1967-03-03

PRIVILEGE


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege which affects the rights and privileges of every member of the House of Commons, and particularly affects the conduct of standing and special committees of the house. The normal procedure with regard to these committees, according to my understanding, is that they are masters of their own arrangements concerning the number of meetings and the times at which these meetings may be held. Normally these arrangements are arrived at by unanimous consent or by consultation in the steering committee and, infrequently, by a motion which is debated and settled by the committee as a whole. The latter method is rarely used.
The chairman of a standing or special committee, according to my understanding, has no rights or authority greater than those enjoyed by the chairman of the committee of the whole house, and certainly not equal to those of Mr. Speaker. My understanding has always been that committees are conducted according to the rules of the House of Commons as they are applicable; that the rules of debate apply in committees as they do in the house, as do similarly the rules pertaining to motions and amendments.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)
I am drawing your attention, sir-and I think we will have to get this settled-to what I term absolutely autocratic action on the part of the chairman of the defence committee this morning at eleven o'clock. At eleven o'clock this morning the chairman made this statement which I copied down, and which I reaffirm because he repeated it. His statement was "We will meet this afternoon at 3.30".
We received notice of a meeting of the committee for 9.30 this morning which we observed, and that meeting was held. We received no notice of a meeting at 3.30 this afternoon. In the committee at eleven o'clock
no motion that we should meet this afternoon at 3.30 was put forward or received.


Mr. Harkness:: At two o'clock.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Was it at two o'clock?


Mr. Starr:: That is even worse.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, it is even worse. I will change that statement to read two o'clock instead of 3.30, which is an even more arbitrary decision than I imagined it to be. As I say, no motion came before the committee and there was no opportunity for discussion.
I simply raised this point with the chairman and I jotted down his words and asked whether he was arbitrarily making that ruling.
If this is permitted to become an established practice, Mr. Speaker, every committee chairman will set himself up with greater authority than you yourself enjoy-because you operate within the rules-and will determine on his own authority and at his own wish when, and I suppose where, meetings may be held. There is nothing to prevent the autocratic chairman of the defence committee from calling a meeting for tomorrow, or for Sunday, or for tonight, or for 3 a.m. tomorrow morning. This is how far the matter has gone. Unless some restraint can be placed upon this committee chairman-and I hope this restraint will then be observed and followed by other committee chairmen-we as members of this house will have our rights and privileges taken away from us. It is a shocking state of affairs, sir, that a standing committee of the House of Commons should be conducted in this arbitrary fashion, as a result of which hon. members are prevented from carrying out their duties effectively.
There is no excuse for this type of arbitrary action, sir, because this committee has been meeting every day of each week now for four weeks, sometimes twice a day and sometimes three times a day, for a total of 39 meetings. It is doing effective work of the greatest national importance. Yet here are its members being subjected to arbitrary action, sir, action which you yourself would never countenance and have never attempted to take in the House of Commons, because you operate within the rules.
13698	COMMONS
Conduct of Chairman of Defence Committee I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the committee chairmen must operate by the rules of this house and must act in accordance with the example that is set by the Speaker himself and by the chairman of the committee of the whole house, not in this arbitrary fashion which makes the rest of us just slaves at the beck and call of a temporary chairman of a committee who has no particular standing in the House of Commons.


Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, may I just say a few words on the point raised by the hon. member. I do not base my remarks upon the fact that I am a member of the defence committee, because I am not a member of that committee.
I draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, and to the attention of the house, and it is my understanding of procedures in the house and procedures in committees, that questions of order in committee must be settled in committee and cannot be appealed to Mr. Speaker. I have not had a chance to look at the precedents set forth in Beauchesne, but the question of such a decision being appealed to the Speaker arose on at least one occasion during the time the hon. gentleman and his colleagues occupied the government side of the house.
I suggest this is not a matter to be dealt with at this time in the House of Commons. It should be settled within the committee according to the usual and accustomed practices.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I am not a
member of the defence committee-


An hon. Member:: Keep quiet, then.


Frank Howard: I shall refrain from commenting on that blurb from somebody I shall politely caE an hon. member. As I say, Mr. Speaker, I am not a member of that committee but I know something about the conduct of the hon. gentleman chairing that committee at the moment We must look at the whole matter in that light when considering whether there is a question of privilege.
The hon. gentleman chairing the committee in question is also chairman of the fisheries committee, of which I am a member. The fisheries committee met on a number of occasions during this session, considering the estimates of the Department of Fisheries. While it is true that the chairman of that fisheries committee, acting as chairman probably are wont to act, attempted on a number of occasions to speed the committee's consideration 
DEBATES	March 3, 1967
of the fisheries estimates, he did not have his full sway with the committee in its activities.
I am not detracting from the hon. gentleman; I am merely saying he acted as chairmen of committees should act, to get the committee business proceeded with as quickly as possible. It seems to me that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, who has raised this matter of privilege, when this particular declaration was made by the chairman in the defence committee ought to have moved an appropriate motion to do something-


Gordon Minto Churchill: It was eleven o'clock. The bells were ringing.


Frank Howard: The bells were ringing, but I wish the hon. gentleman would let me finish. I did not interrupt him, and neither did anybody else. Everybody listened with great interest to what he had to say. As I was saying, had he been on his toes there was nothing to stop him from trying to obtain the floor to move that the committee meet at a particular time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, I had no opportunity to get the floor.


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


Frank Howard: The hon. gentleman from Winnipeg Centre-


An hon. Member:: Winnipeg South Centre.


Frank Howard: Every time I listen to the hon. gentleman from Winnipeg South Centre raise one of his spurious points in this house I must restrain myself so much that I forget the geographical location of his constituency. We had dealings with him in the past when he was government house leader, when he fumbled everything that came within his grasp.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member kindly limit his remarks to the question now before the house.


Frank Howard: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you recognized from the outset that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre had no question of privilege, and I am sure it will only be a matter of time until Your Honour so advises him.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Essex West would search in vain through the precedents and rulings in Beauchesne to settle the
March 3. 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	13699
question that has been raised with respect to the ruling of a chairman in a committee. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I expect that the committee dealing with procedure will soon draw to your attention that there is a deficiency in the citations dealing with this subject. That deficiency came to light, I believe, when the rules were studied a few months ago. It is provided in the provisional standing orders accepted for the session that there shall be an appeal from the chairman's ruling in committee, and that the matter shall be settled by the committee. That is the way this matter ought to be settled.


Mr. Terence Nugent (Edmonion-Sirathcona):: Speaking to this point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to clarify the picture for the hon. member for Skeena. I am surprised that he should make so free with something he knows nothing about. The incident in question occurred at eleven o'clock when the chairman made his ruling, gave his order and adjourned the meeting. There was no opportunity at all to speak to the matter, and because he adjourned the meeting summarily we had no chance to complain about the action of the Chair.
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)
I should like to say further that it had been understood in the committee-I am not sure I can go as far as to say it had been agreed -that we would not meet Friday afternoon. I think this is borne out by the notice of meetings, on which only one meeting at 9.30 this morning appeared. These notices generally cover the meetings for the day. So I think I am supported in my contention that the understanding was that we would not meet on Friday afternoon.
The position is, then, that the chairman hianself made a declaration as to what the committee would do and when it would meet, though the custom is that as a rule these matters are decided by agreement; if there is no agreement a motion is made and a vote is taken. We try to avoid votes; in my mind there is not much doubt that general agreement usually is reached.
This question of privilege is by way of an appeal from the ruling of the chairman of a committee. The new rules provide for appeals to the Speaker from rulings made by the chairman of the committee of the whole house. I do not think there has yet been an occasion under our new rules when anyone has asked Your Honour to hear an appeal against a ruling made by the chairman of a
Conduct of Chairman of Defence Committee committee. I am not sure that our new provisional rules are clear enough in this respect to give the Chair any clear guidance; I do not believe there is any precedent either for or against my suggestion that Your Honour has authority to hear an appeal of this kind, though it is a fact that in general the rules governing the committee of the whole house apply to the proceedings of committees of the house. It is true that each committee has the right to conduct its own business, but this is subject to the general rules governing committees; and except where special provision is made the same general rules govern committees as govern the committee of the whole.
Therefore, since a ruling by the chairman of the committee of the whole house is subject to appeal to the Speaker, I submit that the same applies to a ruling made by the chairman of a committee and that we have the right to ask Your Honour to hear such an appeal. In doing so I ask Your Honour to bear in mind that this decision was taken arbitrarily, and that there was no opportunity to discuss it. The chairman adjourned the meeting immediately so that no dissenting voice should be heard.
In these circumstances I believe Your Honour should go out of your way, if necessary, to so interpret our rules that justice will be done and that the proceedings of our committees will not only be properly conducted but that the appearance that we can act as honourable gentlemen in the proper conduct of our affairs may be maintained. I submit this can best be done by Your Honour making the ruling which I have suggested.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: It seems to me that the question raised by hon. gentlemen opposite is not in order. Our rules on this point are quite clear. Perhaps I may be allowed to quote from our standing orders, which seem to me to deal very definitely with the point referred to by the hon. member for Medicine Hat.
Standing order 68-A reads:
In any standing or special committee of the house questions of order shall be decided by the chairman, subject only to an appeal to the committee.


Michael Starr: On this
point, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister has so forcefully pointed out the rule under which he says the subject matter which has been brought up is completely out of order, I would like to express my surprise that he has entered into this
13700	COMMONS
Conduct of Chairman of Defence Committee question; because it is quite evident that by its actions, including those of the chairman, today and for the past few days the defence committee has been endeavouring to curtail debate-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Michael Starr: We have been endeavouring to bring forward witnesses who have expressed their desire to appear before the committee in order to give the committee the fullest detail. The attempt to block them is exactly opposite to what the Prime Minister said before the committee was set up. He said that every opportunity would be given to every witness who had anything to add or any information to give. It is surprising that the Prime Minister now gets up and takes the side of the chairman of that committee and of the members of the Liberal party in trying to curtail the defence committee's discussions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple
Creek): Mr. Speaker, not being a lawyer I am not going to get into a debate on the legality of this point, but I suggest that both the Prime Minister and you, sir, have a greater responsibility than the legality of the point we are discussing. What has happened this morning is just a means whereby the committee system may be made useless.
The principle of democracy, whereby a minority group can be and should be heard, applies foremost in this house, and I am surprised that the Prime Minister should get up and say that he is going to abide by and support the ruling of the committee chairman. If the Prime Minister does not believe in the principle of democracy-


Lester Bowles Pearson: I believe in the rules.


Mr. McIntosh:: -then all I can say-


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that we allow the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek to complete his remarks and then I will recognize the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, Mr. Speaker. I was rising on a point of order-


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker-

DEBATES	March 3. 1967


Michael Starr: Well, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I know the minister is anxious to bring the rules and precedents to my attention, but I think it would be much more conducive to reaching a decision on this matter if we proceeded in an orderly fashion. If I were given an opportunity to hear the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek then I would be glad to recognize the Secretary of State for External Affairs, if he would be patient just one moment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


John (Jack) McIntosh: I still say-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister insists on his right to rise on a point of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly be most anxious to comply with your request but in view of the statement by the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Starr), and the argument now being made, I wish to point out that the only issue before Your Honour at the present time is whether this house can discuss this matter at this time, and that was the only point made by the Prime Minister. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker-


Michael Starr: Why not leave it up to the
Speaker?


Paul Joseph James Martin: -that you now have the responsibility of deciding whether the rule as stated by the Prime Minister is the one which covers the situation-


Michael Starr: Don't try to force the Speaker to make up his mind-


Paul Joseph James Martin: -and if it does there is no use making abusive remarks to the Prime Minister, who is simply, by reason of his office as leader of the house called upon to point out what are the rules.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, I was not proposing to engage in an argument. I was only putting forward a point of view. Whether or not it is the rules that are concerned, the principle of democracy applies and I think this is the place where minority groups in Canada can have a voice. The question is whether that principle continues down into the committees, and I am very surprised that the Prime Minister will not get up and
March 3, 1967
support my contention that the principle of democracy applies-


Michael Starr: That is right.


John (Jack) McIntosh: -starting in this house, and that it should end here in this house. A rule has been made where by temporarily-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate the point made by the hon. member and I shall certainly bear it in mind when the time comes to reach a decision, but perhaps we should try to move on. I will now recognize the hon. member for Cape Breton South.
[DOT] (11:30 a.m.)


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I was beginning to wonder who had been recognized. There is more talking from the Liberal side of the house than from the one who has been given your recognition.
Since what happened in the committee and what has developed here in the house as a result of the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, we have heard the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Gray) and the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) stand up in defence of the chairman concerning the conditions which prevailed in the committee this morning. I should think the only people who would be in a position to comment on the developments in the committee are those who witnessed what happened there this morning. What happened in the committee I believe is something that neither the Secretary of State for External Affairs nor the Prime Minister would condone.
I might comment on what the chairman of the committee himself said as to his duties as chairman. He referred to the difficulty experienced by chairmen in other committees. He mentioned the fact that some members who chair committees of this house, because they are attending their first parliament and have inadequate knowledge of the rules and procedures as well as inadequate experience, are running into considerable difficulty. In reflecting upon these other chairmen it would be fair to say that possibly he had in mind the chairman of the fisheries committee.
What happened this morning at what we might call the eleventh hour was that a member tried to put a motion to the chair in respect of meeting this afternoon. In all fairness to the chairman-and he can contradict this statement or accept it, but this is the understanding I have-I think he had some doubt in his mind as to whether there
Conduct of Chairman of Defence Committee was a motion before the committee to meet this afternoon. While members on both sides of the committee were speaking-and there is no doubt that sides have been established in the committee, one against the other-and while he was trying to make up his mind as to whether there was a motion before the committee, the house bells were ringing. At that point the chairman raised his gavel and indicated to the committee that there would be a further meeting this afternoon at two o'clock and thereby cut off any further discussion in respect of any of the rules of the house which are applicable to committees.
When the hon. member for Essex West and the hon. member for Skeena indicate that under the rules the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre had an opportunity to discuss this matter, this is not the case. There was absolutely no opportunity to discuss the rules or anything else. The fact that the chairman raised his gavel, adjourned the meeting, said that we would meet at two o'clock, and then rose from his position as chairman without further ado should be a clear indication that there was no opportunity in committee to discuss the matter of the meeting this afternoon. Therefore the appeal on the question of privilege has been brought to your attention.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I notice there are four more members who wish to take part in this debate. I will recognize the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deach-man) or any other member who wishes to take part in the discussion of the point of privilege raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, but I am wondering whether this is the consensus of the house. In any event, for the moment I will call on the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, the standing committee on national defence now has before it Bill No. C-243, and today's meeting was the 39th meeting of that committee. We have heard some 25 to 30 witnesses. At the meeting of the steering committee the question arose as to how we should now proceed and whether we should begin the clause by clause consideration of the bill.
Yesterday after the presentation of that report a motion was made, which this morning I ruled out of order on the ground that it was made while another topic was being discussed. Then a further motion was moved this morning that we adopt the report of the

13702	COMMONS
Conduct of Chairman of Defence Committee steering committee, the effect of which would be that we would proceed on Monday to the orderly discussion of the bill clause by clause. Thereupon a debate arose on the motion which did not conclude until about three minutes to eleven this morning, before the bells rang. I then noted that we would have to consider the balance of the list of hon. members who wished to speak on this matter, and that we should meet this afternoon for that purpose. There was some discussion on that, the bells of the house began to ring and, as the hon. member has suggested, at this moment I said we should meet this afternoon at two o'clock. There was some dissent and I asked for a show of hands-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Grant Deachman: -concerning whether we would be prepared to meet this afternoon. A majority agreed to meet this afternoon, and then we rose.


Malcolm MacInnis: An absolute falsehood.


Grant Deachman: We rose then and prepared to meet this afternoon at two o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Grant Deachman: I am as willing to admit, as are some hon. members opposite who were in the room this morning, that there was some confusion about whether a motion had been put. I certainly am right, however, in saying that I suggested we meet at two o'clock, following which there was some dissension in respect of the idea of meeting at two o'clock, and then I pleaded with the committee to meet this afternoon in order to further the business of the committee. Finally, as the bells were ringing, I asked whether members were willing to meet this afternoon and hands were raised indicating willingness to meet this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Grant Deachman: Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I called the meeting for two o'clock this afternoon and, unless you rule against me, we will meet again this afternoon and proceed with our study of the bill.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is a shameful misstatement of the facts to say there was a vote called in the committee. That is not true.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Greenwood.
[Mr. Deachman.)
DEBATES	March 3, 1967


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is this a dictatorship?


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the committee on national defence, but unfortunately I was not able to be there this morning and did not hear what took place. It seems to me, however, that it would be most unfortunate if we should have a good deal of bickering and hardening of positions in respect of this matter. I think it would be a mistake for the committee to attempt to meet this afternoon if a substantial number of members feel they did not have adequate notice or believe there has been some misunderstanding concerning whether we would meet this afternoon. It seems to me that nothing is to be gained by shouting, bickering, standing up and filibustering on the one hand, or by closure on the other hand.
I suggest that the steering committee should meet again and plan how we should conclude the study of this very important matter. I regret that we are spending all this time here. I suggest the chairman should reconsider with the steering committee the question of postponing the meeting this afternoon and make other arrangements.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order; I do not think-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has given his version and another hon. member has given his version. I doubt that much can be gained by arguing who is right or wrong. The hon. member has already spoken on the question of privilege.
[DOT] (11:40 a.m.)


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. It is my feeling that the version I gave is so different from that of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra that I am almost being accused of misleading the house. Let me say here and now that if the hon. member says there was a call for a vote I never heard it. If he asked for a show of hands I never heard that, and if he says there was a show of hands I never saw one. Let me assert that my version is accurate. If I am correct there was no motion, and if there was no motion there could be no call for a vote.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not disagree with the interpretation of facts by the hon. member. Certainly I think we would be making a terrible mistake, and perhaps we have already gone too far, in discussing the
March 3. 1967	COMMONS
proceedings of this committee. Although the matter is serious I am sure hon. members will agree with me when I say that we would be getting into difficulty were hon. members of the committee to come to the house to try to settle matters arising in the committee.
I am not trying to belittle the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre or the seriousness or grievousness of the situation suggested by the hon. member for Halifax, but I do suggest to hon. members that perhaps we should not allow this discussion to continue. The Chair should be given the opportunity at this point to express an opinion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: However, I am the servant of this house and if hon. members wish to continue this discussion I shall hear them.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, my intervention will be very brief. I should like to refer to citation 288 at page 237 of Beauchesne which states:
Committees are regarded as portions of the house and are governed for the most part in their proceedings by the same rules which prevail in the house.
Every question is determined in a committee in the same manner as in the house to which it belongs.
Later it states:
-whereupon the chairman must suspend the proceedings until a quorum be present or adjourn the committee to some future day.
This indicates to me that there should be at least one day when the chairman is making his decision regarding the sitting of the particular committee. Surely members of the House of Commons are entitled to that day's notice in respect of a committee meeting, even if we should agree that the chairman had the power to do what he has done, as I doubt very much.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be very brief and I should like to relate them to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. It is my belief that some type of a ruling or decision by Your Honour is necessary because of the tenor of events in the defence committee in the past two days.
Part of the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre appears to relate to threats and arguments in the committee about arrangements or deals
Conduct of Chairman of Defence Committee made by the committee. This is quite contrary to the rules. To add to the confusion, the chairman in only slightly veiled terms made it quite clear to the members of the committee that it requires only 9 to make a quorum.
In support of my suggestion as to the need for some meaningful decision by Your Honour let me make two points. The question of privilege in the final analysis must result in a ruling on what may be a point of order, but in no way does this mitigate the seriousness or grievousness of the situation which now exists in the defence committee.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could say two or three words about this matter. I attended the committee meeting this morning, and my recollection of the events is the same as that outlined by the hon. members for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), and Edmon-ton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent). I do not intend to go into what actually happened but I should like to say the hon. member for Greenwood spoke very good sense when he said he could not see any real purpose in the committee reconvening this afternoon at two o'clock. In view of the general feeling and tenor of the committee this morning and at the time we adjourned, nothing useful could be accomplished by meeting again this afternoon. I am sure the result of such a meeting would be a further series of rows.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise on a question of personal privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Cape Breton South rising on a point of order? He has already taken part in this debate.


Malcolm MacInnis: I am
rising on a question of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: We can have only one question of privilege before the house at a time.


Malcolm MacInnis: This is a personal question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Whether the hon. member's question is personal or impersonal, there can be but one question of privilege before the house at any one time accord-ink to our rules. I suggest to the hon. member that he may wish to rise on a point of order.
13704	COMMONS
Conduct of Chairman of Defence Committee


Malcolm MacInnis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am rising on a point of order. I should like to ask for some clarification or ruling in relation to the statement I made regarding what happened in the committee this morning. Having regard to the remark by the chairman of that committee to the effect that a show of hands was called, when you review what has been stated by myself and by the chairman the implication is that I lied.
If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, I would call as my only witness the Minister of National Defence, who was present, and ask him whether he supports what the chairman has said, that a show of hands was called, or that what I have said is the basic truth.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is restating substantially the same things already said. There is obviously a disagreement of opinion as to what transpired. I am sure all hon. members have stated the facts to the best of their recollection, but essentially the situation is not changed whether it developed in one way or the other. Do hon. members not think we have considered this matter sufficiently? We have heard a question of privilege and various points of order. We have spent about 50 minutes of the time of this house on the matter. I suggest that hon. members now would want me as their servant to make a decision at this time.
Generally speaking hon. members know that by virtue of citation 324 (1) of Beau-chesne's fourth edition it is irregular to refer to the proceedings or the evidence taken in a committee while that committee is sitting. This is a basic principle and it is only in extreme circumstances that the House of Commons takes it upon itself to refer to the proceedings of a committee.
A question of privilege has been raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. It was not followed by a motion so that it would seem to me that at this point I could say there is no motion and therefore no question of privilege. However, I do consider the question raised by the hon. member to be a point of order and I will look at the situation in that light.
The hon. members for Vancouver Quadra and Edmonton-Strathcona, and I believe the hon. members for Rosthern and Halifax, suggested that this matter should be considered as an appeal from the chairman's ruling to the Chair. It might be possible to do that if there were not specific rules in our rule book providing for a situation such as this. The

DEBATES	March 3, 1967
rule referred to by the right hon. Prime Minister, namely 68-A, is the one to which my attention has been drawn by my advisers. It states:
In any standing or special committee of the house questions of order shall be decided by the chairman, subject only to an appeal to the committee.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)
I may say that as there is no opportunity for an appeal, what can the Speaker of the house do about this situation? Not very much, I suggest. I realize it may very well be that the procedure followed was not the correct one but in view of the standing order to which I have referred I do not think it is possible for the Chair to accept an appeal from that procedure. I may say for the guidance of the committee, if it should meet again, that citation 303(3) of Beauchesne's fourth edition reads as follows:
Committees should be regularly adjourned from day to day, though the chairman is frequently allowed to arrange the day and hour of sitting, but this can be done only with the general consent of the committee.
I agree fully that this citation should apply to the committee. Whether or not it was applied it is difficult for me to determine. I have listened to the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Cape Breton South and by other hon. members, and I do not disagree with their interpretation of what actually took place. It might well be that the procedure followed in the committee was not exactly in accordance with our practice, but the remedy must be found in the committee and not in the house and I must so rule.



PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of the standing committee on private bills-Mr. Loiselle.
[Note: Text of the foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the house of changes the
March 3. 19G7

government proposes to make, to become effective on April 1, to strengthen the manpower mobility program.
It will be recalled that this program was introduced late in 1965. A worker who has been unemployed for four months may qualify for a grant to help him to move with his family to another area where there is a job for him. A worker who has been unemployed for less than four months may obtain a loan for the same purpose.
Parliament in this fiscal year provided $3,500,000 for grants, and a revolving fund of $5 million was established for the loans. In the first 12 months, however, there were 1,207 grants and 982 loans amounting to a total combined value of approximately $1,185,000.
Clearly the program is not providing as much help as was intended. The reason is that we recognized from the beginning that it would be a difficult program to administer, and that therefore we should start cautiously, broadening the program as we gain experience. I took one step in that direction last April by providing that people living in an area where a shut-down or a lay-off removed a major source of employment would be eligible for grants and not be subject to the previous requirement that they be unemployed for four months.
We are now ready to take a further major step. The following three changes are proposed. First, we will drop altogether the restrictive condition about four months' unemployment. That is to say, this will no longer be partially a loan program. Any man who is unemployed, or has been notified of his permanent lay-off, will be entitled to a grant if there is little prospect of suitable employment in his home community and there is a definite job for him to go to in another area.
Second, we propose to amend the grants to lessen what is often the main obstacle to moving, in that the man who owns his own home faces considerable expense and even loss in selling a house in an area where there is unemployment and has to obtain what is likely to be more expensive housing in another area. To offset this we will make a grant of $500 when the former home is sold or when a new one is purchased.
Third, we propose to make small grants to enable unemployed people to look for work in the nearest area where there are better opportunities than in their home district. This grant will cover the person's return travel expenses and, if he has dependants, a modest allowance to help support them while he is
Changes in Manpower Mobility Program away. This allowance will be up to $20 a week for the first dependant, $30 a week for two dependants, and $40 a week for three or more. The allowance will be available for a maximum of four weeks.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that these changes greatly improve our mobility program. They do not, however, make it complete. The people who most need help in relocation are not always unemployed but are people such as marginal farmers with very low incomes from their present occupations. We want to help these underemployed people but it will be appreciated that there are difficult problems of definition and administration. We therefore want our officers to gain experience with the broader grants for unemployed before making the further extension of coverage.
Accordingly, the government plans that, while the changes I have announced will take effect on April 1, further changes to cover underemployed people will be introduced with effect on September 1.
I would like to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that we will implement this broadened program in a way that co-ordinates it with the industrial development activities of the provinces and of other governmental agencies. Generally speaking, we will be helping workers to move to the nearest community where there are jobs. It is not our intention to divert manpower from emerging employment in nearby areas or elsewhere in a province, but rather to make it possible for people to move to such employment and thus strengthen regional and provincial development programs.
There is one final point. This program now operates on the basis of regulations. That is appropriate to the developmental stage that it has been in and that will continue for some time yet. By the fall, however, I think we will have brought it to a form that can be regarded as fairly complete. The government's intention therefore is at that time to introduce legislation by which parliament would give the program a permanent basis.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to compliment the minister on trying to improve the experimental manpower mobility program which was originally introduced. It was quite evident at the beginning that this program contained too many restrictions so that people could only qualify for
13706	COMMONS
Changes in Manpower Mobility Program either a grant or a loan if they were unemployed for a certain period; I believe it was four months. The minister said several changes were proposed, one of them being that the restrictive condition requiring that a man be unemployed for four months will be dropped altogether and that any person who becomes unemployed or has been notified of his permanent lay-off will be entitled to a grant or a loan.
I notice that the word "loan" has been dropped in favour of the word "grant". In other words there will be an outright debt free grant given to these people. However, the minister does not specify that such grants will only be extended to people in dire financial need. If that is not so, then an unconditional grant will be available to anyone who is unemployed or who has been given notice of his permanent lay-off, regardless of his financial position.
The second change is that a grant of $500 will be given to people who have to sell a house and move to another area, thus incurring a financial loss. It seems to me that $500 would not be sufficient where a worker in a small municipality owns a house where the value is in the range of $5,000 or $6,000 and has to move to another area where the only housing available to him is in the range of $14,000. I think the minister should look at this aspect to ascertain whether some other plan could be put into effect which would be more helpful to people who have to move to areas where houses might be available but where this flat $500 grant would not be sufficient.
[DOT] (12 noon)
Under the third proposal the minister said travel expenses would be paid to areas where there may be better opportunities, and the dependants of the person concerned will receive allowances based on $20 for the first dependant, $30 for two dependants and $40 for three or more for a maximum of four weeks. I presume these payments will be made when a person is directed by the manpower service to a certain place and before that person has established a residence.
As I said at the beginning, these changes are welcome and I compliment the minister upon them. I hope they work to the benefit of those who find themselves without jobs. It is quite evident that more and more people are becoming unemployed, and of course this program becomes necessary for those who find themselves in that position. I should like the minister to take another look at the $500

DEBATES	March 3, 1967
grant to aid in the purchase of another home, to ascertain whether some other type of plan can be worked out.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, we greet with approval the improvements in the manpower mobility program which the minister announced today. Having said that, however, I think it is necessary to point out to the minister and the government that over the past couple of years organizations such as the Canadian Labour Congress and its affiliated unions have been extremely critical of the inadequacies of the existing program as well as the projected programs. The announcements the minister makes today are welcome, but if we compare them with the need illustrated recently for facilities for the retraining of auto workers, the inadequacies are pointed up.
According to the minister, 5,700 auto workers are being laid off as a result of the auto pact, yet we do not have facilities for training more than a small percentage of these displaced workers. It is obvious, therefore, we have a long way to go before we could consider the manpower program of the government adequate. I join with the hon. member for Ontario in expressing concern over the $500 grant announced by the minister because it will prove inadequate, as have most of the steps the government has taken to date. This grant will be of small help to a worker who may be laid off in Oshawa or in Cape Breton, where the coal industry is in trouble, if he has to move to a city like Toronto in which the cost of housing is high. The $500 will be of little help in the purchase or rental of another house.
So, Mr. Speaker, while joining with the spokesman for the official opposition in welcoming these small changes, I suggest to the minister that he still has a long way to go before his department has established a policy which will meet the needs of Canadian workers who are being displaced at a rapid rate in this technological age.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope the minister has found some means of improving the mobility program. As I look over the statement he made today I find there are a number of weaknesses in it. I believe his statement that it will be difficult to administer this program is the understatement of the year. It would appear that the new program will make a great many people eligible for payments to cover some of the cost of moving, and with
March 3, 1967

the transfers that are going on all over Canada a substantial administrative problem could arise. It seems to me if this interpretation can be placed on this mobility program it would be possible for people to be paid for their house, for example, upon moving into Calgary while other people are being paid who are moving out of Calgary. I believe, therefore, there needs to be some definition of the areas of job opportunities, areas in which there is an excess of workers in relation to job opportunities.
We go along with the minister's hope that he will be able to move workers into those parts of Canada in which there are job opportunities. Unless there is far more in the regulations under which this mobility program will be administered, I suggest to him that a large number of administrative problems will arise which do not seem to be met by the statement we have heard. We agree that one of the major problems concerns disposing of and acquiring new houses. This problem is particularly acute in areas in which there are job opportunities, because they are the same areas in which there is a shortage of housing at the moment.
While we wish the minister success in these amendments to the mobility program, there must be far more than has been indicated so far or I am sure the minister is going to be severely upset.



FARM MACHINERY


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, on several occasions recently hon. members have inquired about the discussions I have held with farm machinery companies concerning recently announced price increases.
During recent weeks I have met with representatives of the major manufacturers of farm machinery. At these meetings we discussed the question of price increases for farm machinery during 1967, and in particular increases while the work of the royal commission on farm machinery is under way, the lines of equipment which would be most affected and the reasons for any proposed increases. In these discussions I indicated my desire to keep any price increases to a minimum, particularly while the royal commission on farm machinery prices was deliberating.
Report of Discussions on Farm Machinery
I have been very much encouraged by the response from the farm machinery companies. Generally speaking I have obtained assurances that price increases to be effected in 1967 will not result in overall increases of more than 2 per cent to 3 per cent. On some individual items price increases may be somewhat higher, but for other items no price increases whatever are expected.
Part of the price increase in many cases is the result of product improvement. The effect of this on prices was estimated by various companies to be about a third to one half of the price increase. In certain cases the price increases are due to factors beyond the control of companies operating in Canada. Some companies import considerable quantities of their components from the United States and the United Kingdom. Price increases on components from these sources have been 3 per cent to 4 per cent. One company, for example, imports 90 per cent of its Canadian sales. The house will appreciate that in a case like this, price increases outside our borders have a direct bearing on the prices which such companies have to charge in Canada.
The companies in turn have pointed out to me the increased costs which they face in 1967 and which they are not in a position to absorb out of their earnings without affecting their ability to obtain new capital. Increased costs mentioned by the machinery companies were 3.5 per cent to 4.5 per cent on materials, 7 per cent on wages, higher borrowing rates and increased transportation charges of 10 per cent on materials. Materials represent a high proportion of the total cost of farm machinery, as much as 70 per cent being reported by one company, o (12:10 p.m.)
I, of course, appreciate the grave difficulties of the farmer currently faced with a cost-price squeeze. We are extremely hopeful that some of the pressure of this squeeze will be relieved by an upward movement of the price factor, and particularly by the attainment of a more realistic level of world wheat prices under the new world cereals agreement now being negotiated in Geneva. I am also extremely hopeful that the royal commission on farm machinery prices will come to helpful conclusions on the difficult issue of rising farm machinery costs which have been of such great concern to our farmers.
In the meantime, in the light of generally rising costs and the considerably higher price increases, including those of wages, in other
13708	COMMONS
Report of Discussions on Farm Machinery areas of our economy, it is my belief, following lengthy discussions with many farm machinery company officials, that this over-all-


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order,
I am wondering whether this is an announcement of policy. If so, nothing has been said yet. All we have been listening to is propaganda, and I do not know whether this is the time for that sort of thing. If the minister has a matter of policy to announce then I wish he would get around to it instead of embarking upon a long preamble.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure to what point of order the hon. gentleman is referring.


Michael Starr: We want to know what you are trying to tell us.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman's colleagues have been asking for a statement on the results of the discussions I have had in connection with the prices of farm machinery. I think if hon. members listen to the facts I am giving them they will be apprised of the results of those discussions, with which I trust they will concur. I do not know what else I can tell them other than relating the facts and the results of the discussions.
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, in the meantime, in the light of generally rising costs and the considerably higher price increases, including those of wages, in other areas of our economy, it is my belief, following lengthy discussions with many farm machinery company officials, that this over-all price increase of some 2 per cent to 3 per cent is not, in the light of all the circumstances, an irresponsible one.
I have been asked whether I propose to table this correspondence between myself and machinery companies. Since the companies have voluntarily provided the information on which this statement is based, and in view of the value of, and need for, continued co-operation in the light of the investigations being conducted by the Barber commission, I do not believe any useful purpose would be served by the tabling of these documents.


Mr. H. W. Danforlh (Kent (Ont.)):: Mr. Speaker, the farmers of this country will be delighted to learn that the government has finally ascertained that there has been an increase in the prices of farm machinery, something the farmers have been aware of for the last four years. Both the farmers and the agricultural industry as a whole are going

DEBATES	March 3, 1967
to be very disappointed in the announcement that has been made this morning, because following previous announcements of the Minister of Agriculture when he first took office they anticipated that should there be a drastic increase in the prices of farm machinery something would be done about it. This is why we have constantly requested an announcement in this regard, hoping the government would enunciate some policy to prevent the tremendous increase in the prices of farm machinery which has occurred. On the other hand, I am sure the machinery companies both in the United States and in Canada will be delighted indeed that the minister has taken this opportunity to justify the increase in their prices.
The minister states, Mr. Speaker, that he has been assured that the price increase for 1967 will be in the neighbourhood of 2 per cent to 3 per cent over-all. However, he tempers this by saying there will not be an increase on some items of machinery. The farmers know that if machinery is not selling, then there will not be an increase in the price. On the other hand, the minister has indicated that there could be an even greater increase in the prices of certain specified machines.
Anyone who buys farm machinery, Mr. Speaker, knows that under normal circumstances most of it is purchased during the first three months of the year. This announcement has been delayed until the major portion of the machinery required for the 1967 season is either now in the hands of the farmers or has been contracted for.
I would take issue with the minister's figure of 2 per cent to 3 per cent. Figures just released by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics would seem to indicate that in the 1965 season there was an 10 per cent over-all increase in farm machinery prices. As far as the 1966 season is concerned, it has been pointed out in this house to the minister that in some instances prices went up 8 per cent. With the increase now indicated by the minister of some 2 per cent to 3 per cent for this year, this means that in 1967 the farmers of this nation could be faced with increases in prices on some lines of machinery of 20 per cent over the 1965 prices.
Such an increase is not justified, Mr. Speaker, and I suggest that the farmers of this nation have every reason to blame this government for not bringing in a policy which would hold down farm machinery prices. That was what the farmers expected,
March 3, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	13709
and they had every reason to believe that the announcement of such a policy would be made. I am sure that at the present time they are both disappointed and disgusted with the minister's statement.


Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, many of us in this chamber as well as many farmers across the country have been waiting for quite a long time now for the statement that has just been made by the Minister of Agriculture. As has already been said by the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) (Mr. Danforth), there really is not much substance to the alleged policy statement which has just been made by the minister. Of course the minister is quite good at analysing the problems which face the Canadian agricultural industry and which have faced it in the course of the past decade or more; but when it comes to giving some concrete indication as to what remedial action the government intends to take, the minister makes, as I say, a statement which simply has no substance.
The minister is optimistic, and many of us must remain optimistic, that the general price level of agricultural products will increase, and that prices paid under the international wheat agreement will be raised relatively soon. But even this, Mr. Speaker, will not make a substantial contribution toward easing the continuing cost-price squeeze which has prevailed for so long. By every index that one would care to look at it is becoming all too apparent and obvious that those who are engaged in the agricultural industry are facing a deteriorating economic position.
It is either a case, Mr. Speaker, of specific and rather massive action being taken by the government to improve the prices received by farm operators, or some kind of specific and tangible action which must be taken to try to hold the line on costs to the producer.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
The minister tried to leave the impression that he has been active and successful in exercising moral suasion with respect to requests for increases by manufacturers of farm machinery. If he did so he ought to be prepared to table the correspondence. I did not clearly understand what he said on that point.


An hon. Member:: He did not wish to table it.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I understand the minister is not prepared to table the correspondence. We
Report of Discussions on Farm Machinery must take his word that he has been in touch with some manufacturers and has succeeded in persuading them to hold the line on prices until we get the commission report, at least.
The hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale in particular asked whether the government contemplates imposing a moratorium with respect to prices, but the contention was advanced that there is no constitutional jurisdiction for that to be done. Would the minister take this problem seriously enough to investigate the feasibility of consulting with provincial authorities with a view to taking joint federal-provincial action in this regard which I submit would be intra vires and constitutional. The problem is serious enough when one considers farm machinery prices to warrant extraordinary joint federal-provincial action.
The minister may say there have been increases because material prices have increased, because the cost of labour has increased and that these increases have necessitated increased farm machinery prices. Yet the minister does not say what labour unit costs are involved in the manufacture of farm machinery. I submit that unit labour costs in this field have remained steady or may have gone down somewhat. Also the minister does not tell us as he should of profits earned in the farm machinery manufacturing sector. Those profits have increased dramatically upward in the past two years and that situation should not be tolerated.
The minister should exercise more than moral suasion; he should try to implement negotiations with the provinces to persuade them to take specific action. In the meantime, until something extraordinary is done in his field we may only look forward to a continuation of the cost-price squeeze and a worsening of conditions generally. Between the present time and two or three years in the future it will be necessary to increase moneys available under ARDA and other special programs to deal with problems of poverty in rural sectors; such moneys will have to be increased by 500 per cent or 600 per cent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I shall allow the hon. member to continue in a moment. I do not wish to single him out from other hon. members, but statements made by ministers should be as concise as possible and, according to the standing order, comments should be brief. Representatives of the parties have made comments that are longer than they need be. I bring this to the attention of all hon. members.

March 3, 19S7
Canada Evidence Act


Edward Nasserden: On the point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: I have just ruled on the point of order.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Could I conclude with a few sentences? I will take but a second. The minister's statement has been vague; it may be unfair to criticize it too much, but it shows, as yet, no evidence of concrete and specific actions to be taken. That is why we are disappointed.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, taking into account what you have just said,
I will be brief to shorten this debate as much as possible. Besides, I never speak very long at the resolution stage.
This morning the minister moved a resolution which reads in part as follows:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the payment to provinces out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, for each fiscal year in the period commencing on the 1st day of April, 1967 and ending on the 31st day of March, 1972, of provincial revenue equalization payments and post-secondary education adjustment payments-
In my opinion, that is just an extension of the equalization payments legislation which concerns mainly the province of Quebec. It is understood that we do not accept the present makeshift, namely the refund of the equalization payments, which we find rather small in any case compared to the amount which the province of Quebec pays in taxes to the federal government. We hope to see the day when the constitution is given its true meaning again. Quebec will then recover its three taxation fields in full and will no longer have to depend on the good will of the federal government for those small equalization payments.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we will wait until the bill is introduced when we will certainly have something to say.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, briefly commenting on the minister's statement, he has left me puzzled. First he said he was encouraged by the discussions he had had with farm machinery manufacturers; then he tried to justify price increases. I understand that the cost of parts coming in from the United States and the United Kingdom have increased by 3 per cent or 4 per cent; yet the Dominion Bureau of Statistics report says that substantially over 10 per cent more was being charged for these

implements in 1966 than was being charged in 1965.
Would the royal commission looking into this matter make an interim report on this situation? We have no satisfactory explanation why price increases are justified. Those increases ought to be explained. It is all very well to say that costs have increased so much more for labour and so much more for other things, but are those increases justified? The royal commission was set up to investigate this very situation.
In conclusion may I say that farmers are not satisfied with things as they are. We hope there will be some governmental investigation and a report with respect to whether farm machinery companies have been asking for unjustified increases.



CANADA EVIDENCE ACT


David Orlikow: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-276, to amend the Canada Evidence Act (incriminating statements).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


David Orlikow: The purpose of this bill is to amend the Canada Evidence Act to put into that act some of the principles enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in 1966, according to which any admission or confession made while the accused is in custody cannot be used by the prosecution unless it proves that the police warned the suspect that he may remain silent and that anything he says may be held against him; also, that he has the right to have a lawyer present during interrogation.
If the suspect desires a lawyer but cannot afford one he cannot be questioned unless the crown appoints a lawyer and that lawyer is present. If the suspect confesses after receiving the required warning, but without having the benefit of counsel, the burden is on the prosecution to prove a knowing waiver by the accused-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member knows that according to the rules his statement should be brief. I suggest that perhaps brevity is being forgotten this morning.
March 3. 1967


David Orlikow: May I conclude with one more sentence. The burden is on the prosecution to prove a knowing waiver by the accused, and the interrogation will be conducted in such a way, and will be taken to show a lack of waiver unless proof to the contrary is provided.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the fact that 11 ships are setting sail from Halifax within the next day or so to kill seals, what measures is the minister taking to ensure the observance of the new regulations?


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: Mr. Speaker, I have recently made a number of statements in the house on this matter, particularly on February 13 when I spoke during the budget debate. A meeting of our officers who will be asked to participate in or try to control this operation took place in Halifax this week. We shall have a fisheries officer on every sealer engaged in the gulf of St. Lawrence. We shall have officers at every landing point so we can control operations by aircraft. We have secured the services of four helicopters, and we shall have a number of officers-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. My impression is that the minister is now reiterating the statement to which he referred a moment ago. I know how important this question is, but I suggest that his statement should not be allowed to go any further.


Michael Starr: I should like to ask whether in addition to this supervision the minister himself is planning to be on the spot to make certain that the sealers comply with the new rule calling for the use of a 30-inch club only in the slaughter of baby seals.


Mr. Robichaud:: I believe my visit to the ice packs last year during the sealing operation was sufficient to enable me to realize what regulations should be implemented in order to establish full control. I am confident that our officers and representatives of the S.P.C.A. who will be on the ice this year will be able to give factual reports on what will take place.
Inquiries of the Ministry INDUSTRY



INQUIRY AS TO STEPS TO STIMULATE CONSTRUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance whether his attention has been drawn to the figures released by Southam Building Reports to the effect that construction contracts awarded in the first two months of this year have declined by 20.8 per cent compared with the first two months of last year, that major contracts over one million dollars are down by 144 per cent, residential contracts by 10.8 per cent, construction for business by 36.1 per cent and institutional awards by 18.4 per cent. The provinces which seem to be most adversely affected are Quebec, the prairie provinces and British Columbia. In view of the serious repercussions of this situation not only for the construction industry but for the industries supplying building materials, I should like to ask the minister whether his department has any plans in prospect to stimulate construction during the present year and whether he will be making a statement in this regard.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the figures to which the hon. gentleman has referred, but my department and I are watching economic developments very closely and if I feel it is necessary to make a statement I will certainly be happy to do so. Government policies are under constant review.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the the minister whether the information given to him by his department coincides with the statistics in Southam Building Reports showing a substantial decline in contract awards for the first two months of this year, and whether he intends fairly soon to make a statement as to the monetary or credit policies it is proposed to follow in order to cope with the situation?


Mitchell William Sharp: The information I have at the present time is that economic expansion has come down to a much more sustainable level. I had expected there would be some decline in the rate of construction expenditures compared with last year, when they were so high that it was necessary for the government to cut back its own expenditures. Indeed, I would have been very disappointed if there had not been. Our objective should be not to repeat the experience of 1966 but to reach a much more sustainable and stable level.
March 3. 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, does this mean the minister now realizes that rising interest rates, rising costs of material and rising taxation are hindering the progress of our economy?


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



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melfori-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Earlier today the hon. gentleman made a statement about the revised manpower mobility program. Will that program also include provision for unemployment insurance for farm labour to become effective on April 1 of this year?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I
think it is clear that we shall have to postpone that part of the program until we can find good definitions and have better administrative rulings than we have at present. However, the intention is to cover farmers too, and I hope we can do it as soon as possible.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, a number of us are wondering whether grants available under the mobility policy will also be available to the first citizens of Canada, our Indians.


Jean Marchand: As far as the first citizens of Canada are concerned, if they fulfil the requirements of the legislation I do not see why they should not be entitled to the same advantages as others.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Could the minister tell the house whether the mental health division of his department has been assigned a lower position in the departmental structure recently, as a result of which the chief of this division does not now report directly to the deputy minister?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question asked by the hon. member is not in order at this time.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to ask the Minister of Labour. I tried to give him notice but I was informed he would not be in the house today and so I should like to address it to the parliamentary secretary. No doubt he will bring it to the notice of the minister and perhaps use his well established negotiating procedures to get a proper answer.
I should like to know what progress the minister has made in drafting the appropriate regulations and in appointing the board or boards of arbitration to deal with the dispute between the railways and those unions which rejected the terms submitted by Mr. Gol-denberg as mediator.


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, because of the great respect I have for the hon. member I would have had a prepared answer ready for him had he brought the question to my attention as well. He can rest assured, however, that I will bring the matter to the notice of the Minister of Labour.


David Lewis: I apologize to the hon. gentleman. I telephoned the minister's office rather late this morning and did not follow up the matter. Would the hon. gentleman find out and inform the house, or have the minister do so, whether it is intended to provide in the regulations which I understand are in preparation that the award of the arbitrators will be for a three year term or for some other specific term, or whether the arbitrators are to be left with discretion in this area?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is it his intention to make a statement on government policy in the near future so that parliament and the country will be able to judge whether statements being issued through the Department of National Defence in recent
March 3, 1967

days, purporting to reflect Canada's foreign policy, are invalid or just premature?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have no reason to believe that any statement made by the Minister of National Defence, or by anyone purporting to speak on behalf of that department, is not consistent with the foreign policy of this country as already enunciated.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact it is my understanding that the minister is going to appear next week before the external affairs committee of the other place, would he agree to use his good offices to call a meeting of the standing committee on external affairs of this house so that he may give evidence with respect to statements made by the chief of staff in the defence committee that affect foreign policy very seriously?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to reply to the last part of my hon. friend's question because I think it does not have obvious application. The Prime Minister has already indicated our desire to have the external affairs committee of this house meet. I believe steps have been taken toward that end. With regard to the hearing before a committee of the other place, it must not be forgotten that it too is a part of parliament.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monieith (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Is it true that the hon. member for Verdun paid a visit to Mr. J. S. Rockefeller on behalf of the government to see what amendments to the Bank Act might be proposed that could reconcile the differences of opinion existing between the Minister of Finance and the Minister without Portfolio?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to
Inquiries of the Ministry the Prime Minister. In view of the assurances of the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence that the defence committee would have full opportunity to look into the advantages or disadvantages of the proposed unification of the armed forces, with full freedom to call qualified witnesses before that committee, and in view of the fact that the Liberal members on that committee have now in effect applied closure, would the Prime Minister exert his influence on the members of his party to enable the full examination which he assured us would be possible to take place?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that 37 meetings having already been held-and I believe 39 is the number of meetings which have already been called-ample opportunity has been given to discuss the matter.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As a supplementary question, is the Prime Minister aware that only nine presentations have been made by witnesses who could be looked upon as being independent witnesses-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -and would he-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is now seeking to discuss proceedings in a committee which has not reported, and doing that is against the rules.



POSSIBLE ACTION FOLLOWING THROWING OF PAMPHLETS ON FLOOR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Chester MacRae (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Solicitor General. Is he yet in a position to advise whether he intends to lay charges in connection with the incident yesterday during which we were bombarded with pamphlets?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a matter which, with respect, does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Solicitor General.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of
March 3, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry State. Do those people who have been issued colour television sets by the C.B.C. report from time to time to the corporation on C.B.C. programming?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question certainly is not an urgent one, even if it were acceptable, and I suggest to the hon. member that it cannot be asked at this time.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, in regard to the question which I asked previously-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising to ask a question or to raise a point of order?


Edward Nasserden: On a point of order with regard to the question I posed to the Secretary of State. Surely we in parliament have a right to know whether or not the people who have been issued sets make reports.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I did not suggest to the hon. member that he is not entitled to the information. I suggested he could not ask the question at this time.



EXPO '67 CONTRACT WITH PRIVATE STATION EOR TELEVISING SPORTS EVENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Has a large, exclusive contract just been issued to a private Toronto station, I believe CFTO, in connection with Expo sporting events and, if so, what about the anomalous position of the C.B.C. with its $10 million television station at Expo?


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether the hon. member suggests that this is a matter so urgent that the question should be asked at this time? I doubt very much that it is.



HIGHWAY SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement made within the last 48 hours by automobile workers saying that there have been cut-backs in safety inspection procedures at factories and in view of the number of recalls of defective cars recently, will the Minister of Industry

consider seriously the automobile workers' recommendation, namely, that federal safety inspectors be stationed in automobile plants just as there are federal inspectors in shipyards and aircraft plants?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I understand this particular question is under study by a committee of the house and consequently it would be presumptuous of me to anticipate what their conclusions might be.


William Heward Grafftey: Then may I direct a supplementary question to the minister. This statement was not made in the committee. It was made outside the committee. In view of the fact that it was made outside the committee, would the minister say whether he himself is seriously considering the proposition of having federal inspectors in automobile factories, just as we have in shipyards and aircraft factories?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. As it is becoming clearly apparent because of the slump in car sales that the car manufacturers will experience great difficulty in meeting their production targets as laid down by the United States-Canada auto pact, is it the intention of the government to charge the manufacturers all the tariffs that would have been paid if it had not been for the automobile pact?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member points out, there has been a decline in the effective demand for new motor cars both in Canada and the United States. This does impose difficulties of a character which are greater than if the market were rapidly expanding. However, I have every hope that the Canadian manufacturers will be able to fulfil the terms of the order in council and the similar arrangements. To attempt to anticipate failure to do so on their part would, I think, be erroneous.
March 3, 19G7



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Hasiings-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Would he kindly advise the house of his answer to the letter of March 1 from the corps of voluntary fire fighters?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for letting me know he would ask this question. Unfortunately I have not yet seen the letter to which he is referring. I presume it is in connection with service medals for the fire fighters and I would direct him to the answer I gave the Leader of the Opposition on February 20, which can be found at page 13213 of Hansard.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: As a supplementary question, when the minister has an opportunity to read this letter would he give serious consideration to the striking of a centennial medal to honour the voluntary firemen who served in world war II?



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the findings established by survey crews from the fisheries research board's biological station at St. Andrews, New Brunswick, relative to the high yield of lobsters on the southeast corner of George's Bank, is the minister contemplating any changes in the lobster fishing industry in Nova Scotia?


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: Mr. Speaker, the survey referred to by the hon. member is being studied and reviewed by officials of my department. I am not in a position to decide now if such a lobster fishery as referred to by the hon. member could be instituted this year.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: As a supplementary question may I ask, for the benefit of the inshore lobster fishing industry, whether the tagging process has established if the resource is dependent upon offshore stocks for replacement?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: I must confess I know very little about this tagging process but I doubt very much that this is a question which should be asked at this time.



REPORT OF COMMISSION ON INLAND FISH MARKETING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['I am anxious to do whatever I can to preserve the image of the acting minister, whoever he may be. I shall be pleased to take up the matter with him at once.']
Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Has the government to date given any consideration to the report of the royal commission on inland fish marketing? Can the minister say whether this matter has reached the determination stage?


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: Mr. Speaker, the decision concerning implementation of the recommendations contained in this report comes under the jurisdiction of the Department of Trade and Commerce. I can inform the hon. member, however, that at least two and probably three meetings have already been held by officials of the federal government and representatives of the provincial governments concerned.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. When the meeting takes place on March 8 between himself and President Johnson in Washington can the Prime Minister give us some indication what subjects will be discussed and whether the Mercantile Bank situation might be one of the subjects discussed at this meeting?
Righf Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, the President has invited me to meet him. Naturally I shall be glad to discuss anything he brings up. He is the host and therefore I will leave the initiative to him.


Michael Starr: Will the Prime Minister be consulting over the hot line to Jamaica prior to this meeting?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am unable to catch the import of my hon. friend's question.
March 3, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the serious concern in the Atlantic ports, will the right hon. gentleman check to see whether the current icebreaking activities by 11 ships in the St. Lawrence are in accordance with the guide lines laid down by the Minister of Transport when he was in Halifax on December 3 on ports' day and on previous occasions?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will take the matter up with the Minister of Transport who will be back shortly from the Caribbean where he has been the guest of those countries which are celebrating their independence.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the urgency regarding flooding seems to be over and in view of the mounting criticism in the Atlantic region which is spoiling the image of the Acting Minister of Transport in that area, will the Prime Minister call off the Acting Minister of Transport and stop all icebreaking activities over the week end until the Minister of Transport returns?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am anxious to do whatever I can to preserve the image of the acting minister, whoever he may be. I shall be pleased to take up the matter with him at once.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. When speaking in Lethbridge the minister is reported to have said that legislation providing for long term loans to exhibition boards for multipurpose buildings may be possible before the end of this session. Can the minister amplify these remarks and report in this regard?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question which has been asked is not acceptable. I have tried to indicate to the hon. members that according to our rules an hon. member may refer to a statement made outside the house only to ask whether it reflects government policy, but the question must be directed to the Prime Minister.


James Ernest Pascoe: This is a very urgent matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Prime Minister might like to comment on it.


James Ernest Pascoe: Then, I will direct the question to the Prime Minister. When speaking in Lethbridge the Minister of Agriculture is reported to have said that legislation providing for long term loans to exhibition boards for multipurpose buildings may be before the house this session. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether this is likely to happen.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, it might be before the house this session if the session goes on long enough, but I think it is more likely to be considered later in the year because I hope this session will be ending very shortly.


Mr. Max Salisman (Waterloo South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has he reached a decision regarding the granting of long term loans for exhibitions and fairs and, if so, what is that decision?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Certainly this question should be placed on the order paper.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, in view of what the Prime Minister said about the session can he now say how many more pieces of legislation the government intends to put on the order paper to be dealt with at this session, because four additional items already have been added?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, if we can deal with the items which now appear on the order paper, I think that would be a very good time to prorogue.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Prime Minister sticking to his target date of March 10 for the ending of this session?


Lester Bowles Pearson: On the orders of the day:


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the millions of dollars being spent by the government to publicize Expo '67, would the government consider spending a proportionate amount to tell the nation there is also an important event taking place this summer in Manitoba, namely the Pan-American games?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I agree, Mr. Speaker, that this is a very important event as is indicated by the contribution of the federal government in terms of money. I would hope that we can participate with the provinces in the kind of advertising that may be required so that it will be as successful as I know Expo '67 will be.



LABOUR CONDITIONS

[Stage Direction]
RETRAINING of workers laid off because OF AUTOMOBILE AGREEMENT
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In a statement he made to the house the day before yesterday he gave some interesting information. I wonder whether he can fill in the details now or make a statement later.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member asking the minister to make a statement?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am asking the minister to give me some information now or take notice of the question. The minister told us of some 5,732 persons who had been laid off in the auto industry since January 1, 1966. I am asking the minister whether he can give us any information concerning how many of those persons who have been laid off have actually been placed in employment by his department. Am I correct in my information that the figure is something less than 300? Would the minister give us the information now or take the question as notice and give us the information later?


Jean Marchand: 

FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, March 2, consideration of the following resolution-Mr. Sharp-Mr. Batten in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the payment to provinces out of the consolidated revenue fund, for each fiscal year in the period commencing on the 1st day of April, 1967 and ending on the 31st day of March, 1972, of provincial revenue equalization payments and post-secondary education adjustment payments, and for each fiscal year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 1967, of provincial revenue stabilization payments and succession duty payments; to authorize tax collection agreements with provinces and to amend the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act to extend for an additional three years the interim period relating to the health grants program.
The Chairman:: In accordance with the order of February 28 I do now leave the chair. The committee will resume its consideration of this resolution at two o'clock.



SITTING SUSPENDED


[Stage Direction]
The committee resumed at 2 p.m.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The house again in committee of the whole on a certain proposed resolution to provide for certain federal-provincial fiscal arrangements.


Miss LaMarsh:: Mr. Chairman, I concluded the few remarks I had to make last evening with one exception. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, who I expect will be in the chamber in a moment or two, asked me to provide certain information in the form of tables. I now have that information. I regret that I have only six copies, but if it is satisfactory to the committee I am prepared to table these three tables showing in the first two a comparison of fiscal allocations at present and as intended under the new scheme to each of the provinces. The third table relates to the basis of calculation of the proposed 1967-68 federal transfers in respect of post-secondary education costs. I am prepared to table these documents if that meets with the desire of the committee.
Equalization Payments to Provinces


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the hon. lady will agree to having these included in Hansard.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am very happy to do so.


Herman Maxwell Batten: It would be difficult to table these statistics at this time but it is
March 3. 1967
possible to have them included in Hansard, it that is the committee's wish, as part of the minister's remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The tables above referred to are as follows;]

Illustrative Comparison of Fiscal Allocations Under Present and Proposed New Arrangements and Fiscal Transfer in Respect of Post Secondary Education Costs



TABLE I

[Stage Direction]
Present Arrangements 1966-67 (Estimated) (millions)
Provinces	Population June 1, 1966	University-grants1 $5.00 per capita (Interim arrangements)	TVT2 operating and capital	Total allocations$	$	$Newfoundland	
0.5	2.2	i.i	3.3Prince Edward Island	
0.1	0.6	0.2	0.8Nova Scotia	
0.8	5.1	4.1	9.2New Brunswick	
0.6	4.0	3.4	7.4Quebec	
5.7	28.9	68.3	97.2Ontario	
6.9	33.4	63.7	97.1Manitoba	
0.9	5.1	4.8	9.9Saskatchewan	
0.9	4.5	4.5	9.0Alberta	
1.5	7.0	7.3	14.3British Columbia	
1.9	8.9	12.9	21.8Total	
19.8	99.7	170.3	270.0

[Stage Direction]
New Arrangements 1967-68 (Estimated) (millions)
Fiscal transfer3 re post secondary
education	TVT
operating	capital
Provinces	expenditures "Phase Out" Total
7.7	0.8	8.51.7	0.8	2.513.7	6.0	19.79.5	2.0	11.5106.0	45.0	151.0112.7	40.0	152.717.8	5.0	22.815.6	7.0	22.630.3	7.0	37.330.6	8.0	38.6Total	
345.6	121.6	467.21	Per capita grants in 1966-67 involve use of out of province student factor in calculating provincial allocations. The province of Quebec, under the interim arrangements, receives a tax abatement together with an adjustment grant, the total value of which is equivalent to $5 per capita.2	Does not include adult operating or capital expenditures under TVT programs.	_3	The value of the fiscal transfer in respect of post secondary education operating costs was calculated according to which was of greater value to a province: $15 per capita or 50 per cent of operating costs of post secondary education, as illustrated in the attached table. (Ill)Newfoundland	
Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia...
IMiss LaMarsh.]

[Stage Direction]
Basis of Calculation of Proposed 1967-68 Federal Fiscal Transfers to Provinces in Respect of Post Secondary Education Costs
(1,000's)
Provinces	Estimated population 1	Estimated operating costs of universities 2	Other postsecondary estimated operating costs 3	Total 4	50 per cent of estimated operating costs 5	Value of $15 per capita 6	Amount of proposed fiscal transfer 7	Addition of technical and vocational training capital "Phase-Out" 8	Grand total 9Newfoundland	515	4,935	1,807	6,742	3,371	7,700	7,700	800	8,500Prince Edward Island	111	1,489	630	2,119	1,059	1,700	1,700	800	2,500Nova Scotia	768	22,360	4,976	27,336	13,668	11,500	13,668	6,000	19,688New Brunswick	634	13,295	2,939	16,234	8,117	9,500	9,500	2,000	11,500Quebec	5,861	151,615	60,454	213,069	106,034	87,900	106,034	45,000	151,034Ontario	7,045	179,586	45,909	225,495	112,747	105,700	112,747	40,000	152,747Manitoba	971	29,035	6,631	35,666	17,833	14,600	17,833	5,000	22,833Saskatchewan	965	23,471	7,766	31,237	15,618	14,500	15,618	7,000	22,618Alberta	1,497	43,289	17,397	60,686	30,343	22,400	30,343	7,000	37,323British Columbia	1,906	53,125	8,126	61,251	30,626	28,600	30,626	8,000	38,626Total	20,273	522,200	156,635	678,835	339,417	304,100	345,769	121,600	467,389uitn.	(1)	Includes costs of post secondary courses of study in technical institutes, teachers' colleges etc, and of "senior matriculation" courses.(2)	The arrangement is that the provinces will receive the greater of columns 5 or 6.(3)	Column 7 indicates the amounts to be transferred to the provinces on the basis of estimated total operating expenditures. When actual expenditures are subsequently known, a final settlement will be made xvith those provinces to which the per cent formula applies.
to
o>
~4
[Stage Direction]
o
2
o
£5
w
[Stage Direction]
Equalization Payments to Provinces
13720	COMMONS
Equalization Payments to Provinces Mr. Monleilh: Mr. Chairman, last evening the Minister of Finance and the Secretary of State outlined in broad terms the contents of this resolution and the intent of the bill which will be before us at the conclusion of the debate on the resolution. I think this intent represents probably as important a step in federal-provincial relations as has been taken in this house for many years. As has been announced, this resolution and the bill to follow are the outcome of discussions with the provinces at a meeting last October between the Minister of Finance and his counterparts in the provincial governments. At that time major changes were proposed to the provinces and the Minister of Finance outlined them in the following words:
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
Major changes were proposed in the following fields: the occupancy of tax fields or tax sharing; provincial revenue equalization arrangements; provincial revenue stabilization arrangements; federal financial assistance in respect of post-secondary education: a new form of federal compensation to the provinces in respect of well established shared cost programs in the health and welfare field; and finally, a new federal program for the occupational training of adults in lieu of the technical and vocational training argreements which expire on March 31 this year.
The Minister of Finance suggested that there were certain principles which he had presented to the tax structure committee whose findings were subsequently presented to the federal-provincial meetings of finance ministers. Some six principles were evolved to guide the committee in its deliberations.
The minister also mentioned that the federal government maintained the following: -that so long as provincial governments had access to sufficient tax fields and so long as provincial revenues were equalized fairly, the provinces should impose their own taxes to finance their own programs.
Certainly this is a most important statement with which I cannot disagree, but I would like to withhold judgment until I see the bill. The minister indicated last night that when the bill is before us he will give us information as to just what the net gain or loss will be to the provinces under the new arrangements. He also stated:
Instead of selecting certain taxes at given or standard rates and equalizing their yield to the level of the top two provinces, the proposed formula will take into account all provincial revenues, at average provincial rates, and will bring the revenue yield in all provinces up to the national average yield.
[The Chairman.]
DEBATES	March 3. 1967
Just what this will mean in dollars and cents remains to be seen. I cannot help but agree that it is a very important principle.
The Minister of Finance last evening and the Secretary of State today have put on record certain tables. Sufficient time has not been available to permit me to analyse these figures but they will be helpful when we study the bill in detail.
The Minister of Finance made a statement to the effect that the federal government now proposes to extend the stabilization provision to all provincial revenues and proposes to remove the five-year limit which has applied to the stabilization provision as well as to the equalization provisions. Stabilization is to be provided on a continuing basis as a protection to the provinces against sharp declines in revenue. I am wondering whether these agreements are to be in effect forever or to what degree they are subject to discontinuance by either party concerned. If they are to be extended beyond the five-year limit I wonder what the duration of that extension will be.
Mr. Priiiie:: Until a change of government.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I can assure the hon. member for Essex East that he will not be around when this matter is discussed next because I doubt very much that he will be re-elected in that auto city of his. Last night the Secretary of State dealt with the post-secondary education adjustment payments. She outlined in some detail the way in which they would work and made the following statement:
I am sure I need not impress on the house either the crucial importance of this matter to the future of our country or the very difficult and complex problems posed in trying to deal with it.
I agree completely that it is of crucial importance. I would like to point out that practically everything that the Secretary of State suggested last night is merely an extension of the programs instituted by the government with which I had the honour to be associated. This matter is very complex and the tables contained in Hansard must be studied before we can come to any firm opinion. I can only suggest that we wait until we see the bill and I hope that we will be given some time to study it before being asked to debate it. I think it will be one of the most important matters before this house in this session and I hope that a reasonable length of time will be given us to examine the contents of the bill.
March 3, 19G7	COMMONS


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, this resolution is a prelude to very important legislation, and the purpose of having a resolution stage is to allow hon. members to get all the information available in order to make a considered judgment on the legislation when it is presented. I must say that the amount of information we have so far is quite limited and I hope that before the resolution is passed the Minister of Finance will give us at least comparative statements showing the revenues which the provincial governments receive now under the present tax sharing arrangements as against the revenues they will receive under the legislation which the minister intends to bring down. I believe that such comparative statistics were available to the tax structure committee. Although the minister said last night that he wants to bring those statistics up to date, I think it is extremely important that we get those figures while we are at the resolution stage.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I ask the hon. member whether he has looked at the table which appears at page 13687 of Hansard where the final two lines show the comparison between the present and the proposed equalization payments?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I looked at those tables very carefully this morning but it seems to me that if the minister will look at the breakdown which we had when the previous tax sharing arrangements were before the house he will see that it was much more detailed. If we could have it in that form I think it would be extremely useful.
[DOT] (2:20	p.m.)
The matter which must concern the house, Mr. Chairman, is what the long term effect of this legislation will be, not only with respect to the ability of the federal government to discharge its responsibilities but also the effect it will have on the ability of the provinces and municipalities to discharge their responsibilities. In his statement last night, as recorded at page 13681 of Hansard, the minister set forth six basic principles with which I am sure no one could disagree. However, the minister did not demonstrate the extent to which the measures he is proposing will give effect to the principles he enunciated.
By way of illustration, I will refer to the first principle. The minister stated that the fiscal arrangements should give both the federal and provincial governments access to fiscal resources sufficient to discharge their responsibilities under the constitution. I must
Equalization Payments to Provinces say that from the minister's statement last night I am far from convinced that the provinces and municipalities can discharge their responsibilities within the terms of the tax sharing arrangement which the minister announced.
I understand that the tax structure committee prepared some figures which indicated that by 1972, on the basis of a 7 per cent annual rate of growth in the gross national product, the federal government will have a surplus of $727 million but the provinces and municipalities will have deficits of $2.1 billion. It is suggested also, predicated on a 6 per cent annual rate of growth in the gross national product, that by 1972 the federal government will still have a small surplus but that the provinces and municipalities will have deficits of $2.4 billion. If these compilations have not been produced by the tax structure committee I hope the minister will give us what their estimate was when he presents the legislation or before we close the debate on this resolution. If these figures are correct, what they really mean is that the provinces and municipalities are now going to operate within a very restricted fiscal framework.
The provinces will have three alternatives. One will be to cut services. The second will be to raise other taxes which are outside of the agreement. The third will be to do a great deal of deficit financing by borrowing. I think any one of these proposals would be disastrous for Canada. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that while as members of parliament we are primarily concerned with the financial problems of the government of Canada we cannot for one moment be indifferent to the welfare of the provinces and municipalities. After all, if the provinces and municipalities are unable to discharge their constitutional responsibilities with respect to education, health, welfare, roads and industrial development, then no matter what the federal government does Canada will not prosper and grow at the rate which might otherwise be the case. Therefore, in examining this legislation when it comes before us we must be concerned with the overall effect on all three levels of government of these tax sharing proposals.
I am concerned, for instance, about the decision to include all provincial revenues in the determination of the equalization payments. I think this can work to the great disadvantage of some areas of Canada and can produce great inequalities in the equalization formula. I am concerned that it is being predicated upon the average income
13722	COMMONS
Equalization Payments to Provinces for Canada rather than bringing the provinces up to the level of the highest province or at least to the average of the two highest provinces. It would seem to me we are making a retrograde step by saying to the provinces, we will only bring you up to the national average. If we are going to have equality of opportunity for people in all parts of Canada, if we are going to remove any disparity between Canadians in different areas, surely we ought to average the equalization payments to the highest province in Canada and not to the national average.
We will want to examine these proposals more closely when the legislation comes before us. I think the reference to assistance to post-secondary education is a very necessary step and a very welcome innovation. I am sure the provinces must be concerned, as we must be concerned, about the fact that what the Lord giveth the Lord taketh away. While the government is proposing to give greater assistance to post-secondary education, it is proposing to discontinue its grants with respect to technical and vocational education. We will want to go into that in detail to see what the net effect is for the provinces.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It is a long phase-out.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister says it is a long phase-out. This is true, and that is what worries me about it. The provinces might be induced to accept a program which may be slightly more beneficial this year and next year, but we have to take the long view. If the figures I quoted earlier are correct and by 1972 the provinces and municipalities will be deeper in debt as a result of these proposals, then of course a long phase-out will not meet their problems.
The other thing that concerns me is that the provinces are being asked to accept responsibility for some of the shared cost programs in return for tax abatements. These shared cost programs have escalated in the past and, in my opinion, over the next 10 or 15 years will escalate in almost goemetric progression. Any province getting into difficulty with programs like hospital insurance, medicare or the old age assistance program will have no alternative but to cut back these programs. The federal government may feel comfortable in that it has washed its hands of responsibility by giving the provinces certain tax abatements. But if, Mr. Chairman, they cut these programs back we will have lost the measure of national social security which we provided when we instituted programs like

DEBATES	March 3, 1967
national hospitalization and which we hope will obtain when medicare comes into effect.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, there are a great many questions that have to be answered before we can give our support to these tax sharing proposals. I am hopeful that when the ministers make their speeches on second reading of the bill we will have a greater amount of detail to enable us to make a better comparison of the projected revenues which the provinces can anticipate under the legislation compared with what they could expect to receive under the existing tax sharing arrangements. I think some of the suggestions made by the ministers will undoubtedly make for improvement, but I am very fearful that we are manoeuvring the provinces into an inflexible taxation framework which will have the result of restricting their ability to keep pace with the growth of the Canadian economy and to meet the increasing demands of their people and of the times in which we live. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we will look forward to the statements which will be made by the ministers when the bill is brought forward, and at that time we will be able to deal more exhaustively with the proposals which are being placed before us.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, the resolution before us, as has been stated, deals with renewing and in some cases changing the tax sharing arrangements between the provinces and the federal government. A very cursory examination of the remarks made by the two ministers last night as well as of the resolution indicates that probably this is all that can be done at this time owing to the fact that no agreement was reached between the two levels of government at the conference held on this subject last fall as to the future arrangements.
In looking over some of the proposals that the federal government has offered the provinces-and this aspect took up a very large portion of the minister's statement last night-it seems to me that there are some serious inequities which are now coming home to roost. Unfortunately we are now going to be asked to perpetuate some of them. For example, I should like the minister to explain why it is that in the table on page 13687 of Hansard showing the yield at national average province revenue rate for the other 12 revenue sources there is included an item of $93,083,000 in general sales tax for the province of Alberta. The province of Alberta does not have any such tax.
March 3, 1967	COMMONS
I have known for some time that the federal government has assumed that the province of Alberta does have access to revenue from a sales tax. It seems to me that there is something fundamentally wrong with so-called federal-provincial relations when the federal government assumes that a province has a revenue in respect of which in actual fact there is no provincial legislation. That is not to say, of course, that if it so wished the province of Alberta could not impose such a sales tax. It so happens that under the constitution of Canada the provincial legislatures have the right to say whether or not they are going to impose this, that or any other tax. Yet in this table it is claimed that the province of Alberta has a revenue source of $93 million by way of sales tax.
I think we have reached a pretty serious situation so far as federal-provincial relations are concerned, when the federal government now uses federal money as the basis for requiring or prodding provincial governments to levy certain taxes. I had hoped that this was not going to be the attitude of the federal government, but obviously it is. Therefore we will have to do what we can to keep the federal government within its own area of jurisdiction and see that it treats all provinces essentially the same.
As the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has pointed out, we have no disagreement with the principles underlying the federal proposals for new tax sharing arrangements; there is no question of that. I am not going to refer to them because they are well known to the members of this house as well as to the provincial governments. However, there are some other matters which have been introduced recently into the tax sharing arrangements which form the basis of the program and which in my view are completely unacceptable.
We know that when the equalization payments were formulated a number of years ago there were only three tax bases-personal income tax, corporate income tax and succession duties. This was changed by the former Conservative government in 1961 and resource revenue was included as a fourth basis. There has never been any satisfactory explanation for this inclusion except the penalizing of the government of Alberta. That the federal government certainly did, because the province of Alberta was penalized by approximately $30 million to $40 million a year as a result of the inclusion of this particular form of revenue in the calculation of the equalization payments.
Equalization Payments to Provinces
It has always seemed strange to me, Mr. Chairman, looking back to that period, that there rwere 17 Conservative members out of a possible 17 from the province of Alberta at that time and not one of them stood up in the house and defended the people they represented notwithstanding the fact that the change was going to cost them millions of dollars every year. I do not think we can lay all of the blame on the present government when it was the previous government which introduced that change. However, the present government certainly should have seen the inequity in this kind of arrangement and remedied it.
This government did not introduce any other additions to the tax base. They did not include, for example, the retail sales tax which many of the provinces had in effect at the time. That source of revenue was not used to calculate the equalization payments. Even the province of Saskatchewan is now reaching the point where the inclusion of resource revenue is starting to hurt them. In fact, a few weeks ago the premier of Saskatchewan said that the new arrangement is a cruel blow to his province. He had expected something like $35 million, I believe, in 1967 in equalization payments, but according to the table that has been put before us Saskatchewan now moves out of the "have not" class into the "have" class and does not get one cent. Conservative members might well go back to 1961 to find out what originated the arbitrary inclusion of resource revenues in the tax base. It is there, Mr. Chairman, and it is unjust. It is even more unjust now because the federal government is assuming that Alberta has a sales tax when it has not.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
I submit that there are many injustices in this whole arrangement. I am hoping that we will have further federal-provincial agreements concluded or federal-provincial conferences held very soon to straighten out some of these injustices and to treat all provinces in Canada and all citizens of those provinces equally. It is about time we realized that some of the revenue produced in Alberta and British Columbia has been from the sale of capital assets. These sales will not be repeated year by year to bring additional revenue. Yet these sales of assets are treated as things which ordinarily produce revenue. Not all provinces do that sort of thing.

March 3, 1967
Equalization Payments to Provinces
I now wish to turn to the statement made by the Secretary of State with respect to future federal contributions to be made to post-secondary education. I will not go into details but I have discussed this matter with people interested in the subject.
A number of things bother me, the most important one being the matter of definitions. What kinds of costs or expenses will these grants be paid for? The minister last night said something about costs being paid with respect to students who have achieved junior matriculation level. The government will be prepared to pay $15 per capita for education beyond that level. The whole question is fuzzy. What is junior matriculation? At the moment in Alberta junior matriculation is reached at the end of grade 11. Is that what the minister has in mind? If I understand correctly, junior matriculation is the point at which young people may leave high school. Could the minister expand on this point?
It seems to me that post-secondary education ought to be defined in a more satisfactory way than by saying it is education after certain scholastic standards are reached. The program should apply to vocational and training institutions as well as to universities. The government could pay up to 50 per cent of the operating and capital costs of these institutions. That would be easier than trying to pay the money to individuals or on their behalf after they have attained a certain scholastic standing.
I am greatly concerned about high school drop-outs. Those who do not have junior matriculation often need to go to vocational training institutions, of which there are many in this country. High school drop-outs have as much right to grants and financial assistance from the federal treasury as those attaining junior matriculation level.
If I interpret what the minister has said there will be no provision in the bill for students to attend vocational and technical training schools unless they have their junior matriculation. In many provinces junior matriculation level is not attained until students are in grade 12. In one or two provinces they do not attain that level until grade 13.
One of the major problems is that those who drop out of high school, often without junior matriculation, will not be able to

attend a technical or vocational training school and those young people are the very ones who will be found on the unemployment rolls.
Item No. 134 on the order paper is a resolution providing for the training of adults wishing to undertake occupational training. But conditions are attached. They must have entered the labour force and they must have been unemployed for a long period before they can qualify for assistance under this proposal.
The Secretary of State and the Minister of Finance would be well advised to try to reach agreement with the provinces to pay 50 per cent of the costs, or whatever the figure may be, for vocational training schools rather than going through the complexities of ascertaining the scholastic standing of students and making the payments on the basis of their standing. I presume this argument has been advanced previously to the Secretary of State. If it has been rejected I should like to know why. Why are we becoming involved with students rather than with schools?
The problem must be met in one of two ways. The provinces will have to assume the full financial responsibility for training young people who do not reach junior matriculation standards or, alternatively, the young people will have to leave school, enter the labour market, be unemployed for a long period and then receive help from the federal government. The latter course is not desirable.
The vocational and technical training program is useful. Among other things it has provided much of the capital for building such schools. I can perhaps exonerate myself in the eyes of the Conservative party by paying a tribute and saying that this was their program. It has been appreciated and has done at least all it was intended to do and perhaps more. But now it will be phased out. Technical and vocational training schools, at least in Alberta, train young people who have dropped out of high school. They give them the kind of training to fit them to find their place in the labour market.
Taking the two resolutions together, it appears that there is a serious gap in federal contributions to a particular group of people needing financial assistance. I hope the minister will explain why this way of doing things has been chosen. Why has the government not chosen to pay 50 per cent of the cost of operating technical and vocational training
March 3, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	13725
schools? We shall await the bill to see what details are proposed and will have more to say about some of the details. I conclude by hoping that the minister will explain some of the points I have raised.


Mr. Canlelon:: Mr. Chairman, it is impossible to sit here and let the statements of the hon. member for Medicine Hat go unchallenged. I wish to make cursory comments about the resolution before us. I agree with what has been said. It is essential that we have sufficient time to study the bill. I agree that this bill will be one of the most important that we shall pass this session, and it will be most unfortunate if we do not have adequate time to study it seriously and to present arguments on it.
I am most concerned about the comment of the hon. member for Medicine Hat that the provinces will suffer serious losses under the equalization formula. Saskatchewan strenuously objects to these changes. In fact, the premier of Saskatchewan on going home seemed to feel that his province had received a very dirty deal indeed. The members from Saskatchewan in this house share his feelings. Saskatchewan may be a "have" province today. Everyone knows that the economy of the province is to a great extent founded on the wheat crop and in one year the situation in that province could change so drastically if there were a really bad crop failure that the province would be in serious difficulties under the arrangements now to be made. We shall, of course, know better when we have the bill before us.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
The hon. member for Medicine Hat stated that in 1961 the policy which the present government is pursuing was started by the former government. I think he forgets that in 1957 and 1958 the Progressive Conservative government then in power greatly increased the equalization grants, and I know full well that during those difficult years the province of Saskatchewan could not have balanced its budget but for the large increase in equalization grants. I know too, from my interest in education, that it was these equalization grants more than any other factor which enabled the province to improve its educational facilities during those years. At that time and for some years earlier the teachers' organizations had been pressing for direct assistance to education. But it was impossible to get anywhere along those lines, and we know that the equalization grants made by the federal government were intended in large 23033-8681
Equalization Payments to Provinces measure to assist in overcoming the difficulties encountered in the field of education. They fulfilled that function.
The radical changes which are about to take place will, I believe, hurt education more than any other government activity, particularly if, as seems likely in the future, the federal government disposes of a surplus of revenue while provincial and municipal governments face deficits. I fear we shall find that education, which does not appear to produce any immediate tangible benefits, will suffer most. As I said many years ago, a community can see the direct benefits which it derives from a road but it is more difficult to see the benefits it derives because its young people have gone through secondary school and then to university before working for this nation in the wider scene, particularly if not many of these students return to work in the community from which they set out. This being the case I have a feeling that the change now proposed will hurt education more than any other service.
I welcome the suggestion that assistance should be given to post-secondary education. But assistance of this kind is needed less than the assistance which I feel should be given to secondary and even to public school education. What is causing the greatest difficulty is the enormous expense of building schools and the financial burden which rests on the municipal governments in this connection. I am sorry that the government has not found some way of assisting the provinces to carry out the large building programs which face them in this field. I think a way could be found and I believe that such assistance would be welcomed more than any other which could be given to the provinces. There is a real need in all the provinces for such aid.
In my own province of Saskatchewan the minister of education has, according to newspaper reports in recent days, completely revised the way in which the vocational education program is to be carried out. I wonder what effect the changes now contemplated will have on these plans. What lies ahead if the grant is to be changed so radically and if there is to be a gradual phasing out of the vocational education program?
Some provinces have made very little use of the vocational education program though others, like Ontario, have made tremendous use of the grants available in this field. In the more industrialized provinces communities are sufficiently large to make it relatively

March 3, 1987
Equalization Payments to Provinces easy to establish large schools. But in my own province, for example, there are few large communities and consequently there are few places where vocational education can be carried out as was intended by the legislation. This does not mean that modifications could not have been made to enable such provinces to take advantage of these grants. I fear that the revision which the government of Saskatchewan is trying to carry out now will be seriously hampered by the changes now proposed.
With these cursory and superficial comments, I wish to say once again that I hope we shall have sufficient time to study the bill adequately in order that proper presentations may be made with regard to it.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, this resolution, item No. 135 on the order paper, is similar in one respect to the resolution which precedes it, item No. 134. Both flow from the federal-provincial conference of last October on tax sharing. So some comments could be made at this time which would apply to either of these resolutions.
On October 31 following the conference the Minister of Finance made a statement in the house on government policy. At that time, speaking for this party I expressed both praise and blame for the stand the government was adopting. I congratulated the government upon recognizing that there is a role for the federal government to play in the field of adult education. The resolution in the name of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration with which we shall be dealing shortly seeks to implement that part of the policy. I went on to express great regret that the federal government had decided to cease financing university, technical and vocational education or at least to withdraw from this field in a formal way. The minister announced he intended to transfer certain percentage points of personal and corporation income tax to the provinces and make certain other payments to compensate for the lost grants, and this is what the resolution before us is about.
I felt then that the federal government was moving in the wrong direction. It has agreed that certain persons who have been out of school for at least three years and who are on the labour market and need retraining may receive federal assistance. But people who do not find themselves in this position cannot receive any assistance if they are within the educational system. It seems to me that an artificial line has been drawn.

[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
On other occasions I have talked about why the government has taken this decision. It seems to me it is quite different from the type of policy toward formal education developed over the past several years by successive governments. It is quite different from the policies of co-operative federalism developed by the present government since it took office in 1963. Unless it is taking a very doctrinaire approach, as I understand it, I think the government has been persuaded by certain of its supporters, notably the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, the hon. member for Hochelaga and the hon. member for Mount Royal, that this is the course it should follow, that Quebec should not be treated differently from the other provinces and if Quebec objects to federal involvement in technical and vocational education and in university financing, then the government should withdraw from that field so that all the provinces may receive the same treatment.
This is a very doctrinaire approach. It is a step backward. So far as I know, no real objections have come from the other provinces about federal assistance to university financing or about technical and vocational financing. In fact, some of the provinces jumped eagerly into the program of technical and vocational financing introduced by the previous government in 1959 or 1960. In the light of that I have to conclude that the objections come from Quebec. Because of the government's fear that Quebec will receive treatment different from that given to the other provinces it has advocated this new policy of all the provinces receiving the same treatment, and therefore it will pull back from some of the areas which it has occupied.
Not long ago I disputed this line of thinking. I see nothing wrong in giving a province special treatment if it requires such treatment because of its particular characteristics or background. When I spoke earlier I mentioned the case of the United Kingdom, which is made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, each with its own national characteristics. Quite frequently Westminster passes laws which have written into them a clause saying that the law shall not apply to Northern Ireland or Scotland. Indeed, Scotland has its own educational system. If a particular group in Canada in one province requires special treatment, let us recognize that fact and provide for it, but let us not
March 3, 1967	COMMONS
stop doing things which are in the national interest simply because one province objects.
The announcement made in October was a complete reversal of policy. It was quite different from the type of policy advocated during the past few years by such members of the government as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and quite different from the policy enunciated by the Secretary of State in speeches she made during the past year. In this connection I wish to quote briefly from one speech she made at Niagara Falls on March 27, 1966, when she said:
Universities, it might be said, are also provincial institutions. But they are distinct from kindergartens and high schools in that they are also places of scholarship, of research, of learning. And, as the Prime Minister has put it, "learning knows no boundaries. It's nature is such that it must extend as wide as all human experience; outward, indeed, into matters beyond direct human experience."
In another paragraph she said:
This question of "learning" is a truly national one and, as such, must be of real concern to the federal government.
She also quoted from the Bladen report as follows:
Federal support does not automatically mean federal control. The federal government does not control higher education today although it contributes to its revenues. The cultural distinctiveness of Quebec and the rights of that province to fashion its own university system are well recognized. But it is pointed out that the problems of all universities, whether English speaking or French speaking, are similar. All universities need far more funds than their provincial governments can provide.
She went on to point out that in line with the Bladen commission recommendations the government was increasing its grants to universities, and she also mentioned the role that the federal government was playing in technical and vocational education.
I do not think the government has achieved very much by this policy change because by even taking unto itself a role in the field of adult education it is still going to meet with objection from Quebec. Undoubtedly this is something which will come up when the next resolution is discussed but I wish to mention it briefly now.
According to an article by Claude Turcotte from Quebec city in yesterday's La Presse several senior officials of the Quebec government came to Ottawa to meet with the federal deputy minister who deals with education. They included Claude Morin, deputy minister of federal-provincial affairs, Arthur Tremblay
Equalisation Payments to Provinces and Yves Martin, deputy ministers of education, and Fernand Jolicoeur of the Quebec department of education. The article suggested that they were concerned about the provisions of the bill which the Minister of Manpower and Immigration is going to introduce to deal with adult education, and went on at one point to mention the possibility of another Trojan horse. I suggest that even in this field it may be necessary to make special arrangements with Quebec because it will not be satisfied with the federal role in adult education.
The whole point of all the speeches I have made on this subject is that we need national concern for post-secondary education. We will not achieve that if the federal government withdraws from the field even though it transfers certain funds to the provinces for that function.
We in the New Democratic Party are often accused of being very doctrinaire. In this instance it seems to me that the government is being doctrinaire. It has been sold a particular doctrine. I notice the hon. member for Hochelaga is in the chamber and I would like to hear from him on this subject, either on this or on the next resolution or on the two bills when we reach them.


Mr. Laprise:: Mr. Chairman, on the examination of this resolution, I should like to take the opportunity to make a few brief comments on education, a field in which the federal government is trying to intervene by every possible means.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
As everyone knows, the province of Quebec keeps a jealous watch over its prerogatives in a field which, according to the constitution, belongs to the province, namely education. I was surprised, although it is true that I examined only briefly the statements made yesterday by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) when he said that the declarations of the Minister of Finance of Ottawa were not very compatible with the views of the hon. prime minister of Quebec on education. In a few minutes, I will put a question to the Minister of Finance with respect to a statement he made which surprised me very much and even left me puzzled. I am making specific reference to a statement he made concerning education and the rights of the province of Quebec.
Mention was also made of the fact that the province of Quebec seemed to be asking for favours as regards education. I suggest that
13728	COMMONS
Equalization Payments to Provinces the province of Quebec is not looking for favours in this field; it is only asking for that which belongs to Quebec as a matter of right. In this regard, I feel that the right to levy taxes should be left entirely to the province of Quebec, and this, precisely to enable it to deal with education. We should not be surprised to see Quebec going forward in various other fields. This is due to inaction in Ottawa. Might I point out, incidentally, that Bill No. 33 was introduced recently in the Quebec legislature. By so doing, Quebec wanted to serve the interests of the province, again because the federal government does not act according to the interests of the province of Quebec, not to the detriment of the other provinces, but in the interest of Quebec.
There is another field, that comes to my mind, in which Quebec is taking a stronger attitude, that of the C.B.C.. In Quebec, there is a great deal of talk about setting up a provincial corporation, because the C.BC serves the province poorly. I know what I am talking about because my own riding, where some people pay huge amounts in federal taxes, does not get any service from the C.B.C. As far as programming is concerned, I think that there again Quebec has something to say and it would not be surprising if before long something were heard in that respect.
Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to say more at the resolution stage. I hope the minister will make a more elaborate statement when the bill is introduced. We will have the opportunity to study the figures given by the minister during yesterday's debate.
Now, about the statement he made yesterday and which is found on page 13,682 of Hansard, left-hand column, I would like the minister to tell us exactly what he meant when he said:
Only when parliament was prepared to acknowledge the exceptional priority of some provincial programs of expenditures-
And there, I am wondering why the federal government should approve the decisions of the province of Quebec in the field of education. And he added:
-should the federal government recommend that taxes should be imposed or federal expenditures reduced for the purpose of financing a federal contribution toward provincial expenditures.
Mr. Chairman, that statement puzzles me and worries me greatly, because I do not think it is reasonable that the parliament in Ottawa, the federal government, should have anything to say in the decisions of a province, or the province of Quebec, in the field of

DEBATES	March 3, 1967
education. I hope the minister will clarify that matter.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, to me as well
as to other members of our party it is extremely disappointing, despite all the evidence from every part of the country that the federal government must become more and more involved in the whole matter of education and manpower training if we are to utilize fully to the best possible degree the manpower resources of this country, that we are faced here and in the resolution with which we shall be dealing next with a proposal by the federal government to get out of an increasingly important aspect of manpower training, the field of technical and vocational education.
I must admit that I find this decision by the federal government completely incomprehensible. Every agency, public and private, which has looked at this problem has been urging the governments of Canada and the provinces, as well as the people of Canada, to pay increasing attention to technical and vocational training and to endeavour to get more young people to take the courses. In the face of this, in the face of quite impressive results based on the program that was begun by the former government under the former minister of labour, the hon. member for Ontario, and in the face of the expansion of the program by this government which has worked well-if it has failed it is only because it has not been extended far enough- we have a decision by this government to vacate the field.
It is true that the provinces are promised some further percentage points in terms of income tax abatement so that they will hold the line where it is now, as proposed by this government. The federal government has expended a substantial amount of money in this field. I have received a table from the Department of Labour which shows just what has been done in the field of capital projects for technical and vocational training under the agreements between the federal and provincial governments from April, 1961 to March 31,	1966. The federal government
spent just over $620 million. The province of Ontario took $300 million. The province of Quebec, despite the fears of some hon. members on both sides of the house that it was not quite constitutional, took over $117 million. The province of British Columbia took $52 million and the province of Manitoba, to
March 3, 1987	COMMONS
my regret, took under $12 million. The expenditure of this money, however, has acted as a spur to the provinces to invest money of their own because they have to share in the expenditures.
In every province in Canada excellent and impressive technical and vocational schools have been built. An excellent job has been done. We ought to have more; we need more. In the face of this need what do we have here? We get the announcement of the government in this resolution that they are leaving this field to the provinces. Yesterday the Minister of Finance was pretty careful. It is difficult to pin down the fact that this is what the federal government is doing. If hon. members doubt that this is what the federal government is doing, I should like to refer them to a statement made by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to the federal-provincial conference on October 25, 1966. I should like to put a few sentences from this statement on the record because I think in that statement he made very clear what the government is proposing to do. I will be as brief as possible in summarizing his statement. He said:
We are determined to get out of shared cost programs in education . . . for us to he involved in the school system in the name of technical and vocational training inevitably introduces distortions . .. increasingly your decisions-
Meaning the decisions of the provinces.
-as to what to do are influenced by a natural desire to get as much as possible out of the programs of which we will pay 50 per cent.
I think that is true and I think it is a good thing. The fact that the federal government has spent $620 million, which amount has been matched by the provinces, has given us the beginning of a technical and vocational school system for the first time in this country. For too many years 90 per cent of our students could not attend university because they could not afford to and were thrown out on the labour market without even the most minimal educational training to fill the available jobs. This program, which the former government initiated and this government has continued, for the first time is turning out individuals who will not attend university but will have the understanding and knowledge to fill jobs in our modem industrial society. Having accomplished this the government is now saying that it intends to throw the whole thing down the drain and let the provinces continue on their own.
Equalization Payments to Provinces
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
As the leader of this party said a little while ago, you cannot divide the taxpayers, and when the government gets out of this program as this resolution proposes the provinces are going to have to pick up the tab. It makes little difference whether the individual pays taxes to the federal government, a provincial government or a municipality. When this program is abandoned by the government something else will suffer.
I am afraid that many provincial university building programs designed to meet the flood of students who will be attending universities in the next ten years will have to be scaled down because the provinces and local municipalities simply do not have the money to do everything that is required in this field of education.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They are not even retraining the auto workers.


David Orlikow: As my leader has pointed out, the minister a couple of days ago said that the problem in Oshawa of trying to find jobs for displaced auto workers is aggravated because there are not sufficient facilities to train these displaced workers. I presume they should be provided by the provinces but they are already strapped for money.
The minister is saying that the federal government is going to get out of the field of technical and vocational training. That is nonsensical, to put it mildly. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration also said in his statement of October 25:
So, unless you are prepared to argue that we should have the permanent influence on your programs that shared-cost arrangements give us, I suggest that you must accept the principle of our withdrawal.
That is precisely what I intend to argue about because the federal government not only has the right but the responsibility to continue this kind of program in order to assist all provinces, particularly the poor ones. It has a responsibility to continue and extend this kind of manpower training program. While it may be possible for the province of Ontario or the province of British Columbia to finance their own programs, surely no one here would suggest that the province of Newfoundland or the province of New Brunswick could find the money required for this kind of program.
Because of the kind of mobility we now enjoy people from the "have-not" provinces such as Newfoundland and New Brunswick
13730	COMMONS
Equalization Payments to Provinces move to cities such as Toronto, Hamilton and Oshawa where they find it almost impossible to obtain work because they have not got the educational requirements to fill highly skilled jobs. It makes no sense at all to me to have a federal program which encourages the provinces to enter this kind of training plan alone but waits to help finance the training of these poorly educated students until they become unemployed workers. It makes no sense at all that we are prepared to assist in financing adult training programs but will have nothing to dor with training programs of a technical and vocational nature for young people who are still attending school.
The Canadian Labour Congress at its convention in April, 1966 looked at this question very realistically and hard-headedly. In their statement on economic policy dealing with technological change in manpower policy they outlined a series of nine steps which the government should follow if it is to have an effective manpower training policy. I do not intend to read them all but I should like to refer to two.
The first suggestion was that we require a nation-wide network of adult training centres to retrain men and women for new jobs requiring greater or different skills. That is precisely what the minister proposes through the next resolution we will consider. The second suggestion is that we should have a massive program of technical and vocational training for adolescents and pre-employment youth to prepare them for the kind of labour market they will face on leaving school. Obviously these two things go hand in hand; yet the government is prepared to assist financially in programs for adult retraining but is not prepared to help finance the training of young people still attending school. It seems to me this is not only wrong in principle but that it is foolish if not idiotic.
It seems obvious to me that it is cheaper, better and more efficient to train young people while they are still living at home, because the only real cost is the cost of building schools, maintaining them and paying the teachers, than it is to wait until they are adults and unemployed. At that time we must pay not only the cost to build the schools, maintain them, pay the teachers and buy the supplies required but also pay living allowances or moving allowances and a whole host of other expenses.
Today during motions the minister made a statement about an extension of the government's program for manpower and mobility.

DEBATES	March 3, 1967
Like all members of the house I greeted it with approval but is it not obvious that it is better to provide training when people are 15, 16 or 17 rather than when they are in their 20's, 30's or 40's? I find it completely impossible to comprehend why the government would take this basically retrograde step. My colleague the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond hit the nail right on the head when he said what is involved here is not a matter of principle or basic philosophy in terms of education and manpower training but rather the feeling, particularly in the province of Quebec, that under the provisions of the B.N.A. Act the provinces have the sole right to make decisions in respect of education.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I respect the status of provinces and the feelings of the people of Quebec. The provinces must maintain their authority; but I do not believe that it is impossible to work out an agreement with the provinces in this field. I do not believe it is impossible to work out an agreement with the province of Quebec, which feels more strongly on this question than any other province. After all, the province of Quebec has agreed to accept federal financial assistance to maintain the universities of that province. Under the present agreement with regard to technical and vocational training it has accepted, as I mentioned earlier, $117 million for the building and maintenance of technical-vocational institutes. I do not believe that the province of Quebec cannot be persuaded to participate with the other provinces in a joint federal-provincial plan for technical-vocational education.
It may be that the way in which the province of Quebec will get its money will be different from the other nine provinces. That would not worry me at all because I believe-and I am certainly no expert on Quebec-that the province of Quebec is not quite like all the other provinces in this country. I do not say that in a critical manner but I believe it to be a statement of fact. I do not think this creates any insoluble problem for this country if it wants to solve its problems.
It seems to me that the difference between the province of Quebec and the other nine provinces could have been worked out and even now could be worked out. The government, in this resolution and in the bill which will be brought forward following passage of the resolution, is taking a retrograde step which not only will we all regret but which will have a very serious effect on the lives of
March 3, 1967	COMMONS
the next generation in all parts of Canada. It is one which I personally regret a great deal.


Mr. Macquarrie:: Mr. Chairman, as has already been said, this is a very important resolution. I confess, and I am not alone in this feeling, that it is somewhat difficult to understand. I recall the injunction of the Minister of Finance that we must read these documents carefully, thoroughly and for a long time before we expatiate thereupon. Of course it is not at all new for the parliament of Canada to be dealing with measures which change the fiscal relationships between the provinces and the dominion. This has been done ever since 1867. I am always amused by people who talk about the B.N.A. Act as being a rigid and inflexible document. If one were to look at the changes in subsidies which have been written into the document he would see that on certain matters it has been frequently altered, and in every case this was essential.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North said that Quebec is not a province like the other provinces. Let me say that there is no province that is like any other, and at times all provinces have had to make special arrangements and have their special needs recognized.
A resolution of this kind is in large measure an emanation from a dominion-provincial conference and therefore we are suffering, as we have suffered in recent months and years, from insufficient information as to what goes on at these gatherings. I think we will have to develop some method whereby what is transacted at these gatherings is more fully and widely known. I have even seen the occasion when provincial ministers have come back from Ottawa and their stories as to what went on there did not correspond, or to be more mundane I might say that their stories as to what they got there did not correspond. I would suggest that this is certainly one area which will produce more dominion-provincial conferences.


Mitchell William Sharp: If the hon. member knows of any provincial ministers who are satisfied, will he let me have their names?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I am sure the list is not very long, but some are less dissatisfied than others. It is another situation in which there is no similarity-and it is not surprising that it is lacking in this area-among the provinces as to the needs of the people. There is a great need for advances in all fields but at the
Equalization Payments to Provinces same time there is a great inequality in the ability of the provinces to meet these needs.
I have looked carefully at the elaborate tables on revenue sources and revenue bases; the expression sometimes used for this is "fiscal ability" of the provinces. I think it is very difficult to measure fiscal ability. I think it would be unrealistic not to consider the potential fiscal ability of a province, and yet it is more difficult to measure than ever.
I suppose all of us tend to look at a measure of this kind at this stage of our debate in relation to the areas from which we come. I know that the Atlantic adjustment grants have been considered and, I presume, are being preserved. 1 hope they will be preserved as something separate and distinct and not subsumed in other funds upon which the calculations are based. The Atlantic provinces adjustment grants were made to the four eastern provinces as a token to compensate for many years of economic disparity which has continued through the years since confederation. I think that these grants must be regarded as sacrosanct over and above the other elaborate calculations for equalization grants. When we start the next stage of our discussions I am sure we will want to probe a little more carefully so as to discover where the Atlantic adjustment grants will fit in.
I was surprised to find that the province of Prince Edward Island, whose tax base is surely narrower than that of any other province, did not come out a little better in the mathematical calculations. Some time ago our premier came back with the report that we were going to be $200,000 better off, and he was not very proud of this. The leader of the opposition in our province made a quick calculation and said that this would not pay the skunk tax in the province of Prince Edward Island. I think that no formula could be devised which would give us as small an improvement as that.
I want to say a few words about another aspect of this very important measure.


Mitchell William Sharp: Will the hon. member permit a question? Perhaps he may be able to answer a question which has always troubled me. How is it that it costs me so many hundreds of millions of dollars - to give so little to the provinces?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I would say that the problem lies in the distribution of that money.


Mitchell William Sharp: But none of the provinces are satisfied.
13732	COMMONS DEBATES	March 3. 1967
Equalization Payments to Provinces
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I am not quibbling about the total amount but about the direction which it has been given.
Of course the government has been and should be congratulated for the steps which it took some months ago consequent upon the Bladen report. The increases in grants to universities were large and they were welcome. However, we all know that they are inadequate. The needs of education in these days and in the years ahead are simply massive and monumental. We might just as well face up to the situation. There will be many more calls upon all levels of government.
Education is a national problem and it requires national leadership. Heaven knows, it requires national revenue as well. Having said that, we must all be very careful in this country to pay the proper respect to the sacred nature of provincial jurisdiction and to exalt the virtue of provincial control. I, too, am concerned about the technical and vocational problem. The period before junior matriculation is the period in which we face our greatest problem in education. This is the area in which we find the greatest number of drop-outs. It seems to me that we have to have, for the drop-out or the potential dropout from our high school system, some alternative training program which is reasonably attractive, some wide range of options for young people whose minds must be trained to the highest degree possible even though for a variety of reasons they may not be suited to academic courses.
I agree with what was said about the program of the former government. I think it is one of the finest that any national government has established. The former minister of labour was indeed, as is his custom, far too modest about the contribution which he made to the development of these splendid technical and vocational schools across the country. They are being well attended and many young people are being given new opportunities to enter the labour force where, as we all know, the demand for skilled personnel is increasing day by day.
Here again in the field of education and technical training, the leadership came from the dominion level. It was good leadership and I am very proud of it. I am concerned, as was the last speaker, that the role of the dominion authorities will be diminished and will be phased out. I would feel much better if in this important area, where the dominion

once had jurisdiction, it had remained because there will be no phasing out of the schools. You may phase out the program but these schools will be needed. There will be a growing stream of young people requiring the kind of training they can get from these schools.
There are other questions about the university structure that we will have. I should like to ask later about the perennial problem of the relationship of university population to provincial population as related to the various formulae set out here. I am not quite sure that the problems of the province with the small population but the large university population are being met. I hope they are. When we start discussing the bill we can make inquiries. To my concern about the phasing out of the technical and vocational program I would add my approval of the arrangement which has been made for postsecondary educational plans. If we can just find some way of meeting the financial needs of the more needy provinces, I would even approve of the first part.


Mr. Nowlan:: government of that time moved into an area in which there was a vacuum. Heaven help Canadians today if that area had not been canvassed and entered by the federal government. I believe the approval of the province of Quebec six months after the other provinces came into the program gives the lie, Mr. Chairman, to the statement that the provincial governments would not, under a proper formula providing protection for provincial autonomy, enter into a federal program of education or take federal help. It is a contradiction, Mr. Chairman, that I cannot quite rationalize and I do not see how the Minister of Finance can rationalize it. I should like to see the Minister of National Health and Welfare try to rationalize it because only a few months ago we had a long debate on medicare which involved provincial jurisdiction and provincial sensitivity. However, the federal government, because of a plank that party had in its platform for 40 years, came along and said that we would have a type of medicare under which the federal government would not impose anything on the provinces. The government said these were basic guide lines.
All during that debate members opposite from the province of Quebec had no real disagreement or dispute with these guide lines. The provincial government could enter into the program if it so wished but it did not have to enter the program if it did not desire to do so. It seems to me that this fundamental contradiction is something which has Canadians wondering about the state of politics and the state of the leadership of the government, in that at one time this year we talked about guide lines in an area of provincial responsibility and two or three months later when we are talking about education, one of the great social needs of this country, the government hides behind the barrier of the constitution. The government attempts to say their hands are tied and they cannot give federal leadership. Worse than that, Mr. Chairman, they not only fail to give federal leadership but they are starting to withdraw from a field in which the federal government had participated.
The hon. member for Queens referred to the minister of labour in the previous administration, the hon. member for Ontario, and the bold program he started in 1960 which the provinces all joined. I wonder if the members of this committee truly appreciate the extent of that program and the fact that all provinces participated fully. One of
Equalization Payments to Provinces the members to the left mentioned that federal participation involved a sum of over $600 million. Well, Mr. Chairman, during a three year period about 330,000 places were provided for students in vocational and technical training schools.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The area I come from is not one of the great industrial areas of the country, but several vocational schools were built there under this program two or three years ago and they are filled to capacity. In spite of this expansion during the last two years, unfortunately applicants for vocational training are still being turned down in large numbers. That indicates the state of the program at the present time, Mr. Chairman. Nevertheless, where would we in Canada be today if the federal government under the party to which I belong had not taken some initiative and trodden very carefully, so as to recognize not only the problems under the constitution but to institute a program which provided over 330,000 student places in two and a half to three years. Over 800 new schools or additions to existing schools were built during that two and a half to three year period and over $1,200 million was spent by the federal and provincial governments combined on that building program.
I suggest there is even greater need for education and skilled manpower in this day and age. In spite of the manpower problems which have arisen during the last two or three months as a result of the auto pact and in other areas as well, we would have been in an even more precarious position today had not the former government taken some initiative. The vocational training program alone shows that when a federal government is prepared to move in and take the lead and also respect the provincial jurisdiction, the provinces will also move into the vacuum. In 1960 there was a vacuum, but fortunately for Canada the government of that day stepped in to fill it.
We are now withdrawing and throwing the problem back to the provinces. Some provinces are capable of doing a good job whereas others are faced with certain problems. But the point is that the federal government is not providing national leadership. I can well understand the concern of the public over the fundamental distinction which is being made between guide lines for medicare but not for education. I should like to hear the Minister of Finance or the minister for health or somebody else on that side try to rationalize
13734	COMMONS
Equalization Payments to Provinces the apparent contradiction that exists in this proposition, which involves provincial jurisdiction.
There is another problem in connection with the transfer to the provinces of certain percentages of corporation and personal income taxes. In effect they are unconditional grants made to the provinces for their educational programs. Just as an aside, Mr. Chairman, and following upon what the hon. member for Queens said, I might point out that there was a good flow of information passing between federal and provincial representatives during the conference last fall. The initial proposals made by the federal government were somewhat confusing and the visiting provincial representatives were somewhat caught by surprise when they read about some of them in the newspapers even before they got to the conference table. But I think the minister and his officials are to be given credit for their give and take attitude with regard to some of the initial proposals, and the final results of the conference will undoubtedly be enshrined within the subject matter of the bill which is to follow this resolution.
I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, that there are two points of view in connection with transferring a percentage of corporation and personal income taxes to the provinces. Some provinces and certainly some of the university officials are most concerned that these unconditional grants which are made to the provinces may not find their way into the university coffers. There have been examples in the not too distant past of moneys given to the provinces for educational purposes which did not find their way into the university stream.
Again, Mr. Chairman, this is an area, quite separate and apart from technical and vocational training, from which the federal government has withdrawn. It is an area which I think involves one of the most fluid segments of our society. The hon. member for Burna-by-Richmond quoted a speech made by the Secretary of State some time ago in which she said that education has no boundaries. In this day and age there is a much greater flow of manpower and skilled tradesmen from one province to another, but I would suggest there is not quite such a great flow in the vocational area as there is in the academic field. University graduates in my part of the country have to travel to other provinces because they cannot become absorbed in the rather limited economic climate prevailing in the Atlantic area.

DEBATES	March 3, 1967
This means, Mr. Chairman, that in certain parts of Canada there is a tremendous influx of one of the most fluid segments of society. In other areas the federal government is withdrawing from this mainstream of society, leaving its control strictly to the provinces, and is hiding behind the strait-jacket of the constitution.
Three or four months ago the minister of health was bold enough to stand up time and again to defend the medicare program, a program which touches the very areas from which the Minister of Finance is now trying to withdraw. No wonder the public are looking for some leadership and direction in this area, Mr. Chairman, and it seems to me they are somewhat bewildered at this apparent paradox.
I wanted to make those two general points at this time. Certainly the vocational and technical program has proven the need, and the medicare bill which was passed by this house a few months ago showed that the government will take responsibility in some areas. In other areas the government prefers to hide. The only people who will be the losers are the students and the young people of the country who pass through the educational process and move into the mainstream. In these days of easier travel people are not so hesitant to move from one province to another across the land. I am given to understand that one out of every three persons in the United States moves from one part of the United States to another during the course of his lifetime, and similar figures exist for Canada indicating a tremendous movement of people. Yet in respect of those who have the greatest potential for movement throughout the country, namely, our students who receive university education, no federal guide lines or direction are provided.
What is even worse, Mr. Chairman, or could be worse, is the fact that the federal government has refused to impose any conditions upon the moneys provided to the provinces. The provincial grants committees and the university heads are somewhat concerned how the money provided by this transfer of corporation and personal income taxes will be funnelled into the provinces. Let me take, for example, the province of British Columbia where you have the University of British Columbia, a strong and historic institution, competing for funds with Victoria College in Victoria and Simon Fraser University on Burnaby mountain. I have had some association with British Columbia in that I lived there for six or seven years, and I know
March 3, 1967	COMMONS
there are some areas of discontent amongst those three universities, just to pick one province out of the hat. In areas where the federal government withdraws from the educational field I suggest the problems may be compounded. In general, I think it is a retrograde step to ignore the reasoning that was followed when the medicare legislation was passed.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Mr. Chretien:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I was about to conclude. Yes.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Is the hon. member not aware that there is no contradiction in government policy toward education and medicare, because after a five-year study and implementation period we shall turn the administration of the program over to the provinces. It is the same with education. There is a federal-provincial agreement under which we shall turn the program back to the provinces. Exactly the same philosophy applies.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: At least with the medicare program guide lines were set out. There were four basic guide lines for provinces wishing to qualify under the medicare program. There are no federal government guide lines in this resolution. The government gave direction under the medicare program; whether one agreed with the principle or not, direction was given; no direction is being given with respect to education.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few brief observations. I must say that on this important and complex resolution that I am not quite as pessimistic as the hon. member who has just resumed his seat about what we shall ultimately obtain with this type of agreement.
I listened to both ministers last night with interest, and listened to the outline of the six principles that are the result of agreements with the provinces. We wholeheartedly endorse these principles as being in keeping with the philosophy of the beginnings of cooperation between the federal and provincial government to meet certain needs and requirements in this country.
Before going further I want to say this: Frequently I run into people who do not seem to realize that no government can give anybody anything, whether that government be federal, provincial or municipal, without taking something away from somebody else. I have met so many people who think that the
Equalization Payments to Provinces government can take something from some other source. They think you can take something out without replacing it. We must show our people in Canada that they can have anything they want, provided they are willing to pay for it.


Mitchell William Sharp: They are all the same taxpayers.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is right; they are the same taxpayers. I have had letters recently, not from my constituency, because my people are philosophically sound, but from people in eastern Canada, showing that they have no conception of costs and how these things are met. I do think that this resolution does represent a demonstration of an effort between the federal and provincial governments to get together and to come to agreements with respect to division of taxes and the acceptance of certain responsibilities. To that extent I rejoice in this first step toward, shall I say, what will finally be known as federalism or federal-provincial co-operation.
I listened with great interest to some hon. members speaking about technical and vocational training features of this resolution. I have always been interested in this question. I know there are quite a number of boys and girls dropping out of high school who are not interested in academic training, but who are interested in using their hands and heads in other fields. There is great opportunity here for the development of technical and vocational training and I give the government credit for what has been envisaged to this extent. I hope this program will be continued and improved. There is a great place in Canada for it under present circumstances.
This debate has been informative and interesting. I have risen particularly as a result of the remarks made by the previous speaker. I think members of the house and of the public should be better informed about what happens in federal-provincial conferences on questions of the type we are discussing. Would the minister tell us how this conference was called, or how the arrangements were made for the calling of the conference. What was the general procedure at the conference? Did the provinces one after the other make submissions on topics or did they make a submission in total, with other submissions being made afterwards? How were amendments moved? How was agreement reached between the various provinces during the discussion? What was the general atmosphere, the spirit at these conferences? That is
13736	COMMONS
Equalization Payments to Provinces important. Knowing that is more important, perhaps, than knowing about figures alone.
I think hon. members would like to be informed about how the conference was developed and how it was handled; also, what was the response of the provincial premiers at the conference to the various steps discussed, and to the final agreement that I understand was signed by all provinces? What has been the response of the premiers and governments of the various provinces since the agreements were signed, as a result of changing circumstances? Could the minister give us information in this respect? It would help us to understand the general atmosphere prevailing during the period of discussions.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I might answer the last question first by reference to a report of the federal-provincial tax structure committee which met in Ottawa on September 14 and 15, 1966. For those members of the committee interested in knowing the positions of the respective governments, this is the official source of reference. I have tabled all these documents in the house from time to time.
In this document there is an account of the formation of the tax structure committee, the meetings it has held and their outcome. The report I have in my hand is a report of the federal-provincial tax structure committee, and it contains submissions made by the federal government and by each of the provincial governments. When we met subsequently, in October, I, on behalf of the federal government presented further refinements of the federal position based on discussions we had had in September. I made a report to the federal-provincial conference presided over by the Prime Minister. At that conference the Prime Minister confirmed that the proposals put forward by the federal government were in fact the proposals he would recommend to parliament.
The short answer to the other question is that there are no agreements at federal-provincial conferences. Indeed, since there are no written documents as to the division of tax fields or as to the acceptance of equalization payments, and so on, the only agreements reached are for administrative matters such as tax collection agreements. The federal government agrees to collect taxes on behalf of the provincial governments, and to turn revenues over to them.
I can assure the hon. member that when it comes to the division of tax fields the federal government ultimately has to say, "These are [Mr. Herridge.l
DEBATES	March 3, 1967
the taxes we propose to levy" and the provincial governments have to decide that there are other taxes that they propose to levy; and, we hope by consultation and mutual consideration of each other's plans, that we have put together a pattern that is not illogical. I do not think it would be agreeable to this house, for example, if it were to be bound in its decisions of what are appropriate tax policies for Canada through the federal government's entering into agreements with the provinces with respect to the division of tax fields to the point where the freedom of this parliament to legislate with respect to taxes was in any way hampered.
In the bill, to be founded on this resolution, the federal government will be putting forth proposals that it put before the provinces. I can assure the hon. member that not one of the provinces liked them; not one. They all felt that the federal government was being niggardly, and they raised all sorts of questions about the future, and how we were to have all sorts of revenues and the provinces would go further into debt. I commented on this attitude from time to time during the conference. I can assure the hon. member that if that indeed were the prospect we would not have had to implement a minibudget to raise $250 million; we would have plenty of revenues to meet all expenditures. In fact, in this house we all know that that is not so.
It is true that our prospects for obtaining revenues are better than the prospects of provinces or municipalities, but we have no surplus to turn over. The best we can hope for is that we have taxation systems that are mutually compatible and that permit the economic growth of this country. We shall continue to meet in the future, as provinces meeting with the federal government, to discuss tax problems.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The Carter commission presents us with a new problem altogether, and one of the reasons for my urging that this report should be studied very carefully, and one of the reasons I am very careful not to make any judgments about this matter, is that I want an opportunity to discuss this subject with the provinces, who are very much concerned with the recommendations of the Carter commission. I want to do this before making any recommendations to my colleagues or to this house about changes in the present system.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
March 3, 1967

Mr. Sharp thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-277 to authorize the making of certain fiscal payments to provinces, to authorize the entry into tax collection agreements with provinces, and to amend the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING


Jean Marchand: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide lor the training of adults wishing to undertake occupational training; to authorize the entering into of contracts with provinces and employers to provide for the payment of the costs incurred in providing occupational training to those adults and to authorize the payment of charges for tuition or otherwise for the training of adults in occupational training courses not operated by a province or an employer; to authorize the payment of training allowances to certain adults undertaking occupational training; to authorize agreements with the provinces respecting research in respect of occupational training and the making of loans to provinces to assist in the purchase or construction of occupational training facilities; to authorize transitional agreements and arrangements with the provinces related to the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act; and to provide further for other related and incidental matters.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, last June this house passed the Training Allowances Act. It provided substantially increased training allowances for unemployed workers. In addition, under this act, the workers preserved their unemployment insurance rights while they took training.
As a result of this legislation, the concept of training in Canada has been altered. For the first time, people with adult responsibilities are being granted allowances generous enough to enable them to take training courses. This put an end to the previous dependence of training on the unemployment insurance plan. From here on vocational training ranks with work; it is no longer associated with unemployment or welfare.
The measure I propose today is the logical development of the policy that I had the honour to introduce last year. It is a greatly
Occupational Training
extended program for the training and retraining of members of the labour force. It is an explicit recognition of the federal responsibility for the over-all performance of the economy, and the advancement of the workers on whom that performance depends.
This new program is an integral part of a national manpower policy whose basic purpose is to bring economic opportunity within the reach of Canadian workers.
The resolution proposes to extend training services and training allowances to all persons with adult responsibilities who can benefit from training. Whether a man or woman is eligible for training will not depend on whether he or she is employed, unemployed, underemployed, or self-employed.
The program will respond directly to the person's need for training, not to his statistical classification. The question is whether he will benefit substantially from training, whether it will make his earning power greater in future, whether his contribution to the economy will be increased.
Adult training, as the Economic Council of Canada and many others have pointed out, is one of Canada's most urgent needs. It is a national problem requiring a solution that can be implemented right across the country. But the program must, of course, be administered in full co-operation with the provinces. It must be sensitive to local needs. The federal functions under the program will be discharged by our strengthened and decentralized Canada Manpower Centres. It will be part of the range of services which these centres offer workers who need a second chance to acquire the skills and knowledge they must have to compete in today's dynamic labour market.
I would like to emphasize that this program is not concerned with young people at school but with people who have been in the labour force for some time and intend to stay in it.
This does not mean that the federal government feels that the education of youth is unimportant. Obviously, it is vital to our development. But we are a federal country-which means, though it is often forgotten, that some things that are vital are the responsibility not of this parliament but of the provinces.
The education of youth is a provincial, not a federal responsibility. During the past six years the federal government has contributed greatly to the capital costs of provincial

March 3, 1967
Occupational Training
facilities for technical training. The arrangement was made for six years. It was mostly capital, not operating assistance, because such federal activity in a provincial field could not and should not be thought of as permanent.
Accordingly, the Prime Minister announced last October the termination or phase-out of cost-sharing agreements in this field. Financially, they are more than replaced by unconditional fiscal transfers designed to make it possible for provinces to respond to the rapidly expanding needs of post-secondary education.
Those needs, financially, are very great. But when we think of people, we must recognize that the needs of adults are very different from those of continuing students.
First, there is a financial difference. The adult has been earning an income. He has been using that income to support himself or members of his family. They and he cannot afford to have his income cut off. If he is going to take training, he must be provided with an alternative income from public sources.
The need is in this respect much the same as the need for unemployment insurance. But I think we would all agree that the amount should be appreciably larger. Training is work. And training should not prejudice a man's future protection in the form of his rights to unemployment insurance benefits. What is the same is the principle of an income support.
Second, adult training is different from school education because quite a lot of it can best be carried on, not in a teaching institution, but within industry. This, plainly, is a growing trend. It makes a great deal of sense. But we cannot expect a company to do a great deal of training that may help a man get a job with other firms, unless government bears a good part of the cost.
Third, adult training is most directly related to full employment and improved productivity. It is true, of course, that the quality of education also has an important influence, as young people enter the labour force. The training provided to adults has a direct impact on employment and productivity. Therefore, it is of current, direct concern to the federal government.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)

Obviously, Mr. Chairman, I do not mean that the federal government should provide the training. Provincial governments and in-
[Mr. Marchand.l
dustry are both already in that business and there is no reason for us to join them. But we do have the responsibility for seeing that provincial governments and industry have customers, and that means we have to pay the customers' bills.
This is the responsibility we propose to assume. Instead of being involved 50 per cent and 75 per cent in a variety of technical and vocational education programs, we propose to take 100 per cent financial responsibility for the adult, the person who has left school to earn his living but now needs retraining or further training.
We want to provide a second chance to the people who need it most. These are the men and women who missed the chance to acquire a skill during their youth or whose skill has been made obsolete by technological change. They are the people whose whole lives can be changed, dramatically in many cases, by giving them the occupational training they need.
Occupational training will be provided in courses of 12 months or less. The experience of the last six years has shown what can be accomplished in this way. But it has also shown that many mature adults lack the basic arithmetic, scientific and linguistic facility they need to learn a new occupation. The provinces have developed accelerated courses to provide adults with this background material, and the program will pay for any such basic training that is needed for an occupational skill. To put it another way, our concern is with the skills, but when people must have basic background to learn the skills the program will meet both necessary parts of the total cost.
The provinces have built up extensive systems for providing the type of training adults need. We wish to make use of these facilities and we will pay the provinces for training the adults we refer to their courses.
Occasionally we will need to make use of private training facilities, but we will do so only when a province cannot, at the time, provide the type of training a man needs at a school near where he lives. We will not use private facilities unless it is necessary and the province agrees that it cannot meet the need.
The program will give the employment counsellors in our Canada manpower centres an effective means of helping adult workers adapt to changing occupational and employment conditions. One of the major functions of these centres is to seek out opportunities and make sure that people are aware of
March 3, 1967

them. To discharge this responsibility we must know which occupations to train people for. Misplaced or misguided training is an economic waste and a human tragedy. This is another reason why this program must be implemented through the Canada manpower centres, if it is to be effective and equitable. They will have the necessary information on labour market trends and prospects. This is the only way to keep adult training and retraining closely related to the changing needs of the labour market, and so most helpful to individual workers and employers.
In industry I should make it plain that the program is not designed to pay for the kind of on-the-job training, in a particular job, that is a normal and necessary part of industrial costs. We are concerned with the kind of general training that a worker can take with him from job to job. Where a company provides that kind of training the program will pay both the cost of running the course and an element of reimbursement of the wages the company pays workers while they are learning. But, while the program will normally apply to what might be called "classroom" training in industry, it will also be available for on-the-job training when workers' jobs are threatened by technological change, and extensive retraining by their employer is necessary to help people adapt to new ways of working.
Besides paying living allowances and buying the necessary training services, the program will help provinces to acquire the buildings and equipment to provide the services. This will be done by lending them money to build adult training facilities.
They could take up to 30 years to repay, out of the money the federal government provides, by including the renting of facilities in the costs of the courses we pay for. In effect adult training facilities will cost the provincial taxpayers nothing, and the provinces will have free buildings after 30 years.
The training allowances which will be extended to all trainees who are established members of the labour force will initially be paid at the levels which have been agreed with the provinces under the Training Allowances Act. This means that training allowances will range from $35 to $90 a week as is the case now, depending on family circumstances and living costs. The upper and lower limits will escalate with increases in the general wage level. The actual scales, between those limits, will be settled in consultation with each province so as to fit in with wage conditions in different areas.
Occupational Training
I think, Mr. Chairman, I have made it clear that this program is designed to provide a sounder basis for co-operation with the provinces in the years ahead. That co-operation is essential to the success of all our efforts. It is with the provinces that we will contract for the training services that they and their municipalities provide. When it is necessary to purchase services from private training organizations, that will not be done without provincial agreement. Some provinces already have extensive programs for training in industry; our contributions will be put within the framework that already exists. In addition, we stand ready to share with the provinces the costs of research and development which are needed to establish sound and effective occupational training courses for adults.
The new program outlined in this resolution involves important changes. It moves us from shared-cost agreements with the provinces to different principles of co-operation which I believe will be healthier in every way and give us better value for money. But such a change cannot be implemented abruptly.
On April 1, when the present agreements expire, there will be many people in the midst of courses. To avoid disruption we will continue to share the provincial costs of training such people until they have finished their present courses.
The very substantial capital grants which have been made to the provinces under the current shared-cost arrangements for building secondary, post-secondary and adult and technical and vocational training facilities will be phased out gradually. They will continue at 75 per cent cost-sharing rate until each province has received $480 for every person in its 1961 youth population. In addition, a further $320 per person will be available for the same purpose at a 50 per cent sharing rate. The provinces have already received nearly $600 million through these grants; they will receive a further $550 million under this phase-out arrangement. Funds will be available for exactly the same purposes as before, but there will now be no time limit on their use. In short, this arrangement assures equal treatment for all provinces despite the very different rates at which they have in the past been able to utilize the cost sharing program.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, I think this is all I need say about this new program at this time. I believe

March 3, 1967
Occupational Training
it is most important. It is a measure which will help the men and women of the Canadian labour force make the adaptations to changing conditions which the world today requires. By making it genuinely possible for people to break out of occupations which offer only under-employment, intermittent unemployment, and poor prospects, we open up new opportunities for people and accelerate the growth and development of our country. We cannot afford any other course of action.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question of the minister before he sits down. I should like to ask him whether he has any information about, first, the number of training centres which he says now are available and carried on by the provinces; second, the number of adults province by province now in such training centres and, perhaps most important of all, whether he and his advisers have made any estimate concerning the number of adults who in the next few years expect to be able to take advantage of the plan he has outlined.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I will take these questions as notice. I think I can obtain this information and as soon as I am in a position to supply it to the hon. gentleman I shall be glad to do so.


Mr. Regimbal:: Mr. Chairman, I find it strange that such an incident should occur a second time. Following the comments made by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand), a member of the party sitting on the Speaker's left asked questions, thus trying to get around the very obvious difficulty of stating his party's position, not knowing what the hon. minister was going to say.
Naturally, since we had no idea of what the minister was going to say, our comments at this stage will be very brief.
In general, I feel that we cannot but commend the proposal being introduced this afternoon, particularly when one considers that it is based on the following principle: a person who is in difficulty, who is unemployed, should not rank among the needy, the beggars, his personal dignity having suffered enough already because of his present unemployment. One must necessarily give favourable consideration to any piece of legislation that will contribute to the development of the human person.
TMr. Marchand.]
Everyone agrees that it is urgent to give reorientation or training to thousands of workers. Everyone is happy to see that new skilled workers are trained and that people are given the means to develop the skills needed because of technological changes and the moving or concentration of industries. Finally, no one can object if the provinces are kept informed of every initiative, if they are called upon to participate and to accept the services offered.
However, some safeguards should be included in the bill when it is introduced. Various efforts were made in the past with regard to retraining and vocational training but they have not necessarily given the results hoped for. That is why it is necessary to go about it with great caution in view of what happened in the past.
For instance, I have in mind the danger that may arise from training formulas concentrating only on the training of skilled labour and on the development of new techniques, because, unless we make sure in advance-and those things happen-that there is a market for such crafts, we will find ourselves in a situation where, instead of having one unemployed tinsmith in a given area, we will have, if there are eight applicants, nine unemployed tinsmiths. There will always be a very close relationship to be established between the crafts to be developed and the market open to those who are going to engage in such crafts, considering particularly that you have to ascertain not only the crafts and occupations required, but also to what extent people willing to train will agree to move to where opportunities are, once they have received that training.
Mention has been made recently of mines in outlying areas in urgent need of skilled workers. Let us suppose that people were trained in a central place to meet that requirement. If those people refuse to go where jobs are available, they will have been trained to no avail and it will be necessary to start all over again and offer them another type of training. Therefore, it will be most interesting to study the provisions of the bill to be submitted.
There is, I am sure, some contradiction in the fact that professional training opportunities are being provided when, at the same time, the number of existing training centres is being reduced. I am referring particularly to the phasing out of the vocational schools where it would possibly be more practical to ensure that such premises are fully utilized.
March 3, 1967



This afternoon, during discussion on the preceding resolution, occasional mention was made of education and provincial rights. I think it must be fully realized that any province demanding its provincial rights is not seeking autonomy as an end in itself, but as a means to ensure the development of its heritage and of its citizens.
In such a case, any new situation likely to affect the well-being and the normal development of the citizens should always have a certain priority. This justifies, for instance, the direction and the measures which the federal government wants to present to the provinces, even though they might accept or reject them. The fact that the provinces are sensitive about some fields which, up to now, were considered for specific reasons areas of provincial responsibility, must not restrict the initiatives that the federal government must take, with regard to the full development of our national economy. I am sure that the provinces need no particular spokesman, in one corner of the house or another, to state their rights. The provinces have all the necessary means to put a stop to it if, at one time or another, they feel that there is a negative encroachment on their rights.
Something special may come out of this initiative in the field of training. We talk more and more about training through television, for instance.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I believe that education through television is possible in this field. If provincial authorities denied residents the opportunity to take part in training programs through the television medium, claiming exclusive rights in the field of education and training, these authorities would have a very difficult time trying to explain these restrictions imposed on the citizen.
We speak of training. In the same line of thought, I am sure that before very long there will be televised classes in the schools, in those provinces where an agreement is reached as to a uniform program, so long as the fundamental rights of each province are respected. In my opinion, this particular aspect of the question represents a positive step; it is a step forward.
I believe the hon. minister and his government are worthy of commendation in this respect. But we will wait for the bill which will reveal the process or the means by which this principle will be implemented and applied to industry and schools. We will then be
Occupational Training
able to make more intelligent and surely more complete comments-


David Orlikow: I am sure the broad general principles enunciated by the minister will be welcomed by every member of the house and by every person who has looked at the problem in respect of full employment, and manpower training and retraining in our complex society. Having said that we greet the general principles warmly I must say that if one compares what the minister said today with the results of past programs he will realize the tremendous distance we must cover in the next year or two to implement the things about which the minister spoke.
We welcome the announcement of the minister that training allowances will be paid by the government to people taking training, and that this will in no way jeopardize unemployment insurance benefits. We also welcomed the announcement that 100 per cent of the bills for retraining of students will be paid by the government. This is precisely what I suggested during an earlier debate in relation to tax arrangements, namely that the federal government should accept its responsibilities to help those people who come from or live in have-not provinces.
We will be watching very carefully the details as to how the minister proposes to do these things. We will carefully scrutinize the estimates of the minister's department, the number of centres that will be open and the number of people who are trained. There is, however, a tremendous if not immeasurable gulf between these broad general principles enunciated by the minister and the realities of situations.
Mr. George Bain has an article in the Globe and Mail today under the heading "Have Job-Will Travel". Mr. Bain does have a job and does travel. This article was written in Stockholm and deals with a program which has been in existence in Sweden for a number of years. I commend this article to the minister because it outlines a program which works, and which is far superior to anything this or any other government has established to date. This is the kind of program which if emulated, would allow this government to accomplish a great deal.
Mr. Bain points out that in Sweden the national labour market board, which does essentially the job carried out by the minister's department in Canada, is empowered to retrain a Swedish worker, to pay his and his wife's way to another town to look after a

March 3, 1967
Occupational Training
new job, to help him while he gets settled there, to support her and the family in the old place until he can find a home for them, and to move them. This board can even buy the old house, if it happens to be in a part of the country where the population is declining and the person being moved could sell it otherwise only at a loss.
Mr. Bain spells out some of the details of this program. In part he writes:
An unemployed, or about-to-beeome-unemployed worker, can obtain retraining which may extend up to two years. His basic monthly allowance during that period will be $90 (allowing five Swedish crowns to the dollar), plus $15 lor his wife, and $12 a month for each child-$129 in all, for a man with two children.
(If the same man has to leave his home area to take retraining, he will get about 1,100 Swedish crowns a month, or $220, the amount being flexible to include the total cost of his rent. In all cases, these allowances are tax free.)
Later on Mr. Bain writes this:
For instance, to help provide for the upkeep of his family while he finds a new home for them, the worker who goes to a new place is entitled for 12 months to $44 a month for his wife, $12 for each child, moving expenses when they move, and a so-called installation grant of $411, plus $30 for each child, to help get the new home going.
This is the kind of program which has been in existence for some time in Sweden. It seems to be the kind of program the minister was referring to in broad generalities, but it is not the kind of program we have had in Canada up to now. We have had training programs, but I suppose one could not expect that a training program which started late should be successful at the beginning.
People who have been close to workers and unemployed people, such as representatives of trade unions, whether or not they are affiliated with the Canadian Labour Congress or the Confederation of National Trade Unions, have known from firsthand observation that these training programs were not working.
Program No. 5 had from its inception a fantastically high drop-out rate because the allowances were inadequate. The individuals taking advantage of that program could not continue to do so because they could not maintain their families. It was obvious to these workers and everybody else that if they finished the program they would get better work at higher rates of pay, but that was little consolation when they could not afford to keep their families.
It is true that we have increased very substantially the amounts allowed. However, I think we have to keep a constant eye on
[Mr. Orlikow.l
whether we are doing enough so that workers who are unemployed will be persuaded that it pays them and their families to make the effort to study under the retraining programs which will be offered, so that they can improve themselves.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
One of the difficulties we have had in the past, and which we continue to have in a country as large as Canada, is that very often the jobs available-and in the period of high economic activity which we are now experiencing there is a great number of jobs available-in Hamilton, Toronto or Vancouver, to mention just three of the areas in which there is the highest rate of economic activity, are of little use to the unemployed worker in Newfoundland, Cape Breton or the Gaspe peninsula, even if he has the training to fill the job which is open, if he cannot afford to move his family. When we study the details of the program which the government will be instituting, and when we study in particular the question of retraining, we will have to consider this fact because there will be little purpose in retraining people if we do not enable them to move to the kind of jobs which they have been trained to fill.
The fact is that we have not had this kind of training program in the past. Mr. J. Fenwick, assistant to the director of the largest district covered by the United Steelworkers of America has given particular attention to this problem. In a speech made to a conference convened by the Canadian Labour Congress to deal with manpower training, held about this time last year, he reported that a survey of almost 100,000 workers carried out by their union showed that the training program on the job covered only 1,400 workers out of that group. This is just not good enough. In the same survey it was found that the basic steel fabricating, aluminum and mining companies had only 505 apprentices. Again this is not good enough. While I commend the government for the program establishing these manpower training centres which the minister has announced, it is my opinion that, even though the federal government is prepared to put up substantially more money than it has done in the past, the program will fail unless the people involved are made aware of it, unless they are told the kind of allowances that will be paid and the kind of training which they can receive.
Until now this information has not been made available so that one union leader after
March 3, 1967

another has reported that his members and the workers with whom he has come in contact are almost completely ignorant of the existing training programs. I hope the new Department of Manpower and Immigration will set up advisory committees of labour and industry so that the information about the kind of programs which the minister has announced today will be made available to unions and to management, and that the minister and his department will go out, in cooperation with labour and management, and do a selling job to convince people that there is hope for them, that they should avail themselves of the opportunities which are now being provided by the government, and that it is in their interest and in the interest of their families that they avail themselves of the retraining programs and thus upgrade their skills and knowledge.
We may have heard an excellent speech from the minister, and he may have enunciated very important principles which will be useful to the working population of Canada, but without this kind of aggressive program of education and salesmanship-although I am not particularly enthused by the term "salesmanship"-I am afraid that this program will fail, as have past programs.
In closing I would urge the minister, in introducing the bill, to give the members of the house the information requested by my colleague, the hon. member for York South, as to the amount of money which the government envisages will be allocated to this program over the next two or three years, the number of people it is expected can be trained, the number of manpower centres which will be established, and all the other information which was requested, so that the house can be assured that the government is serious about this program, that it intends to proceed with the retraining of the people of Canada who need the kind of training about which the minister has spoken, and so that we can get a meaningful program rather than just the excellent speeches we have so often heard in the last half dozen years.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, in the next two minutes I want to say that the minister's explanation of this adult training program does in fact confirm the objections I raised to resolution which appears as order number 135, namely that it leaves a gap. This program is only for people who have been in the labour force and are now unemployed, and
Business of the House
who can enhance their opportunity for getting a job by retraining. This legislation does not cover the young unemployed adults, the dropouts from high school who did not get the best secondary education either in vocational training schools or universities.
It seems to me that the legislation does not cover this group. The minister cannot justify the gap by saying that the federal government has no jurisdiction in the area of education, in view of the fact that there is now before the house a resolution which stands as item 135 on the order paper and which provides for large federal grants for post-secondary education purposes. Neither of the two acts covers young people up to the age of 18 or 19 who have not achieved the scholastic or academic standing necessary to obtain junior matriculation.
The minister might say that the provinces can pick up the tab; but why should the full responsibility for retraining these young people be put on the provinces, if the federal government finds that there is justification for retraining post-secondary students and adults? To leave this gap does not make sense to me.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Marchand thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-278, respecting the occupational training of adults.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


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



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Pennell:: May I be permitted to announce the business of the house for Monday? The government proposes to call item 119, third reading of Bill No. C-259, to amend the Income Tax Act and repeal the Canadian Vessel Construction Assistance Act; item 135, second reading of the bill dealing with federal-provincial fiscal arrangements; item 63, Bill No. C-190 respecting the Bank of Canada Act; item 136, Bill No. C-257, respecting the Canada Corporations Act; item 137, the resolution concerning the amendment to the Parliamentary Secretaries Act, and then item 74, the Bank Act. I would ask the indulgence of the house because it may be necessary to
March 3, 1967

Extension of Sitting Hours reverse the order of item 136, the Canada Corporations Act and item 137, the Parliamentary Secretaries Act.


Thomas Miller Bell: Is the minister confident that the bill based on the resolution which stands as item 135 will be available in time? If it is not available until Monday morning, I doubt if there will be time to give such an important bill the necessary study.


Lawrence T. Pennell: The minister gave me the assurance that the bill was printed and ready for distribution upon the passing of the resolution. I would agree with the observations of the hon. member if the bill were not printed, but I have been assured it is, and that it is Bill No. C-277.


Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: May
I ask if the bill based on the resolution, item 134, will be coming up again? I refer to the one we were discussing this afternoon.


Lawrence T. Pennell: No, it is not being called for Monday.



EXTENSION OF ORDER GOVERNING HOURS OF SITTING

Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member who is about to address the house, but by leave I should like to revert to motions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the minister leave to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I move:
That the order of the house adopted on February 20, 1967, suspending the sittings of the house from seven o'clock p.m. to eight o'clock p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays and from one o'clock to two o'clock p.m. on Fridays be extended for a further two week period commencing March 6, 1967.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. O'Keefe:: Mr. Speaker, by consent may we stand items 1 to 9 on today's order paper under "Public Bills", and take item No. 10 standing in the name of the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade)?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house agree to stand public bills on today's order paper, items 1 to 9?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-38, to amend the Criminal Code (provincial lotteries).

He said: Mr. Speaker, for the fifth consecutive year I have the honour to introduce a bill to amend section 179 of the Criminal Code, in order to make an exception to that legislation and enable or authorize provincial governments, which would like to do so, to establish their own provincial schemes intended solely and strictly for provincial purposes, especially welfare and education as well as any other responsibility falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, I have made five attempts to try to convince my colleagues of the House of Commons by substantive arguments, reports of investigations and finally by indications of popular opinion, that it is time for the government to change its policy on this matter and yield to the evidence that a majority of people is asking that provincial governments be authorized to legalize the organization of lotteries in provinces.
During previous discussions, certain members representing various parties in the house have supported the substance and the letter of the legislation which I introduced during those past years.
All the spokesmen of the parties have approved the principle that I would like to stress, and no one has opposed either this bill or its implications.
Unfortunately, however, they resorted to the well-known process of stifling with praise and kind words this bill which I shall again attempt to have accepted by this house. I hope that today the house will express its views by a vote, and that we shall not have recourse to dilatory practices to prevent the passage of a bill which seems to fulfil the wishes of the public at large.
I wish to thank the N.D.P. and Social Credit members, and even the government members who supported me in the past in my efforts initiated many years ago while I tried to persuade my colleagues that it was high time for the house to take a clear and definite stand on this matter.
Since I failed in my attempts, Mr. Speaker, I decided to conduct a national investigation
March 3, 1967

myself, that is, I attempted to ascertain the consensus of opinion in each province. It seems to me that the work I performed was incumbent upon the governmental authorities, particularly the Minister of Justice and Attorney General (Mr. Cardin) who is responsible for such an amendment. Well, owing to the department's inertia, I would say, in this respect, I personally undertook to conduct such an investigation.
I am happy to have the opportunity today to let my colleagues in the house know the results of this investigation conducted through most of the Canadian municipalities, either through the mayor himself or through the municipal councils.
Over the past two years I have sent a questionnaire to many Canadian municipalities from Halifax to Vancouver, including the Northwest Territories. I wanted to establish unequivocally whether Canadians in general, and provincial residents in particular would favour an amendment to the Criminal Code in order to allow the provinces to have their own lottery system.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I have here a large collection of these questionnaires that I had sent to the mayors. I urge hon. members to consult this huge file. Every answer has been listed, province by province, in that record which I am ready to put at the disposal of the Department of Justice so that it can confirm or invalidate the result of that investigation which leaves no doubt concerning the general approval of my initiatives and those of a great number of Canadians who devoted themselves in the past to advocate this idea of provincial lotteries.
I wish to emphasize the splendid work done over many years by one Mrs. English, of Calgary, who gathered more than 500,000 signatures for a petition in favour of the establishment of a lottery in Canada, a few years ago.
The result of my investigation supports that petition and, moreover, adds opinions from each of the provinces.
For instance, from the province of Manitoba, where 1 sent 43 questionnaires, I received 18 answers, 11 of which were for and 7 against. From Saskatchewan, out of the 44 questionnaires I forwarded, I received 23 answers, 20 favourable and 3 unfavourable. In Alberta, 31 municipalities answered favourably and 6 unfavourably. Out of the 86 questionnaires sent to British Columbia, I received 56 answers, 47 of which were favourable
Criminal Code Amendment and only 4 unfavourable. In the Northwest Territories, I sent one questionnaire and the answer was unfavourable. From Newfoundland, out of 21 municipalities, 7 answered favourably and one unfavourably. From Prince Edward Island, two declared themselves in favour and none against. From Nova Scotia, out of 19 answers received, 13 were favourable and 2 unfavourable. From New Brunswick, out of 14 answers, 8 were favourable and 3 unfavourable. Ontario, of course, gave much more significant answers, in view of the great number of municipalities in that province. Out of the 233 questionnaires I sent, I received 111 answers, 94 of which were favourable and 8 only were opposed. In the province of Quebec, out of the 207 questionnaires I sent, I received 135 answers, 134 were favourable and one opposed.
Mr. Speaker, out of 428 replies received from municipalities across the land, 367 were in favour of provincial lotteries and only 36 were against. That is a clear and explicit expression of the Canadian people's opinion on the possibility of setting up a system of provincially operated lotteries.
Now, in the light of such obvious and favourable replies, I wonder why the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) and the government still hesitate, even today, to vote on this bill, so that hon. members might have a chance of expressing their views. If hon. members truly wish to express an opinion which reflects the wishes and desires of the people they represent here, there is no doubt that the house will amend the Criminal Code so as to authorize the provinces to set up their own system of lotteries.
That is the problem in many circles which fear some small groups of reactionaries, of bigots and I would even say of chauvinists who, out of personal conviction or taking their stand on a principle supposedly connected with public morality, object to the government amending the Criminal Code and allowing the establishment of provincial lotteries.
Now, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect for the views of such people, I feel that if it is to be argued that lotteries are against public morality, those people should be told that there are some criteria making it possible to determine whether or not lotteries are against public morality. Mr. Speaker, there are three such criteria.
If the lottery is free from fraud and under government control for the common good, I believe that, in such a case, public morals are
13746	COMMONS
Criminal Code Amendment not involved and the argument of the opposing groups does not stand.
On the other hand, it more than statistics or inquiries are required to prove the desirability of establishing a lottery, I suggest that the house refer to the views expressed by the provincial premiers themselves.
During the federal-provincial conference held in Ottawa in November 1963, the question of a provincial lottery was brought up. At that time, some provincial premiers as well as the Prime Minister of Canada expressed their views.
On being questioned at the end of one of these conferences, Mr. Robichaud, premier of New Brunswick, stated that his province had no firm idea on this problem, although he was not opposed to a lottery.
Mr. Lesage, then premier of Quebec province, is supposed to have said: If lotteries were legalized, they could provide additional revenues to the province, which greatly needs them.
On the other hand, Mr. Robarts, premier of Ontario, expressed a favourable opinion by stating that he was for the minor amendments to legalize bingos and other ancillary lotteries.
Prince Edward Island, British Columbia, and Alberta are opposed in principle, but they are not against the expression of opinions. They did not bring forward any denial and they did not make any formal opposition.
The present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) also expressed a personal opinion at the conclusion of this conference, and I quote his words:
The establishment of a federal lottery does not interest the central government, but amendment to criminal code will be examined in the light of the views expressed by the provinces.
Now, you see, Mr. Speaker, these are extremely serious thoughts, allowing the members or permitting them, if they so desire, to express their views and vote on this question, since we are aware of the opinions of several prime ministers, federal or provincial, and we have at our disposal the results of some popular surveys which leave no doubt on the increasing popularity of the idea.
Some time ago, I took part in some radio and television broadcasts on this matter, and I am happy to tell my colleagues that I have received over 1,200 letters from viewers and listeners who encouraged my efforts to convince the government that the time has come to act and to have the house decide on this question.

DEBATES	March 3, 1967
There are also many social groups which have endorsed the legalization of lotteries, and still do, at the federal as well as the provincial level, as I am suggesting.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
On November 19, 1963, there has been the Quebec Federation of School Boards. In its report, the Royal Commission on Health Services in Canada had advanced this possibility.
In a brief submitted to the Royal Commission on April 17, 1962, "L'Association des medecins de langue frangaise du Canada, Quebec section, had also endorsed this idea. The United Textile Workers of America had also supported this view during a congress held in Trois-Rivieres.
The Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities had also approved this opinion on jVIay 31, 1963. On December 19, 1962, the Quebec Boards of trade had also agreed on the possibility of amending the Criminal Code in favour of lotteries.
The Canadian Railway Workers Federation, in a brief submitted to the federal government, also endorsed lotteries. And many organizations have supported and expressed opinions in favour of legislation to permit the setting up of provincial lotteries.
Now, Mr. Speaker, several advantages could be outlined in favour of lotteries. I will simply summarize five major ones to my way of thinking.
First, this legislation would leave the provinces entirely free to act or not to act in this field.
Second, the setting up of Canadian lotteries would stop the drain of our money to foreign countries; as reported in certain quarters, this amounts to something like $150 to $200 million per year.
It would also put a check on the illegal lotteries which are found in such great numbers in all the big cities of Canada. A provincial lottery would also be a source of employment for people who for lack of qualifications can only hold part-time jobs or do general work.
Fifth, it would be for the provinces a source of income voluntarily fed by the people and which could be used for provincial purposes exclusively.
There are throughout the world over 70 countries which operate a lottery and recently in the United States the state of New York, following the state of New Jersey, decided to operate its own lottery. What we are waiting
March 3, 1967	COMMONS
for in Canada is to do the same and assume our responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, after five years of work and discussions, after a number of bills introduced exactly in that same spirit by colleagues in this house, the time has come to vote on that matter.
I note that some of my Social Credit colleagues have also put a bill similar to mine on the order paper. If in the past five years there have been discussions and investigations, and if even federal-provincial conferences have put this item on their agenda, so as to allow discussions on the advisability of amending the Criminal Code in order to legalize lotteries in the provinces, I wonder why we, legislators, are waiting to settle this matter.
Those who for reasons of political partisanship will object or practise obstruction, as is too often done in this house, in order to kill such a bill, will be answerable to their constituents whom they represent in the Commons. They will be answerable to public opinion in their riding.
A few years ago-I can see the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Pepin) bursting out laughing. He does not seem to fear the opinion of his constituents. Perhaps he is callous and has joined, in his complacency, the former Quebec premier who paid for it through defeat during the last provincial election. But if hon. members of this house, especially those who represent Quebec ridings, do not realize that 80 per cent of the people of that province have declared themselves in favour of a provincial lottery and if the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Pepin) is so energetic, why does he persist in objecting to a bill which answers and meets the aspirations of 80 per cent of the people who are called upon to elect him?
If for reasons of partisanship, some hon. members refuse to voice their opinions by a vote, they will have to account for it to those who are responsible for their election.
A few years ago a colleague of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the hon. member for Saint-Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien) presented Bill No. C-2, to change the name of Trans-Canada Air Lines into Air Canada and, during the hour set aside for consideration of public bills, opposition members co-operated with the hon. member.
At that time, the bill to change Trans-Canada Air Lines' name into Air Canada was 23033-869
Criminal Code Amendment adopted, because we showed political responsibility in this house.
I urge members on the government side and the minister to call for a vote. That is not complicated and I know that by voting, we will be acting responsibly towards our constituents whom we represent in this house.


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, three private members bills relating to lotteries have been introduced during the present session of parliament, Bill No. C-38 being introduced by the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade) who has just resumed his seat, Bill No. C-42 by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) and Bill No. C-84 by the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Gray). The first two bills would amend section 179 of the Criminal Code, to permit a lottery organized and operated by a provincial government, where the purpose is, in the one case "to provide financial assistance to hospitals or for other welfare purposes, under provincial jurisdiction" or in the other case to provide "for payment in the province of additional amounts with respect to family allowances and old age pensions".
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Bill C-84 sponsored by the hon. member for Essex West would repeal the provisions of section 168 which deals with common gaming houses, and would give certain immunities to social clubs, charitable and religious organizations, and would further repeal section 179 dealing with lotteries to give certain immunities to charitable and religious bazaars and allow a wider exemption for games and lotteries held by private charitable organizations, provided the gain to the organization is expended for a charitable purpose within six months. It would seem that recent stories about the financial success of lotteries in such places as New Hampshire in the United States, New South Wales in Australia, and New Zealand, have stimulated interest in this subject.
Bill C-42 immediately follows Bill C-38 on the public bills list, and it may be that today's debate will be continued in private members hour a week hence, as the subject matter of both bills is practically the same. There would seem to be little likelihood of Bill C-84 being reached in the present session, as it is No. 42 on the order paper.
Mr. Speaker, the last official inquiry in Canada into the policy of lotteries, including bingo and similar games, was made by a joint
13748	COMMONS
Criminal Code Amendment committee of the Senate and House of Commons which made its report on July 31, 1956. The report recommended several minor clarifications of the lottery provisions of the Criminal Code and some comparatively minor relaxations in favour of charitable purposes, but it recommended expressly against state lotteries. It was recommended that three types of lotteries be permitted as follows:
1.	Lotteries licensed under provincial authority in aid of charitable, religious and community purposes, provided the retail value of prizes offered by any one organization does not exceed $5,000 in any year, promotion expenses are prohibited, expenses such as rent and advertising are restricted, and audited reports are submitted to the licensing authority.
2.	Small raffles of goods, without licence, in connection with non-commercial gatherings, provided the raffle is merely incidental to the gathering and the prizes do not exceed $50 in total value.
3.	All midways at agricultural fairs, as presently allowed, with the further concession that agricultural fair associations be permitted, if licensed, to hold lotteries for prizes not exceeding a total of $10,000 yearly in connection with the presale of admission tickets.
The question of lotteries, particularly state lotteries, was discussed at the federal-provincial conference held in November, 1963 and the attitude of the provinces differed widely. Quebec put the case for state lotteries. Nova Scotia was not interested in a state lottery, but favoured some relaxation in favour of small raffles. Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan were opposed to state lotteries. Manitoba expressed interest in the legalizing of off-track betting. Prince Edward Island expressed some interest in the New Hampshire scheme. Newfoundland did not take up a position. New Brunswick was not interested, itself, in conducting a state lottery, but had no objection to an amendment which would permit another province to do so. Ontario took somewhat the same position as New Brunswick, although it anticipated enforcement problems should a state lottery be set up in a neighbouring province. All these attitudes were informally stated. At the conclusion of the 1963 conference, the following press release was issued:
Some provincial governments explained the difficulties they have in enforcing the provisions of the Criminal Code in respect of lotteries and gambling. Suggestions were made that the institution of provincial lotteries would alleviate this situation. Other provinces, however, opposed this suggestion. The federal government indicated that

DEBATES	March 3, 1967
it had no interest in instituting a federal lottery but undertook to consider the amendment of the Criminal Code in the light of the view put forward.
The matter was considered again at the conference of attorneys-general on organized crime held in Ottawa on January 6, and 7, 1966. At this conference, provincial attitudes again varied widely and may be summarized as follows: Quebec again put the case for state lotteries under provincial auspices, expressing the view that such lotteries would help eliminate rackets in this field. Manitoba favoured some relaxation of the present provisions in favour of charitable and benevolent organizations, under provincial licence, the conditions to be uniform and stated in the Criminal Code; by implication it was against state lotteries. British Columbia was completely opposed to state lotteries; it considered that racketeers manage to get into even charitable and benevolent lotteries and that it is impossible to carve out a government niche free from danger of such intrusions.
Spokesmen for the province challenged the Quebec view that state lotteries would solve the racket problem and considered a review of the gambling laws to be more important than that of the lotteries laws, because gambling is one of the most important areas of organized criminal activity in Canada. They suggested an all party committee of the House of Commons to study gambling laws. Saskatchewan referred with approbation to a working paper which has been discussed by the criminal law section of the conference on uniformity of legislation in 1960; by implication Saskatchewan appeared to be against state lotteries. This working paper comprised a draft revision of the lottery sections designed to implement substantially the recommendations of the 1956 joint committee. The views of the section were in line with those of the joint committee, to the effect that any relaxation of the law should be in the field of charities. Ontario had no instructions upon, and no interest in, state lotteries, but it was not opposed to small charitable lotteries governed by the Criminal Code.
* (5:40 p.m.)
Nova Scotia was against state lotteries in Nova Scotia and in any other province because a state lottery in another province would put Nova Scotia in a very difficult political position. It felt, however, that the existing gap between present law and present practice brings the law into disrepute and adjustments are necessary, and it agreed
March 3, 1967	COMMONS
generally with Saskatchewan. Alberta and New Brunswick, being represented by their deputy attorneys general, made no comment and the record does not indicate that Prince Edward Island made any comment either.
At the conclusion of the conference of January, 1966, the following statement was issued:
The government of Canada will consider lotteries and the gaming sections along with all other amendments to the Criminal Code suggested at this conference. As to lotteries and the gaming sections the report of the Senate and House of Commons committee, other representations received, the views expressed at this conference and the work already done in the Department of Justice will be examined and considered in the department and a report made to the government.
The reply that the Department of Justice has been making to all persons who have written to make representations, for or against state lotteries, or relaxation of the gaming and lottery provisions in their application to charitable organizations, is to refer to the statements issued following the federal-provincial conference of November, 1963, and that of January, 1966, and to state that the opinions received upon this somewhat controversial subject will be carefully considered in connection with the review that is now under way.
Generally speaking, Mr. Speaker, most of the churches have expressed themselves as opposed to state lotteries and to any extension of the immunities given to charitable and religious organizations, the Church of England going so far as to ask to be expressly excluded from such immunities.
Strong representations in favour of relaxing the immunities in favour of charitable organizations have come from certain service clubs. Representations in favour of state sweepstakes have come from various organizations and individuals, and particularly the Quebec government.
It is interesting to consider the experience of the United Kingdom where small pools and lotteries are legal. There have been two royal commissions on lotteries and betting in the United Kingdom since 1930. The first one sat in 1932 and 1933, and the second one in parts of the years 1949 and 1951. The 1932-33 report recommended against the institution of large lotteries in the United Kingdom, but said that if it should be decided to permit the institution of any large lottery, the least objectionable form would be a state lottery for the benefit of the exchequer. Of course we have to bear in mind here that the United Kingdom is a unitary state, whereas we are a 23033-8691
Criminal Code Amendment federation of federal government and ten provinces.
The 1949-51 commission considered the question of national lotteries as part of an inquiry into the whole field of gambling. Generally speaking, it did not find that gambling in moderation had any serious, economic, social or moral consequences. It did not believe, however, that the state should take a direct part in providing gambling facilities unless there were special reasons therefor. Approaching the question of a national lottery from these viewpoints, it said it did not consider that a lottery is a form of gambling which is likely to lead to excessive expenditure on the part of individuals or to an undue preoccupation with gambling.
It expressed the view that the estimate of revenue which may be obtained from a national lottery is usually greatly exaggerated by the supporters of the proposal, and it thought that a national lottery would add to rather than displace existing forms of gambling.
The commission said it did not overlook certain advantages of a national lottery: It was cheap to run; made no great demands on manpower; avoided any undesirable forms of advertising and inducement; assured honesty in administration; could be regulated in size to correspond with current economic conditions, and could be abolished without affecting vested interests. The commission concluded, however, that there was no important advantage to be gained by establishing a national lottery and no reason, therefore, to depart from the general principle that it is undesirable for the state to make itself responsible for the provision of gambling facilities.
Now, let us review some of the more important considerations in the Canadian context-


Georges-J. Valade: Would the hon. member allow a question?


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Certainly.


Georges-J. Valade: Although I am very much edified by some of the hon. member's remarks about the English commission on crime, does the hon. member not realize that we in Canada pay out over $200 million a year to foreign lotteries, and we allow this because of a law which is hypocritical in this regard? Is the hon. member himself favourable or unfavourable to establishing a national lottery? Does he not recognize that the inquiry
13750	COMMONS
Criminal Code Amendment conducted in all the provinces has shown our people's opinion, and not England's opinion, on this matter? Does he not think it is our responsibility to follow the Canadian people's opinion and not that of the royal commission on crime in England? Is the hon. member for or against the proposal?


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Let me answer in my own way.
I do not think there is anything hypocritical about the federal government's position on this matter. The enforcement of the Criminal Code of Canada is up to the provinces and not up to the federal government, and it is probably true that in many parts of Canada there should be greater enforcement of the Criminal Code. Second, I think I take a fairly moderate position on this whole matter.
I cannot get too excited either one way or the other in this controversy.


Georges-J. Valade: Then why did the hon. member speak?


Sylvester Perry Ryan: The federal government is just not interested in lotteries. It has too many other things to think of, too many other priorities. Possibly it should be nationalizing the drug trade, or something like that, as one priority. If the provinces want to put their staffs and energies to work to set up lottery organizations, I do not see why we should not assist them-if they really want that. But they too must have priorities and other problems to take care of first.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret I have to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, as one who favours public control and public operation of lotteries I wish to say a few brief words. I do not intend to talk out this measure because I support the hon. member's proposal. First, it seems to me we should keep in mind that the question today is not whether we want to have lotteries: We have them. The last estimate I received showed we have 28 separate illegal lotteries operating in Canada.
Gambling and drinking are two of the world's most ancient frailties, and for a long time past governments have acted to control drinking. At present some 30 countries in the world have acted to control forms of gambling. In this country we have control of gambling at the race tracks, and some people would also say we have had control of gambling in the stock markets for many years.

DEBATES	March 3, 1967
I think we should have governmental control, provincial or federal, of publicly operated lotteries. One of the facts in support of this proposal is that at the present time many millions of dollars are leaving our country every year to go to privately and publicly operated lotteries in other countries, and it seems to me logical that we should try to keep this money at home.
A very modest estimate of sweepstake or lottery revenue for a province the size of my own, British Columbia, with quarterly lotteries conducted by the government, is that it would amount to over $1 million a year in extra public revenue. I look on the idea of a lottery conducted by a provincial or a federal government as an indirect or do-it-yourself tax. I believe that nowadays, when we are looking for revenue, we should not overlook any additional way to obtain it. Canada is one of the dwindling number of countries which do not have some form of government operated lottery. Over 30 different countries now have lotteries.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Finally, I would urge support of the hon. member's bill from the point of view of a respect for law. At present we have so many illegal sweepstakes and lotteries which are operated in Canada that the law is in great disrespect. I believe that if this were regulated by the provinces, those who wish to conduct lotteries would be able to do so with public support.
If we cannot bring this to a vote tonight, I should like to see this bill and one or two others like it referred to a committee such as the committee on justice and legal affairs. This committee could consider these bills jointly as has been done in respect of other proposals, and recommendations could be made. I should like to see this come to a vote.


Mr. Henri Latulippe (Compion-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on the bill and also thank the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade) for a marvellous job across the country to find out the views of the whole population on lotteries. We are one hundred per cent behind him and we support all who favour the establishment of lotteries because the latter are needed by the provinces.
Many provinces have no idea where to find funds to finance education and all kinds of social programs, to finance all kinds of assistance programs for human beings. So,
March 3, 1967

we are far from being against lotteries. We want them because we feel that the millions or billions they would bring in would go to the people for the development and the education of Canadian citizens. It is a source of income we are losing at this time because, as it has been said by several others, much of this money is now going to other countries and in no way helps the cause of the Canadian people. I believe that if we pass this bill giving the provinces the opportunity of taking advantage of this act, or this amendment to the Criminal Code, we will do a great service to the population.
I again support the member for Sainte-Marie, and I think that all Canadians and all the members of our party and many other parties share these views. Lotteries have been talked about for a long time, particularly in the province of Quebec. This has been repeatedly requested for many years and Ottawa has always opposed any change to this effect in the Criminal Code. I believe that the time has come when we must assume our responsibilities and support vigorously the bill sponsored by the hon. member for Sainte-Marie. I suggest that we proceed with the vote without delay.


Mr. Auguste Choquetle (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I extremely regret that the sponsor of this bill, the member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade), has talked for twenty minutes, since he has used up all the time allotted to him. If he could have restrained himself we would have had the opportunity to say what we wanted on the matter and afterwards the question could have been put. But the hon. member has taken up all the time allotted to him. He was entitled to twenty minutes and he has spoken for twenty minutes. He could have spoken for two minutes, because we were acquainted with the substance and the purpose of that bill. Instead of being reasonable enough to let several other members state their opinion, he took up all the time allotted to him, and will thus prevent the house from voting. He has, in other words, filibustered his own bill.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Lotbiniere is not saying the truth when he states that I spent all the time available to me on a discussion of that bill. His colleague who spoke after me, also took the time allotted to him and the hon. member for Lotbiniere is the second Liberal member to speak-when he could have allowed the house to take the vote.
Criminal Code Amendment


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, beside the twenty minutes he has taken for his speech, he is now on a point of order to extend the debate further. The hon. member will preclude the vote.
This is what I had to say in respect of this bill. I agree with the principles involved in lotteries, as is everyone in the province of Quebec, if I may say so. On the other hand, I disagree with the bill as it is introduced by the hon. member because it is much too summary and we cannot see our way clear. First, in order that some lotteries may be instituted, of course, we need a government bill and not a private bill.
Second, in this private bill-this is its essential weakness-the operational structure of the lotteries is not outlined. How are we to rely on a bill so short and so simple to determine the existence of lotteries in the province and in the country?
Third, there is need for a uniform legislation in the country. Now, the bill leaves it up to the provinces to establish their own lottery, without knowing exactly what will happen in the other provinces. The province of Quebec may have lotteries, but supposing that Ontario and Manitoba prohibit lotteries, what might happen, if not a confusion which it will be difficult to prevent.
In view of such pitiable deficiencies, we are not in a position, for the time being, to say that the hon. member's bill should be passed. However, we can say-at least I can say so on my own behalf-that we will support the principle of such a legislation.
The member for Sainte-Marie stated: "I have made an investigation across the country". Basing myself on a remark of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, I might very well say that I am going to make an investigation everywhere in the country and ask people if they are in favour of family planning. Everybody will say yes, but what means could we apply to implement such planning? Are we to favour abortion? The investigation made by the member has not indicated the object of his bill; this investigation reveals nothing, except that the principle is acceptable, but since the methods of implementation are not sufficiently determined, we cannot accept such a weak document. Mr. Speaker, that is why I am against the member's bill, although I favour its principle, e (6:00 p.m.)


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I am quite willing, in order
March 3, 1967

Criminal Code Amendment to edify the member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) who talks in such a way as to leave doubts about the honesty of my investigation, to table the documents I used, provided he requests it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Allow me to point out to the hon. member that it is now six o'clock. I do not wish to deprive the hon. member of his right to rise on a question of privilege, but I beg of him to be as brief as possible.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. One question of
privilege at a time.


Auguste Choquette: I point out to the hon. member that he has just killed his own bill.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to argue with the Chair, but I would merely point out to Your Honour that the hour for private members' bills started only at 5.12. In fact, the business of the house planned for next Monday took 12 minutes. Therefore, we have another 12 minutes to deal with this bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Unfortunately, according to standing orders, the hour assigned for private member's bills is now over.

It being after six o'clock, the house stands adjourned until 2.30 on Monday afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
It being two minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 6, 1967