reached the time of eight minutes to three in the morning of April 27. I am sure all of us want to adjourn. I would dearly love to make a speech, particularly with regard to the fact that the government has failed to answer questions put to it in this session concerning agriculture. We have to come to the point at which we should consider the completion of the 1966 legislative year. I urge you to rule that we proceed to third reading and adjourn for the year 1967 at this late hour. Regardless of whether there is a justification for a continuation of this debate I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to rule in accordance with the desire of the house so that we may proceed with the legislation for the 1967 legislative year. I say that advisedly, realizing that we are now well into 1967 although we are still considering last year's legislation.
If the house, and particularly the government, had proceeded with the business of the 1966 session in an orderly manner, which of course everyone realizes they have not, we would not be in the position in which we are now. Mr. Speaker, I urge you that we end the 1966 session and proceed to the year 1967.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for their advice on the interpretation of the rules. I might assure hon. members that from the very moment this debate started on the point of order I had no doubts on the rule which applied. The hon. member for Acadia has made a very honest and eloquent speech in which I think he expressed the feeling and desire of practically all members of the House of Commons. Unfortunately the standing order is very specific, and I do not think the order of the house to which the government house leader referred is sufficiently clear or strong to allow me to say that we should dispense with the provisions of standing order 42.
Ways and Means
The Minister of Public Works read the order of the house to the effect that we should continue to sit in an effort to dispose of certain specified business before adjournment. Obviously the effort has been made. It has been a very laudable and generous effort on the part of all hon. members, but it has not been successful. I regret to say that I have no alternative but to rule that there is a standing order which requires the unanimous consent of the house to go on to third reading after having had the second reading a moment ago.
In view of the circumstances I must rule that we cannot go further with the consideration of this bill than we have until now.
When shall the said bill be read a third time?


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I say no. As I have explained a while ago, we waited all day long to have the minister think the case over and reconsider his decision. I repeat: as long as he will not reconsider his own decision, I shall not reconsider mine. I am as stubborn as he is.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wish I could allow the hon. member to deliver a third speech on this point, if his conclusion were to give his agreement on third reading, but as he does not intend to do so, I shall not allow him to continue his argumentation.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I move that this house adjourn until April 27 at 3 am.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, there is a rule in the standing orders, I do not remember which one, saying that there are specific hours, I think it is at the beginning, rule No. 2, concerning the sittings of the house.
(1) The House shall meet on Mondays, Tuesdays. Wednesdays and Thursdays at 2:30 o'clock pun.-
Tomorrow is Thursday, April 27. Therefore, under the standing orders, rule No. 2, paragraph (1), the house meets at 2:30 o'clock p.m. Should someone want to move a motion to change that, it would require a 48-hour notice. I would if the minister gave a 48-hour notice.
As for me, personally, Mr. Chairman-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
Ways and Means

April 26, 1967

I suggest that the government house leader try another motion.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, if I may-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not recognize the hon. member, because the motion has been ruled out of order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to say that the motion may be ruled in order with the unanimous consent of the house. Personally, I am ready to accept the motion, but I think the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) has sound objections.
Then, I say that the minister should ask the unanimous consent according to standing orders.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.

Has the minister unanimous consent of the house to move the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Arnold Peters: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I hear a dissenting voice. Therefore there is no unanimous consent to proceed with the motion proposed by the Minister of Public Works.


Gilles Grégoire: If you allow me two minutes, Mr. Speaker, I may find a solution to suggest to the minister.


Malcolm MacInnis: May I
make an observation which was made some time ago, Mr. Speaker. It is the interpretation that really matters.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fairness and impartiality with which you have tried to rule and tell the house what are the rules, it seems to me that unless there is unanimous consent we should not now try to get around your ruling in some devious way. Again I make the suggestion I made earlier, that it was generally accepted that we would take Thursday off, and that more than 20 of us could be here on Friday morning to give third reading ar.d get the bill to the Senate.


George James McIlraith: It is quite impossible to meet in this way on Friday morning, Mr. [Mr. Speaker.)
Speaker. We made an arrangement in good faith and with a firm commitment by the Ralliement Creditiste given in very clear language, as a result of which the house made an order. That order may have been badly drafted, but it was an honest attempt by the house to interpret the arrangement. The house having acted on that commitment, reinforced by an order of the house, I am not prepared to accept any such proposal such as the one now put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
I believe that a parliament of free citizens elected by their constituents in a free country works on the assumption that when men come here they will act reasonably and honour the commitments made to each other in this house in good faith.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George James McIlraith: When the house acts upon such commitments it has the right to expect that they will be carried through.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 
George James McIlraith: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I suggest to the minister, since Your Honour has ruled on standing order 75 and on the minister's motion, that if the minister is not prepared to accept my suggestion, he ought to come up with another one. Let us be reasonable, as the minister himself suggests.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, to reply to the house leader who said that he entered into an agreement, it seems to me that one of our members, I do not know which one, entered into an agreement during the meeting. I do not know which one; I should like to know the name of that member, but I will say to the house leader that I have only one obligation, and it is towards my constituents, and I made the the promise to have amended-


Mr. Speaker:: It is obvious we will not reach agreement and I wonder whether hon.
April 26, 1967

members wish to continue on the point of order or adjourn.


Bert Raymond Leboe: We have been here all evening. It is now three o'clock in the morning anti we stayed, men and women that we are, to do a job that needs to be done. If there be any who do not like what the minister has done or not done, said or not said, that is no reason to thwart the efforts of the rest of us, who have sat faithfully until this hour of the morning, to do the job we were sent to do.
I appeal to those resisting third reading to reconsider their actions. I can come on Friday; I am a 15 cent bus ride from parliament hill. Others have made plans, thinking they were dealing with men. All this is a pack of nonsense. Somebody is trying to make headlines and carrying on-and for what, I do not know.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, I feel as keenly about the situation of the dairy industry as does the hon. member for Roberval. I think he would be doing a grave disservice to those dairymen he represents and that I represent by acting at cross purposes with those representing other people in Canada. I suggest to the hon. gentleman that if he will consider carefully what he is doing he will realize that he is doing a disservice to the very people he ought to be serving. I shall fight the battle in the next session on the point of view the hon. member has expressed here. Many on the other side of the house will battle the Minister of Agriculture.
If the hon. gentleman persists tonight he may lose some of the support he has and some of the sympathy which has been extended to the dairy industry of the country. The hon. gentleman might be responsible for the dairy industry not being treated as fairly as it ought to be treated.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have a very special interest in this matter because I proposed the scheme which, with modifications, was adopted these last two days. I proposed that the Conservative party would forgo further debate on the unification bill. I proposed we should take a vote on that bill immediately orders of the day were called-was it yesterday or the day before?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tuesday.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I further proposed we
should deal with interim supply and with the subject of rules and procedure. I went so far 23033-979
Ways and Means
as to say this would be done without debate, or by one spokesman per party with a limitation of 20 minutes. I agreed with the suggestion of the house leader that we should deal with the adult training bill and the bill in the name of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp). This was a firm house leaders agreement that the present session would stop at midnight on Wednesday.
I would never have consented for the Conservative party had I imagined for one minute that this agreement would be broken.
I was prepared to discount the period from midnight to 3 a.m. or 6 a.m. in the morning-I do not care how long. But there was an agreement that this session would end on Wednesday. I would never have committed our party to that agreement had I not placed faith in the word that was given at that meeting by the government representative, the representative of the N.D.P., the representative of the Social Credit party and the representative of the Creditistes.
Never would I have consented, because we had it within our power to carry on a debate for several days, as everyone knows, with regard to the bill then before us on adult training, the bill presented by the Minister of Finance, and the interim supply measure. That discussion could have gone on for perhaps a week or longer. All of this our party gave up in response to the general agreement which was reached at that house leaders meeting. We have heard much about house leaders agreements and about business committees. The whole thing is now being destroyed by what is going on tonight. I think we should settle the matter now.
I make one further appeal to the gentlemen who have opposed settling this matter, on that basis. I make a special appeal to the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) who is a really active member of this parliament. Having done so much to expedite our work during the last two days, will these gentlemen not yield on this point now and make this small concession?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I will frankly admit that I believe that if many were in my position, and especially if all the members cared for the amendment that was asked for during the all day, they would act a little as I do tonight. I do not know whether it would be possible to take one more day. I am not well enough acquainted with the rules of the house to try to

April 26, 1967
Ways and Means
postpone the question to another meeting of the house, even after the holiday. I would simply suggest that third reading be adopted as soon as we come back, so as to let once more the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) reflect on his old sins.
[DOT] (3:10 a.m.)


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if there is an understanding, but it would mean because it is interim supply, which we need, that we would have to proceed with debate on it tomorrow. I am wondering if the hon. member fully appreciates that the first item of business in the new session is the address in reply to the throne speech and that this whole debate on milk prices, and the dairy situation, is a perfect example of a subject that could be debated on that very first item of business in the new session. I wonder if that is understood well, because it would be the same point of time as he has called for in the suggestion he has just made, if I understood his remarks correctly. In view of this I wonder if I might ask for unanimous consent for the third reading.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the leader's explanation, I understand that we shall surely have the opportunity, right after the opening of the next session -and I am taking his word for it-to discuss the matter and move a vote of non-confidence against the government. I understand that our representative at the leaders' meeting had given his word. I wanted to know his name and I now know it. Somebody told me. I do not want my party to be accused of not keeping its word. I am also taking the house leader's word to the effect that the first item to be considered after the opening of the session will deal with the dairy policy, which will enable us to move a vote of non-confidence against the government.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, must I conclude from the minister's statement that if third reading is passed tonight, he will allow, at the opening of the next session, a debate which could end up with a motion of want of confidence if the dairy policy of the government is not changed? Will the minister give us this opportunity at the very beginning of the next session?
What conclusion should I draw from the statement of the minister?

If it is yes, Mr. Speaker, then we will joyfully agree to go on with third reading, all the more so since we did not give our word to anyone on this matter.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, what I had said was that the debate on the address in reply to the throne speech was the first item of business in the new session, and that in the throne speech debate this was a subject that in my understanding came within the rules and could be debated fully on the address. I also pointed out that if I understood the hon. member's remarks correctly, that was at the same point of time as he was indicating we should take for the third reading stage of the bill. The opposition is free, under the rules applicable, to move amendments. I do not think that after tonight I should seek to interpret the rules, but the opposition have full rights under the rules.
[Translation\


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, you will agree with me that I made an effort to achieve a new agreement. I think you will admit that the agreement or at least the undertaking, given by the minister is not an undertaking at all. Obviously, there will be a speech from the throne.
Mr. Speaker, if we come up with an amendment on the constitution, obviously if the hon. member for Roverval also comes up with an amendment on agriculture, he will be declared out of order. Everybody knows that.
The undertaking of the hon. minister consequently is worth nothing. The minister could introduce the estimates of the Department of Agriculture immediately after the speech from the throne. That would be a better undertaking-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon. members would agree that we have discussed the point of order long enough. The hon. member for Roberval, after consultation and reconsideration, is satisfied. I understand he is the one who originally objected to our moving third reading immediately.
In answer to the point of order raised by the member for Lapointe, if the Chair may do so, I can tell him, and I have no doubt that he knows it himself, that it is permissible to discuss any topic whatsoever when the address in reply to the speech from the throne comes up, regardless of the nature of the amendment proposed. I am sure that the hon.
April 26. 1967	COMMONS
members will be willing to have me move the motion at that time.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I am willing. However, I wish to point out that I do not believe for a single moment what the house leader has just told us, because on March 22, following the question raised by the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise), he was told: Wait a few minutes, then we will be able to discuss it. A little later, on April 11, the hon. member for Vil-leneuve tried to discuss the matter. Always the same answer: On interim supply you will be able to discuss that and settle the matter once and for all. We are now on interim supply and still we are asked to wait. It means that since March 22 five weeks have passed and our farmers will lose a month and a half, maybe two. Finally, I desist, like the hon. member for Roberval. I wish to say in the house that again we were sold a bill of goods.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE ADJOURNMENT TO MAY 8, 1967


George James McIlraith: That, when this house adjourns at the end of this sitting, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, May 8, 1967, at 10.30 a.m. provided always that if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with Her Majesty's government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the house shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and
That in the event of Mr. Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
George James McIlraith: That during the adjournment of the house from April 26 to May 8, 1967, the standing and special committees of this house shall be empowered to sit and transact such business as may stand referred to them.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I move that the house now adjourn.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 3.20 a.m.

Monday, May 8, 1967