1967-10-26

Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-172 entitled "An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (Qualifications of voters and candidates)".


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Canada Elections Act in order that only Canadian citizens may be enfranchised in a general election or in a by-election, that the age of voters may be reduced to 18 and that only Canadian citizens aged 18 and over may be entitled to run in a general election or in a by-election.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIME MINISTER


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Essex South) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-173, respecting the designation "prime minister".


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the main reason I enter this bill is that I am a strong believer in Canada as a nation, a unified nation. I believe the more people we have running around this nation calling themselves "prime minister" the more confusion will be created in people's minds about our nation being one nation with one prime minister. I believe it is the height of hypocrisy for these premiers to talk of unity on one hand and then ask to be called "prime minister" on the other.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am a Canadian who believes only one man in Canada should be called the prime minister, and that man is the leader of our federal parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Loney (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. It is based on the economic council report that 200,000 new homes are needed annually to house the increase in population and new family formations. Since housing starts in Canada are now running at an annual rate of 178,000, what direct and positive action is the government considering to ensure that the need will be met?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have some doubt whether a question of the type asked by the hon. member is in order. As he knows, under the rules he is obliged to ask more specific questions than this. He is asking the minister to make a general statement, and in my view this is the type of information that ought to be given on motions rather than by way of an answer to an oral question.


Edison John Clayton Loney: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. Michael Slarr (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the importance of the matter and because it is so late in the year to reach the goal that has been set for housing in Canada, I ask the Minister of Labour will he make a policy statement within the next few days on this very urgent matter.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, a number of statements have been made during recent weeks on the subject of housing, and I do not believe that any useful purpose would be served by making a further statement at this time.


Michael Starr: May I ask a supplementary question. Can the Minister of Labour tell us whether there are any plans to cope with this situation and to reach the target?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is restating the question asked by the hon. member for Bruce.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question for the Minister of Labour. I should like to ask him whether he will discuss with the

October 26, 1967
Inquiries oj the Ministry Prime Minister the possibility of tabling the letter from the Prime Minister to the premiers of the provinces calling for a conference on December 11 on housing and related matters, so that members of this house may see what the proposed agenda is.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I shall be glad to discuss this with the Prime Minister, but I think it might be more opportune to wait until the Prime Minister has had an opportunity to receive some replies.


Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the obvious responsibility which I believe the larger municipalities have in respect of housing, would the Minister of Labour tell us whether the municipalities will be represented in some way at this conference which is to be held in December?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I should think that would be a matter for the heads of the provincial governments to decide. The municipalities are creatures of the provinces. An invitation has been extended to the premiers of the ten provinces by the Prime Minister, and they have been asked to bring along such people as they think may be able to contribute to the discussion and advise the governments concerned.



WHEAT-MAINTENANCE OF PRICE RANGE UNDER INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, I will take that question into consideration and give an answer tomorrow.']
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce with regard to the international grains arrangement, 1967, which he tabled in the house the day before yesterday. In view of the fact that this arrangement does not become effective, even if ratified, until July 1, 1968, is there any addendum to it or any written agreement among the signatories to carry out the assurance the minister gave the house last May that the price range contained in the agreement would be observed until the agreement came into effect?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the minister gave
[Mr. Lewis.)
the assurance to the house that the price range would be maintained during this 11 month period when no agreement was in effect, was that the result of a gentleman's agreement among the signatories or merely a pious hope on the part of the minister?


Robert Henry Winters: I do not think I expressed a pious hope or referred to a gentleman's agreement. I said that generally speaking the price would respond to the forces of the market.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question for the minister. Do I take it, then, that the government intends to allow wheat to be sold in the world markets at less than the floor price?


Robert Henry Winters: If we have to, in order to meet international competition. I hope that will not be the case too often. Where it is the case the differential will be paid to the wheat board, as I outlined earlier.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Could he tell the house whether the situation in Cyprus is such, in his opinion, that we can expect our troops to return at the end of the year, when the agreement comes to an end?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secreiary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question into consideration and give an answer tomorrow.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Solicitor General. It is an important question so far as the mental health of the Canadian people is concerned. Has the minister requested a full report from the R.C.M.P. in reference to the allegations by responsible people that draft dodgers from the United States are peddling marijuana? If not, is he prepared to ask the R.C.M.P. for such a report, and will he report to the House of Commons in this regard?
October 26, 1967


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Whenever the R.C.M.P. receives a report that people are breaking the law it conducts an investigation. I assume it will do the same in these circumstances.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the minister misunderstood me. Will he inform the House of Commons if a report saying that draft dodgers are illegally peddling marijuana in Canada is brought to his attention?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I feel this is an extraordinary request, because I should have to report to the house every time someone violated the law of Canada in this regard. I confidently assure the hon. member that if such breaches of the law are brought to the attention of the R.C.M.P. it will take immediate action.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister without Portfolio who is sitting behind the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


Mr. Laing:: You have the wrong minister.


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: I am the Postmaster General.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I beg your pardon. I am addressing my question to the Minister without Portfolio, wherever he is. I wish to ask this question, Mr. Speaker, to clear some confusion in my mind. Perhaps the Acting Prime Minister can help me. In view of the position taken by the Acting Prime Minister the other day with respect to the use of the phrase "prime minister", and considering the bill tabled by a member of his party this afternoon, can the Acting Prime Minister inform the house why the Minister without Portfolio writes to the premier of British Columbia addressing him as "Mr. Prime Minister"?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: I have always recognized the Minister without Portfolio to be a generous and very diplomatic man.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Is the minister satisfied

Inquiries of the Ministry that the security of the state is able to withstand the disclosure that the armed forces are substituting a soft shoe drill routine for parade ground-shaking foot stamping; and can an expectant nation soon learn of other significant reforms in the Department of National Defence?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the galloping danger from air pollution, will the government immediately consider allowing tax incentives to any plants that instal antipollution devices?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: These incentives
already exist, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct to a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Can he tell the house if discussions have been or will be initiated between the Aluminum Company of Canada and his department about the retraining of that company's employees who will be laid off early next year when the processing plant in Wakefield shuts down for good?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the hon. member's question is not of any immediate urgency since he is alluding to a situation that might arise next year only.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Mr. Speaker, that matter is as important for the riding of Gatineau as that of Dosco for the maritimes.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the Aluminum Company of Canada has advised the Department of Manpower and Immigration of its intention to close down its plant at Wakefield; there have been meetings of provincial authorities with the authorities of the company and representatives of our

October 26, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry department; other meetings are scheduled and we shall do everything possible to find jobs for people who will be laid oil, either in the area or in the locality itself.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Mr. J. N. Ormislon (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In his absence may I direct it to his parliamentary secretary, who may take it as notice. What action is being taken by the minister's department to prevent the flooding of the Canadian market with United States turkeys at prices with which our Canadian producers cannot compete?


Mr. Bruce S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: I thank the hon. member for his question. I shall bring it to the minister's attention.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: My
question is for the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister suggested to his colleague the Minister of Finance that a good way to bring about substantial reductions in government expenditures and save tens and possibly hundreds of millions of dollars is to repatriate the Canadian army brigade and air division from Europe?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot ask about communications between members of the cabinet.


Francis Andrew Brewin: May I rephrase my question, Mr. Speaker. In an effort to assist the Minister of Finance to reduce government expenditures has the minister proposed the repatriation of the Canadian army brigade and air division now in Europe, thereby saving tens and perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: I have not, Mr. Speaker, because I do not believe in that proposition.



NATIONAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Justice a question in the absence of the Prime Minister. Could the minister tell us when we may expect a report from the royal commission established to investigate security procedures in Canada?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may be permitted to deal with this question. It is my understanding that we should not expect the report until some time in the middle of next year; and that is not a firm date according to my knowledge at this time.


Mr. Fullon:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that this commission was established in November of last year, could the minister tell us whether it has completed the taking of evidence?


Lawrence T. Pennell: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that I am not able to be helpful to the hon. member on that point. The royal commission is, of course, master of its own procedure. It has been some time now since I appeared before the commission as a witness. At that time it was my understanding that they did not expect to complete their report until some time in 1968.


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


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Justice had something to add to the reply of the Solicitor General.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister a supplementary answer?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, I was going to say "While I am on my feet", but I should say "While I am on the feet of the Solicitor General." I wish to reply to a question asked yesterday by the
October 26, 1967

hon. member for Peace River about a case in British Columbia.
I did look into the case that was mentioned. Of course I cannot comment on it while it is sub judice. However, when the facts are established, if there are any evidentiary rulings after the case has been heard and an appeal, if any, disposed of, I undertake to have my department look into the matter to see whether the Canada Evidence Act should be altered in view of the decisions.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ron Basford (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister arising out of his statement before the external affairs committee this morning. When will the Secretary of State for External Affairs announce the establishment of geographic co-ordinates to include Dixon entrance, Hecate strait and Queen Charlotte sound within the protected fisheries of Canada?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: I cannot give any firm date, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has already announced that within the next few days the government will issue a first list of geographical co-ordinates of points which will permit the immediate enforcement of a straight base line system along the coast of Labrador and the eastern and southern shores of Newfoundland, and that other lists will follow for other areas. When the minister makes the announcement in respect of other areas will he tell the house whether they will include the gulf of St. Lawrence as a body of water that will be defined as internal waters of Canada?


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, section 5 of the act authorizes the government to establish base lines. The base lines depend largely on the negotiations which are under way. We have established the co-ordinates along the coast of Labrador and the southeastern and southwestern coasts of Newfoundland. When we are in a position, depending on our negotiations, to announce further base lines, this will be done.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Stanley Ronald Basford: What countries are opposing the establishment of these co-ordinates on the west coast?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ANTI-TRUST PROCEEDINGS AGAINST UNITED STATES FIRMS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Registrar General of Canada. I should like to ask him whether he or his department is in contact with the United States justice department's anti-trust division in connection with the prosecution by the United States government of three of the largest drug companies in the United States for conspiring to keep the prices of antibiotic drugs at an abnormally high price and if so whether action of a similar nature may be expected in Canada.


Hon. John N. Turner (Registrar General):: We are following the progress of that case in the United States.


David Orlikow: On a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Registrar General whether his department has established or is considering the establishment of regular communications with the United States government in this respect.


John Napier Turner: As I said, Mr. Speaker, we are following the presentation of evidence in this case and will examine the results when the court makes its decision.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Registrar General whether the officials in his department are investigating the activities of these three companies, with reference in particular to the antibiotics aureomycin and terramycin, with a view to seeing whether a similar conspiracy obtains in Canada to maintain artificially high prices; and if such an investigation is being carried out what action does the government intend to take in the light of that investigation?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, as I have said, the director of investigation and research of the combines branch is following the course of this investigation in the United States. I think he can be expected to take whatever action his statutory duties demand. I am also watching it.

October 26, 1367
Inquiries of the Ministry INDIAN AFFAIRS



PROTECTION OF HUNTING RIGHTS UNDER MIGRATORY BIRDS CONVENTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Is he in a position to inform the house what if any progress has been made in the effort to untangle the confusion and conflict which exist between the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the hunting rights which the Indian people in Canada supposedly have under their treaties?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is now asking the minister to make a statement of policy. This is the type of statement which should be made on motions rather than at this time in our proceedings.


Robert Simpson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this question has been asked on several occasions, and if my memory serves me right we have been told that this matter is being considered by the government. I wonder whether any progress has been made.


Arthur Laing: I should like to assure the hon. member that a great many studies have been carried out in this respect and at the present time discussions are going on with the Indian people. We are hopeful that a solution will be found which will be acceptable to the Indian people and perhaps even to the hon. member.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In the light of the report on Indians and the law which was tabled in the house the other day I wonder how soon the minister can establish a system whereby special constables with R.C.M.P. training would be appointed to deal with the problems of law and order on our Indian reservations.


Arthur Laing: This is only one aspect of the recommendations made in the survey. We will be looking at the entire report, and I hope we will act in many fields in addition to the one mentioned by the hon. member.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. This particular problem has been discussed many times. I am wondering whether the government has made any moves in anticipation of the recommendations contained in the report.
fMr. Turner.]



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I promised the hon. member for Bow River to give him a report on the employment situation at the C.P.R. terminal shops in Calgary, where 400 men were laid off. Most of them have been called back; they know their return date. If a few of them are not rehired it will be quite easy to find jobs for them, because they are highly skilled labour.



REPORTED LACK OF BOX CARS AND SHIPPING ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence Waison (Assiniboia):: I
should like to direct my question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. A week ago today he promised to ask the Canadian Wheat Board about the possibility of calling western farm representatives together to see what could be done with regard to the shortage of shipping orders and box cars in western Canada. I wonder if he can report on that now.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I will look into that. I had a report but I do not have it with me at the moment. I will discuss it with the hon. member.



REQUEST FOR MEETINGS OF COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Many suggestions have been made by members of our party for changes in the rules and procedures. Will the minister, who is also chairman of the special committee on procedure, institute meetings of this committee on a regular basis in order that discussions may take place on proposed changes on a continuing basis rather than in the slipshod manner in which meetings are being called now?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, we will be glad to schedule as many meetings as the members of the committee desire.


Michael Starr: Will the minister consider calling one very shortly to set up a schedule?
October 26, 1967	COMMONS



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West):: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Can he inform the house when, on behalf of the government, he will be asking this house to refer to the finance committee the regulations under the Bank Act for the disclosure of interest rates, as he indicated he would be doing when this matter was before the house at an earlier date?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: I thank the hon. gentleman for reminding me, and I will do so immediately.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Hastings-Fronienac):: should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. The Department of Transport have written letters suggesting they are going to fence in the locks and dams on the Trent canal system. I should like to ask the minister if he would take immediate steps to cancel any such projects.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has made representations, but they could not be accepted as a question.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Norman Fawcett (Nickel Bell):: I
should like to ask the Minister of Labour if he has received representations from the brotherhood of maintenance of way employees regarding the imminent lay-off of a large number of track maintenance men by both the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National railways. If he has, what action is being taken to forestall this lay-off?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I have a recollection of some such communication having come in, but I should like to take the question as notice.
DEBATES	3501
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the hon. Solicitor General whether he intends to refer to a committee of the house the bill he has brought down on the abolition of capital punishment in certain cases so that the hon. members may hear experts and be more objectively informed on the bill?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I believe the answer will be determined in part by negotiations among the several house leaders. I must say that at this moment I am not expecting to follow the course suggested by the hon. member.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In the light of recent statements the minister has made concerning amendments to the Indian Act, I wonder if he could tell the house with some clarity when those amendments might be introduced.


Arthur Laing: We have had repeated references back to the Indian people themselves so they will have an understanding of these amendments and be satisfied with them. It would appear to me now that it would be after Christmas before they can be introduced.



ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: My question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In the light of recent statements by the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council critical of the fact that the Atlantic Development Board has failed to use their

October 26, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry services in drafting a comprehensive plan of development for the Atlantic region, will the minister now be directing the Atlantic Development Board to make greater use, particularly in the next month or so, of the offices of APEC in order to produce a comprehensive plan for the region that will be meaningful?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Atlantic Development Board is moving toward the preparation of a comprehensive development plan for the Atlantic provinces. The studies preparatory to a general plan have concentrated on sectors of the economy such as, for example, forestry, agriculture and so on. The reports concerning these sectors will be considered at the next meeting of the Atlantic Development Board, and following these discussions it will be possible to move toward the preparation of a comprehensive development plan for the Atlantic provinces.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: May I ask a supplementary question. I wonder if the minister could indicate, in view of the more than a decade of experience of APEC, why the services of this most important body have not been used to date in the drafting of this plan.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: have a supplementary question. In view of the report of APEC, to which I referred the other day, to the effect there is a great deal of confusion and lack of co-ordination existing among the various federal and provincial bodies concerned with the economic development of the Atlantic region, has the minister given any thought to having a conference of the agencies so we will avoid a situation such as APEC describes, within the province of Nova Scotia having three plans put before them rather than one?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to accept fully the comments of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council concerning the lack of co-ordination among these agencies concerned with economic development. It is true that in recent years we have set up many new programs and new agencies to operate in this field, and I am sure there is a desirable necessity for co-ordination. We are quite happy to consider any comments made by APEC in order to improve the situation.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries whether, after deliberation, the government has any immediate plans for the establishment of a fresh water fish marketing board as recommended by the Mclvor commission.


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: I had hoped my hon. friend would be aware of the fact that this matter comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Then may I put the question to the appropriate minister. In view of the many requests for action in this connection, can the minister say whether the government has formulated any immediate plan of action?


Robert Henry Winters: We are still awaiting the reaction of several agencies and one or two provinces. In the absence of these replies we have not yet formulated a plan.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the remarks made yesterday in Charlottetown by Colonel Edward Churchill to the effect it has now been decided rails will be included in the design of the Prince Edward Island causeway, can the minister assure this house that such a decision has been taken by his department?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Public Works):: I should point out to the hon. member that neither the text nor the printed reports of this speech indicate that Colonel Churchill said a decision has been taken to include rails on the causeway.
e (3:10 p.m.)

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



DEPARTMENT OF MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
Departmental Administration-
1. Administration, operation and maintenance, $4,206,600.
October 26, 1967	COMMONS
Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, when the estimates of my department were studied last year, I pointed out that in the forthcoming months we would be introducing a number of projects and programs.
Since I have had the honour of directing the destinies of the Department of Manpower and Immigration, somewhat less than two years, we have adopted a new method to distribute training allowances which has proved remarkably effective as may be seen by the number of adults who adapt themselves to retraining.
We have implemented a good number of pilot projects which tend to direct our action towards the training of handicapped persons.
I proposed a new legislative measure for the creation of advisory bodies.
I presented a white paper on immigration.
We reformed the Immigration Appeal Board.
We have, for the first time, consolidated immigration selection procedures by adopting new regulations which will be of greater benefit to individuals while at the same time meeting our manpower needs in a more satisfactory way.
We have set up a new and better system of enrolment in vocational training institutions.
And we have implemented a new manpower mobility program.
Since most of those programs are now being implemented, the estimates which we are considering at this time naturally represent the amounts of money we need for the 1967-68 fiscal year. I also wish to take this opportunity to explain the other steps taken in order to provide Canada with an extensive range of services in the fields of manpower and immigration.
A manpower policy, Mr. Chairman, is shortlived if it does not provide both the workers and the employers with adequate services in their work or their everyday life. This is the basic need which inspired the program changes I have just mentionned. To this end, we made special efforts to improve the counselling services of the manpower centres all over the country.
I said earlier that we would not get shortterm results, because our efforts can be successful only if they are continued all year long. Furthermore, some of our officials must undergo difficult readjustment to new working devices and new methods. Hence the
DEBATES	3503
Supply-Manpower and Immigration necessity to institute personnel training programs of unprecedented scope in both the public and private fields. The results of such an effort take some time to become apparent. They are not obtained without transitory difficulties nor mistakes. On the other hand, I am pleased to point out that the first results are beginning to be felt much more quickly than I had hoped.
But we are far from having in each of our communities a manpower centre of Canada to which one would quite naturally apply to solve an employment problem, a centre which the community would consider has an essential unit of its activities, finally a centre which would help people to use their skills in the best possible way in the work of their choice. Such a centre would also provide employers with the services which they require to fulfil their task. We are not even close to such an ideal objective, but several of our offices should attain it before long.
Now, I want to say a few words about our staff. We all know that consultation is very demanding, that it is not practised as if the applicant were a mere cog in the production machinery of a large industry. It calls for interviews where emphasis must be placed on the employment needs of the applicant and the help he requires to find out all about his skill, to provide him with information he will understand and use to his advantage when applying for a job or a promotion. Of course, in many cases the information called for pertains to the jobs available, according to time and place. Then, placement must be done without delay and needs are sometimes more complex because quite often an individual is unable to improve his situation or his income because in order to take a vocational training course he has to move for which he needs financial help.
To this effect, our personnel must have a wide knowledge of human behaviour and of the nature and activity of the labour market. Therefore, each employee must make the best use of his knowledge and must have the personal qualifications required to give out proper advice and information.
Training for that type of work is difficult and sometimes upsetting. It concerns senior officials, some of whom have to temporarily relinquish their regular duties, receive the required training and subsequently take up their duties again, equipped with all that is required to face national manpower problems. Such training cannot be acquired overnight. Yet, it is essential to all our activities.
October 26, 1967
3504	COMMONS DEBATES
Supply-Manpower and Immigration
As the training of our staff improves, the quality of its work will be directly related to the amount of information available with regard to the labour market. On the one hand, the workers must know the place and the nature of a planned employment. On the other hand, the employers must know where to find the labour force. Therefore, the training courses the most apt to assist the workers must be known. Also, vocational counsellors, instructors and educators must be provided with appropriate information about the labour market to advise the students on planned careers and jobs.
That is why we need a very good information service about the labour market. As was emphasized by the Economic Council, there is no such service at the present time and we shall attempt to set up one. At the present time, we are recruiting labour force analysts. They will be responsible for the collection and analysis of information on present and future employment, and they will set up the information so that it may be useful to our labour advisers and to anyone else who might need it anywhere in Canada.
The ideal solution would be to make available to the labour advisers in the Canadian manpower centres a complete index of appropriate employment everywhere in Canada, which they could look up to direct toward appropriate jobs, the people looking for a suitable position. This objective will be reached progressively. We must rely on the co-operation of employers to get the necessary information and we shall win them over only if we can prove to them the usefulness of those services. As the services we provide for workers and employers improve, an increasing number of people will take advantage of them because they fulfil their needs. This will allow us to be better informed and present a truer picture of the Canadian labour market.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
However, to reach our goals we must take giant steps and we cannot wait for this gradual process in order to act. In other words, we must sometimes have recourse to other sources of information which give us an adequate idea of the trends of the labour market, even though we do not know all the particular aspects. Together with the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, we have agreed to undertake in September a quarterly review of jobs available in Canada. On the basis of experiments made in that connection in 1966,

we invited the bureau to prepare and implement a detailed account of the number of jobs available by occupation, by area and by industry. These details will then be sent to the Canadian manpower centre, where manpower analysts will co-ordinate them so as to allow improvement of the service without delay.
We have two basic tools to improve employment conditions for workers: orientation and information. To these tools are added, of course, others means, the most important relating to manpower mobility and training. The new aspects of these two programs were explained to the house earlier this year, and I do not intend to give the details now. I want to say a few words about what has been done.
The increases in the training allowances which the house approved last year were very useful. A large number of unemployed underwent training last winter. During the last three months of 1966 and early in 1967 the monthly enrolment doubled compared to last year's.
But such success, impressive as it might be, is not enough. The figures alone cannot show the full scope of our new needs which, from now on, must deal with the improvement of adult training methods. To avoid spending money needlessly and disappointing the people, we must make sure that the training given to an individual is in keeping with the work he wants to do eventually.
That last consideration implies a change of attitudes and duties, both on the part of our officials, and those of the departments of education and of school boards.
The adoption of such a policy will necessarily give rise to certain tensions and difficulties. But the difficulties caused by our project have never been as great as some circles have led to believe by quoting figures for various months of the year. Anyway, the difficulties were short-lived. As soon as school starts in the fall, the number of adults taking training classes keeps on increasing. Last winter, the first year following the creation of our department, the number of students increased more than ever. The agreements entered into with the provinces, under the new program, will ensure a further increase.
This trend explains the estimates we had to prepare.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say at once that the field covered by the Department of Manpower and Immigration is one of special importance. Expenditures of the department for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1968, are listed at almost $313 million, and a few moments ago the minister said, definitely that these expenditures will be added to by supplementary estimates yet to come before us. However, his department is a rarity among departments in that the estimates show a decline of some $25 million compared with last year. Some $20 million of the estimated expenditures comes under the immigration division. Consequently about $293 million is left to be expended on manpower services.
Our job as legislators is to determine whether the expenditures are justifiable. If they are not then they should be criticized. Vote 10 commits the government to an expenditure of $206 million, in respect of the field of development and utilization of manpower. Of this amount, $120 million is set aside for capital assistance to trade and vocational
DEBATES	3507
Supply-Manpower and Immigration schools, most of which is now being phased out.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I should like to say a few words about this program which dates back to June of 1961. That was the time the agreements were signed by most of the provinces with the exception of Quebec, which signed later. This is a program which did a great deal to provide the very necessary facilities for the training of our labour force both in the youth and adult groups. After the present government came into office it established a quota basis, based on the per capita of population, and applied it to the moneys already received. Consequently those provinces which had not utilized this program prior to this government coming into office had made available to them millions of dollars for the construction of new schools. This was based on the old agreement in respect of which the federal government had participated to the extent of 75 per cent of the total cost and the provinces to the extent of 25 per cent. This had the effect of alleviating the tax burden on the municipalities for the construction of these facilities.
Other provinces, and I am referring particularly to Ontario, had utilized this program to the extent that when the quotas were set by this government they found they had very little entitlement under the program to the 75 per cent participation by the federal government. Under the quota system the federal government participates only to the extent of 50 per cent. The province of Ontario, which I take only as an example, is a very heavily industrialized province in which a high level of skill is required. An industry in that province which has exceeded the 50 per cent ceiling receives no benefit from the federal government except through the issuing of debentures. These are related to the number of trainees who participate. If there are 500 trainees in a particular school in Ontario, and only 50 are eligible through federal government referrals, then federal participation would be to the extent of only 10 per cent of the total cost of construction. This is most unfair. It places a burden on provinces which are endeavouring to establish the necessary training facilities. The need now is just as great if not greater than it was in 1961. Our labour force is expanding year after year. Instead of a curtailment in the participation of the federal government there should be an acceleration. We must make certain that facilities are available so that skills and
October 26, 1967
3508	COMMONS
Supply

Manpower and Immigration trades so vitally necessary in this age of technology and automation can be acquired.
The minister knows very well that the percentage of jobs available to those persons who have no trade or skill is getting smaller and smaller. The day will come, as the minister himself has said, when everyone will require retraining at least two or maybe three times during a lifetime. This program should be accelerated. The government seems to have lost sight of the fact that there is a growing need for this program. I hope the minister will give this matter serious consideration.
In Ontario particularly the amount of assistance formerly available in respect of the construction of new facilities is not forthcoming now. Referrals by the manpower services have been cut in half in the last year. Nevertheless, unemployment has increased. It is noteworthy that as of September 30, 1966-these figures are available from the Ontario department of education-there had been 7,393 referrals for training by federal manpower offices and as of September 30 this year only 3,896 referrals, a drop of 50 per cent.
This area should be reviewed carefully. If the minister looks into it, he will find these figures are correct. The provincial government has the responsibility of the training curriculum. A 50 per cent drop between last year and this year in federal referrals is very serious. There should be an increase rather than a 50 per cent decrease. A drop of this nature in one year represents a very drastic phasing out of training in the province of Ontario particularly since future grants are based on the proportion of federal referrals. This situation is a cause of grave concern to provincial training officials. These people are wondering whether under this government training programs are being left high and dry.
Another cause for concern is the manner in which the three-year rule is being applied by the federal government. Under the three year rule persons cannot be referred for training until they have been out of school for three years. Then they qualify to receive federal training. This means there is no provision for training high school drop-outs, because they have not had three years in the labour force. I submit that this is precisely the area in which training is needed. It is directly related to the question which we as members of parliament are bound to deal with, whether the taxpayer is getting full value for the expenditure of $206 million in


this particular field. I submit that if that group is being left out to which above all training should be made available, that is, the drop-outs, perhaps even the "hippie" group, then this program is not doing a good job.
Perhaps the minister feels that drop-outs should not be disturbed and should be allowed to go on collecting unemployment insurance if they have sufficient contributions rather than being asked to take training. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, there are a great number who are not qualified to receive unemployment insurance because of the lack of time spent in employment. They do not have contributions sufficient to qualify. The act was designed to help young people fresh on the labour market to get training so they can obtain useful and gainful employment.


Jean Marchand: Perhaps the hon. member might permit an interruption. They can receive training. The only thing is that they cannot receive allowances.


Michael Starr: 
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is a form of blackmail.


Michael Starr: I submit to the minister that if he has any interest in the young people of our country, in all fairness those who have dropped out of school and have not been in the labour force for the required three years are just as much his or his government's responsibility as the responsibility of the provinces. If he wishes to see our labour force fully trained in the future with the skills that are necessary in modern society, he must assume his responsibilities and give this entire question serious consideration. The three year provision ought to be eliminated.
There are reports from the provinces that the minister's department is being arbitrarily restrictive in its interpretation of "training". I ask the minister, how can young people deal with blueprints, instructions and other documents if they are not proficient in English or French? Being made proficient in either language is part of training. Yet such language courses have been outlawed in the form of assistance given by his department.
October 26, 1967


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: And that is quite ridiculous.


Michael Starr: I ask the minister to look into this situation and to rescind this regulation or interpretation, if it be an interpretation.
I like to speak kindly of the minister. I have known him for a number of years. He has wide experience of labour conditions and he knows that for a youth to work in a modern, automated industry he must be able to read and write and follow written instructions proficiently.
I also ask the minister to find out why fewer and fewer people are, because of restrictions, being referred for training by manpower offices. Are we to take it that young Canadians now enter the labour market fully trained? Is that why the minister has not included our young people in this program? Or are we to take it that the labour force has finally caught up to automation? I cannot believe that; and I do not think the minister believes it either, especially if one scrutinizes carefully the statement he made earlier today.
The provinces have not found that our young people are qualified to cope with automation. In Ontario the need for training is greater than ever before, according to the authorities, and the parliamentary secretary to the minister knows this because he comes from a highly industrialized region of Ontario. Provincial authorities know that it is almost hopeless for any young person who is without qualifications to attempt to obtain a job in industry. The parliamentary secretary and the minister will agree with that statement. The minister, with his unrivaled experience in this field, will certainly agree with it. The department is fortunate to have at its head a minister who has such a sound grasp of labour conditions. It is fortunate to be headed by a minister who feels such sympathy for Canadian workers. Nevertheless, I ask him not to shirk his responsibilities to the young people of this country.
I ask him to look into the matters I have raised and to see whether there cannot be more referrals by his offices than at present. I am sure the declining number of referrals, does not conform to policy. Something must be wrong with the instructions or regulations and they ought to be amended. Second, to provide for a more flexible interpretation of training, subjects that are not directly part of the technical field ought to be provided for our young people when knowledge of those subjects is essential to enable them to hold
Supply-Manpower and Immigration down a job. These subjects are not being taught under federal training provisions at present. It is important that they should be. Third, the minister should take steps to waive the three year waiting period. It is not working. It is causing hardship. This policy affects most strongly young people just out of school. They should be given an immediate opportunity for training. Hope of a place in the labour market and in society should not be denied them for three years before allowing them to qualify for training allowances. After all, Mr. Chairman, Canadians are putting up $206 million for these programs and they are entitled to expect results.
In his opening statement the minister said that manpower services had been improved. I hope he is right. In many areas they needed improving. Manpower policies have caused a great deal of dissatisfaction throughout the provinces. The minister knows this because it has been brought to his attention. Confusion and uncertainty about policies are prevalent. As a matter of fact, there are no set goals. Huge sums, nevertheless, are spent without bringing desired results.
I suggest to the minister that in order to ease some of the uncertainty the whole question of training should be referred to a standing committee of the House of Commons. The entire policy ought to be looked into thoroughly. We should review completely the department's training programs. Many questions could be asked in order to clear the air. Witnesses from the provincial departments could be called and we could learn whether the department's policies are working as the provinces wish to see them work. We might learn whether the provinces are able to implement the policies and whether areas of need are being neglected. We ought to hear from labour representatives and from management. The whole subject should be aired. Questions should be asked. I wish to pose questions, and I am sure other hon. members participating in the debate would wish to do so.
With regard to this debate, I hope the minister will not wait until items are reached before answering questions. It will be beneficial to us all if at some point in this discussion he will answer some of the questions.
I wish to ask for a start: What is our program with respect to on-the-job training in designated areas? These are areas trying to entice new industries. Is there any provision whereby employees in those areas have the opportunity to be trained for jobs? Such jobs would be in those industries which have
October 26, 1967
3510	COMMONS
Supply-Manpower and Immigration been enticed to come to such areas by the tax incentives of the government.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
We should have information about this program. There is a certain amount of confusion about this matter in the minds of many people to whom I have spoken.
Another question is: What arrangements have been made with the provinces in respect of training? Are people being trained under new facilities or are they being trained under the old facilities? What facilities have been agreed in the arrangements between the federal government and the provinces? How many man-hours of training per year have been agreed upon? I understand that the figure is something like 18 million man-hours of training per year. If that figure is not right, the minister can correct me. These are some of the questions the minister should answer.


Jean Marchand: It is eight million days of training.


Michael Starr: My figure is smaller because I said 18 million man-hours of training. Eight million days of training would amount to a great many more million man-hours.


Jean Marchand: For sure.


Michael Starr: For sure is right.


Jean Marchand: You are too conservative.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Starr: I ask this question which the minister should be prepared to answer. If the full time agreed upon is not being used, is the federal government committed to pay for the full time? Is the government, in other words committed, to pay for the full time whether or not it is used? The minister nods, so the answer is yes. These are some of the things we should know. How much is this program costing the taxpayers of this country?
If we have to pay for the full time, why are we not utilizing it to the full? If our young people are being paid training allowances, why are they not being trained? Are we paying for empty days in this training program? The minister contracts for eight million days of training a year and says he will send our young people to utilize this time. But if this is not happening-and it seems that it is not-then we are paying for empty days of training. Even where there is no full participation-in some cases nobody


is participating-this government is still paying for the time. The minister agrees that this is correct. I know from what I have heard that the provinces will insist upon full payment whether the government uses the full time or not. We find that as of September 30 there was a drop of 50 per cent in the referrals compared with last year.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Michael Starr: I ask the minister to answer some of these questions and give us a full picture in respect of this huge expenditure. We should know whether it is being fully utilized and whether it is giving full value to the taxpayers of this country.
I wish to spend a short time now in dealing with our economic development. Canada has a rapidly growing labour force, an increasing consumer demand, high potential output and an expanding economy. The question of productivity is causing concern in this country. Unless it is tackled in a realistic way we will find ourselves in a situation in which we will not be able to compete. One of the ways in which productivity could be assisted by this government is through a reduction in government spending, which contributes to inflation; and a consequent reduction in taxation-I hope the Minister of Finance is listening-which adds to the cost of production and has a debilitating effect on productivity. The minister knows these things and no doubt has on many occasions brought them to the attention of his cabinet colleagues.
The advent of compulsory medicare, which according to the Prime Minister will take place on July 1, 1968, for those provinces which can afford it, will put another burden on the shoulders of the wage earner in this country and will further add to the costs of production through imposing additional taxation upon the economy. In view of this and all the other fixed charges which this government has assumed, it now has the choice of increasing income and corporation taxes or slicing some of its free-wheeling expenditures.
We read with a great deal of interest that the Minister of Finance has now been able to face his cabinet colleagues with the realistic aspects of the financial situation of this country and the government is whittling away at these expenditures. It will be very interesting to all of us to learn what success he has met with in overcoming the stubborn resistance of his cabinet colleagues.
October 26, 1967	COMMONS
Knowing this government's reluctance to compromise with its divine right to be extravagant, one can only assume that it will raise taxes, adding a further burden to the economy and further reducing the productivity of the nation. It is quite evident, in view of the answer given to my colleague the hon. member for Perth the other day when he asked the Minister of Finance whether he intended to bring in another budget, that the minister is seriously contemplating doing so solely in order to increase taxes. I say this is evident because of the inconclusive answer given by the minister and the hesitancy with which he gave that answer. I notice that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration has left the chamber for a moment.


An hon. Member:: He is behind the curtain.


Michael Starr: I apologize. I should like to call the attention of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to the fourth annual review of the Economic Council of Canada. It deals with economic policies on page 258. I quote as follows:
The second basic strategy of economic policy, strengthening the supply and productivity capabilities of the economy, should involve such things as these:	measures for promoting greater efficiency, competition, manpower mobility, training and education, and more ready adjustments to technological and other change-
The minister is no doubt familiar with the recommendations with regard to increased adult training as a means of contributing to increased productivity and output. I feel that these matters cannot be too strongly emphasized because there is every evidence that this government is completely unconscious of the vital importance of improving productivity. They even abandoned and disbanded the productivity council we set up. It was making great headway toward reaching the goal of increased productivity.
So far as this government is concerned, productivity seems to be a bad word. Productivity simply means producing at a cost that will enable us to compete in world markets. Anything which adds to the cost of production is anti-productivity. Anything that reduces the cost of production is pro-productivity. Nothing has added more to cost of production in this nation than the economic policies of this government.
The Minister of Finance, referring to the removal of the 11 per cent tax on production
DEBATES	3511
Supply-Manpower and Immigration machinery and equipment on October 4, said as reported on page 2811 of Hansard:
The removal of the sales tax on production machinery and equipment is an important measure to help achieve lower costs of production-
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Who imposed that tax? If its removal helps to achieve lower costs, what did the imposition do? It increased costs, and yet the same government imposed it just a few years ago.


Mitchell William Sharp: We did it because of the mess we found when we arrived.


Michael Starr: There was no mess. When the Liberal government arrived things were good. All you did was to throw the money of the taxpayers around as if it were water. Now you find yourselves in a mess and you will have to take drastic action by increasing taxation.


Mitchell William Sharp: We found this country in a financial mess.


Michael Starr: The imposition of the 11 per cent tax raised the cost of production all along the line and helped bring about a reduction in productivity, about which most authorities in this country and elsewhere, including the International Monetary Fund, are warning this nation in most positive terms.


Mitchell William Sharp: Has my hon. friend forgotten the exchange crisis in 1962 and 1963?


Michael Starr: Certainly not, but what did this government have prior to that time? Nevertheless, when it happened we tried to rectify it.
In the report of the Economic Council of Canada at page 259 there is another reference to the economic inequality existing in eastern Quebec and the Atlantic area. This is not something new. We have been speaking about this for three years but the government has not been listening. It has been dabbling with this problem because it has the reputation now of being a government of dabblers. As a matter of fact the situation in eastern Ontario, western Quebec and the Gaspe, the Lake St. John area and in the greater part of the maritimes is a grave national problem. Recently the government locked out the farmers when they came to parliament. This is the first time such a thing has been done in Canada to Canadians by a Canadian government. It almost made one
October 26, 1967

Supply-Manpower and Immigration ashamed that a government which has neglected the rural economy should close the doors oi parliament.
Unless we are to consider human resources as just so many statistics, what must be done in the eastern area is to restructure the economy completely. The eastern Canadian farmer, the farm worker and the rural and semiurban worker must be given an opportunity to avail themselves of the kind of training programs that we have made available to the city workers, and that also includes the young people about whom I spoke earlier. I ask the minister, does he not feel that the continuing high rate of unemployment in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces is related to the uncertainty and uneasiness existing in these areas? Does the minister not feel that under the manpower provisions a positive program could be evolved which would produce a higher level of training skills throughout these provinces? Surely this is an area in which the federal government should act positively and give every possible aid to the provincial authorities and not add to their confusion by their uncertainty and their lack of interest. There is no question in my mind but that a continuing deterioration of the rural economy in eastern Canada is a serious national problem which should be recognized as such by the federal government and should be attacked by the establishment of national programs rather than by the present band-aid approach for which this government is noted.
The case of Dosco is a good example. When incidents of this kind arose when we were in office-and I predict we will soon be back in office-those who were opposite us howled to high heaven-as the hon. member for Norfolk is doing now. They howled about the inactivity of the government. Now they sit on their hands. Every lay-off which took place in those days was a national disaster and the fault of the Conservative government-that was the hue and cry of those who now sit on the treasury benches. Today the shutting down of whole industries fails to rouse them from their sleepwalking.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What complacency.


Michael Starr: There is a whole section of the report of the Economic Council of Canada which I suggest the minister and his colleagues could read with profit if they have not already done so. It is headed "Policy 
Implications". At page 261 of the report, the economic council bluntly states:
These developments have led to a growing uneasiness in Canada about the current pace of the over-all advance in government spending. The council shares this uneasiness.
Surely the government cannot say the handwriting is not on the wall. Here is a government agency pointing out that uneasiness is being felt across the country and that it shares this uneasiness. It is not only a question of the amount of spending being done but the direction which it is taking. The council points to the lack of co-ordination, the failure to define objectives, the fumbling and the multiplicity of programs. It gives guide lines which the Minister of Finance might well read to his colleagues at cabinet meetings when he is trying to get them to cut their expenditures in the present fiscal year, never mind the next fiscal year to which he has given so much publicity recently. Since they are not paying any attention to him they may pay attention to the guide lines of the council which appear on page 263 of the report.
I make these suggestions to the minister because in the field of manpower we are dealing with human beings and at times one gets the impression that the government tends to become a victim of self-hypnosis. The government puts down programs on paper without working out the details and it forgets that the test lies in their application to human situations. This does not seem to bother some of those on the other side. They do not care what happens to the young people who are drop-outs from school. They can join the "hippies" so far as the government is concerned; there are other government agencies which can deal with that problem. I ask the minister to look into that situation and to participate in the planning of training programs which could now be extended to these young people so that they can have faith in Canada and look toward a better way of life.
At this point I should like to deal briefly with immigration. I suggest that the government should not apply the points system too rigourously to human beings. There is a tendency in this modern age to use digits and formulae like the points system in relation to human beings. I suggest to the minister that this country was not built by people who came here under a points system. Such a system was never heard of in those days. Our country was built by all kinds of people, a great number of whom would have had difficulty in gaining admission under the new
October 26, 1967	COMMONS
criteria. I have wondered, since the minister announced the points system, whether John A. Macdonald would have qualified for admission to this country. I have my doubts.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I have a suggestion to make to the minister in this regard. If a prospective immigrant has relatives already established in Canada who are willing to vouch for him, he should be given a great deal better treatment than such people are receiving today. I have a good many immigration cases, as many other members have. I realize that the minister has used his prerogative as often as he possibly could. I hope he will continue to use it and that the kindness and compassion which he possesses will continue to be an instrument of our immigration policy.
If a person has relatives in Canada and the prospect of being self-supporting, surely that person should be allowed to enter. There are a great many cases of hardship caused by the refusal to allow relatives of people already established to come to Canada. I feel that sometimes the government is participating in the separation of families. This is an area where the minister can override some of these rigid regulations. I quite understand that an employee of the branch must apply the regulations, but the minister has a special prerogative. He is full of kindness and it should be applied in these cases. As Canadians and as human beings, Mr. Chairman, we cannot subscribe to a policy of heartlessness in connection with immigration. I ask the minister to consider these suggestions seriously because these matters are weighing heavily on thousands of Canadians today.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Waterloo South is going to deal, on behalf of this party, with that aspect of the minister's speech and estimates relating to manpower. I propose, if I may, to discuss the aspects of the minister's responsibilities which affect immigration. Before I do so, however, I should like to say one word in strong support of the position of the acting leader of the opposition in connection with the three year rule and the hardship it is causing to many of the very people the minister says the policies of this government are seeking to aid. I refer particularly to the immigrants who are brought into this country under a policy which the minister says is designed to add their skills and abilities to the labour pool and to assist not only the people themselves but the whole productive potentiality of this country. However, as the
DEBATES	3513
Supply-Manpower and Immigration hon. member for Ontario said, under the three year rule the number of people available for training in my city of Toronto has been cut in half. This is a tragedy for some of these people.
It is true, as the minister remarked, that these people are eligible for training, but they are not eligible for any allowances. This means that they have to go on relief. They cannot take any job that is available to them because they cannot retrain themselves so as to gain the skills that are necessary. One aspect of this matter concerns the younger people of high school age who need special instruction in English in order to qualify themselves to go to school. These are the children of immigrants, 15 or 16 years of age, who are wisely invited by the government to come to this country. Naturally they need to brush up on their English. However, the government gives no support at all to the special schools that exist to try to help these younger immigrants to qualify.
This seems to me to be a case of the left hand of the minister having no idea of what his right hand is doing. On the one hand, he tells us it is the policy of his department to aid immigrants who come to this country. On the other hand, his department introduces regulations which result in many of these recent immigrants having no opportunity for training or to become productive members of this country. The minister's actions and his words are totally inconsistent with each other.
I propose to turn now to the question of immigration as such rather than manpower. The minister, with his natural and unassuming modesty, has somehow or other prevailed upon himself to praise the policy of the immigration branch in such glowing terms that even if I had something nice to say about it I would not find it necessary to do so. It is true that the changes in the regulations, the introduction of the points system, the introduction of legislation establishing a new appeal court, are all steps forward. Exactly how they are going to work, no one is quite sure yet. I am still a little dubious about the points system.
As I understand it, you get 15 points if the immigration officer thinks you look as if you may have personal initiative. I do not know if I could ever persuade an immigration officer that I had personal initiative. How is he going to tell? By the gleam in a man's eye? I would hate to be examined somewhere and told: You have passed all the written examinations but I can tell by looking at you that you have no personal initiative and
October 26, 1967


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


Francis Andrew Brewin: Certainly.


Ian Grant Wahn: The hon. member has indicated that this section of the Immigration Act
October 26, 1967	COMMONS
authorizes the passing of regulations which might be discriminatory. As all members of this committee are aware, regulations have in fact in the past been made under this section which were discriminatory. The regulations which were introduced effective October 1 are not discriminatory. Is the hon. member not familiar with this fact?


Francis Andrew Brewin: I am entirely familiar with it, Mr. Chairman, and I give all credit to the minister and to those who supported him in removing discrimination from these regulations. Members sometimes boasted that the minister's predecessors had done this but they had not. The present minister did it, and I give full credit and honour to him for that.
What I am pointing out-and the hon. member for St. Paul's should be aware of this-is that the white paper says that more should be done to remove the last vestiges of discrimination from our immigration legislation. I am not complaining that the regulations discriminate. I am saying that the act authorizes the governor in council to do so any day he wants to, even though I do not think he intends to do so. I am hopeful that we have got rid of discrimination for good and forever. But as the white paper indicates it is highly important that Canada should not have legislation which is offensive to others and which creates resentment in our international relations. We should amend the legislation to this end.
As I say, Mr. Chairman, I have introduced private member's bills to this effect which, as usual, were talked out. However, hon. gentlemen opposite always told me that I would not have to wait very long because this matter would be dealt with. All I am doing now is appealing to the minister to deal with it and to implement the policy set out in the white paper.
Another point stated here is that Canada's willingness to participate generously in refugee programs has important international implications. I think this is correct. We know there are very grave refugee problems existing in many parts of the world, and I think the white paper suggests that legislation is required to enable us to take some action in this regard. I should like to refer to the memorandum dealing with the question of refugees which was presented by the minister's department to the committee on immigration. Paragraph 54 reads as follows:
Proposals which require other acts of parliament.
The government intends to redefine its attitude towards refugees, particularly as to criteria for acceptance as a refugee, responsibilities of the
DEBATES	3515
Supply-Manpower and Immigration various government departments in refugee programs, measures to aid admission and settlement of refugees, and establishment of a refugee eligibility commission. It is proposed that this new approach be embodied in legislation separate from the Immigration Act.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
All I am doing is asking the minister to produce the act that more than a year ago he said he proposed to bring forward. If this is as important as I take it to be, both on human grounds and because of the international implications, I do not know why we should have to wait so long. A whole series of other suggestions is made in the white paper, for example, with regard to prohibited classes. The white paper points out that the definitions under this heading are wrong and unrealistic. Consider, for instance, the reference to people who have been inmates of hospitals for the insane. Every qualified person would say, as does the white paper itself, that this is not a suitable way of dealing with the problem. Then there is the difficulty of dealing with subversion or alleged subversion. If by subversion we mean the activities of someone who is a real security risk I doubt that any member of this house would want Canada to welcome anyone engaged in activities of this kind. But if we really mean someone who at one time or another has been a member of an organization in another country which is not popular with the police there, then I can see no reason for the exclusion of such people at all.
This is not simply a matter of sentiment; it is a matter of great importance to Canada because at the present time, as is well known, we are looking for trained and skilled people from other parts of the world and one of the best reservoirs from which such people can be obtained is central and eastern Europe. Why should we insist on excluding so many people on the ground of vague doctrines involving subversion? We are still making excuses. I know the minister says we are waiting for the committee which is inquiring into security questions to make recommendations. In the meantime West Germany, Holland, France, the low countries, are welcoming immigrants from eastern and central European countries who are adding tremendously to the effectiveness of their labour forces. Surely, Mr. Chairman, the countries I have mentioned are closer to any danger from subversion than we could possibly be in this country. Yet they are welcoming workers from the east in their tens of thousands, disregarding all the stuff and nonsense about whether they appear on the lists of some
October 26, 1967

Supply

Manpower and Immigration police department as having been subversive and so on. We are cutting off our noses to spite our faces. In the hope of preventing a few subversive characters from landing we are excluding a whole group of highly trained persons.
Many other suggestions are made in the white paper calling for changes in the old act. It is an act which is out of date and I urge the minister to go on from what is being done now and produce at the earliest opportunity a draft bill to deal with all these matters. If the officials of his department are very busy, as I know they are, dealing with other matters, and if perchance the law officers of the crown are too occupied to draft legislation embodying the suggestions formally put forward as Canadian immigration policy, then I propose he refer the task to a special committee on immigration

I do not know whether it exists now but if it does not it should be revived. On the hon. gentleman's own back benches there are many hon. members who would be perfectly competent to assist in drafting adequate legislation to deal with this situation. I see in their places, for example, the hon. member for Parkdale and the hon. member for one of the Hamilton constituencies. It is possible for committees to draft legislation. The committee on divorce, for example, has drafted legislation. I do not entirely approve of its draft, I may say, but at least the committee has come up with a draft bill. So I do not think it would be asking too much of the members of the special committee if we were to invite them to make their own proposals embodying the legislation which parliament would be asked to pass in order to bring the Immigration Act up to date.
In conclusion-I notice the minister has left the chamber at least for a few moments -I would ask the parliamentary secretary to pass these words on to his chief: If you feel you have done well

and in all fairness I believe you have made some improvements in the field of immigration-do not rest on your laurels but do a real job by cleaning up the legislation wherever change is needed, and at least live up to the proposals made in your own white paper.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Chairman, I want first of all to congratulate the minister-his parliamentary secretary (Mr. Munro) will surely inform him-for having given more importance to his department, since its estimates now amount to $312,912,000. It is indeed two


departments in one: the department of manpower and the department of immigration.
I would like to make a few remarks on the first, the department of manpower, which is the most important indeed as far as the minister's responsibility is concerned. I think it is the division on which he has set his heart judging by all his statements; in fact, he is well qualified to head this department.
But I notice an increase in expenditures at item 5 which rose from $34,730,000 in 196667 to $73,635,000 this year; this can be explained by the increase in vocational training.
0 (4:50 p.m.)
However, one thing worries me. Vote 10 shows a decrease from $228 million last year to $206 million this year. If you refer to page 294 of the blue book, you will see that vote 10 is entitled:
Grants, contributions and subsidies in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the sub-vote titles listed in the details of the estimates.
Those are payments to the provinces under agreements entered into with the Department of Manpower and Immigration-
-for the organization of workers for farming and related industries, including undischarged commitments under previous agreements.
When the minister gets up to speak, I should like him to give us more detail concerning the amount of money spent on farming. I mean by that the amount of money which his department must spend for the training of young farmers and the orientation provided for farmers in general. I doubt that this item is included here. I am surprised at the smaller amount shown. Perhaps the federal government reduced its help to the provinces or, since this item also comprises the help given to the provinces, perhaps some provinces opted out of joint programs. In any case, I should like the minister to explain why the amount of money allocated for this item has been reduced, for there must be a reason and we should like to be better informed.
Now, as to the manpower training program, everybody knows that it was instituted in 1960 and that, up until then, Quebec had not decided to participate. The provincial authorities were still considering the matter. In La Presse of February 23, 1986-I think it is about that date when Quebec decided to participate fully in the program, with the help of the federal government-I read that
October 26, 1967

the employment office wrote an article entitled:
Quebec will participate in the manpower mobility program.
It was at that time, I believe, that Quebec decided to follow the example of the other provinces and to participate in this manpower training program.
Right from the start, we found-and the hon. minister also, I am sure-the same abuse that existed in other programs, such as the winter works program during the first years of implementation, when abuses took place, mainly because of the lack of orientation and organization on the provincial and federal levels; and I think that the main abuses we are able to mention to the hon. minister here and now are taking place partly on account of this lack of knowledge or orientation.
For instance, we have discovered that many persons registered to take these courses to receive the cheque rather than to get vocational training.
The amendments that the minister presented today, and those that he intends to introduce at a later date, are intended to rectify this quite unexpected situation. Indeed, in some areas, we have seen people aged 60, 65, 70, who dropped out of school in grade 2 or 3, and who are attending retraining courses, along with housewives, mothers of 7 or 8 children, whose sole interest previously was to bring up their children, who had a sudden yen for study and returned to school, leaving their family to the haphazard care of a baby sitter. We had the opportunity to see all kinds of things like that during those courses, and after discussing the matter with some authorized persons, we concluded that the selection procedure should be improved. And I wonder if the three year rule is still in effect today. It stipulates that in order to be eligible for classes, a person must have been on the labour market for three years. I mean to say that an applicant is required to have been registered for three years at the employment office as being fit to work. I want the minister to confirm that interpretation.
Of course, if an applicant were required to have been registered for three years as being fit to work, persons of 60, 62, 65 or even 69 years of age, who up to then had never applied at the employment office, would surely not have been suddenly entitled to attend classes, while other eligible people were being turned down. These elderly persons
Supply-Manpower and Immigration were taking the place of younger ones, from 30 to 35 years who were eligible for training but who were being refused. Why? Because there was no room; there were not enough teachers to organize another class. That is precisely the problem we faced in our areas and which we faced again last winter. I have some cases. I communicated with the minister and his secretary and it was confirmed that this year all those who were attending these courses last year had to be accepted.
Systematically, the same mistake which was reported to the department last year is being repeated. This winter, in fact, I have checked and the officials of the manpower office tell me they will have to accept all those who came last year, but that next year it will be different, it will be changed. Candidates will be accepted according to new standards. But I believe that if a mistake was made last winter, it is not necessary to repeat it this winter.
[DOT] (5.00 p.m.)
And I say once more that the main shortcoming, in our areas, is the lack of teachers. There may be 100, 125 applicants and we cannot get more than two or three teachers. I do not know if the provincial government is supposed to provide the teachers for these courses. Their salaries may well be paid by the Department of Manpower and Immigration, but I cannot understand this lack of teachers, in our areas especially, if we are well enough organized to get them in time and tell them what they have to do. Those courses were certainly set up for the greater good of the people, and they must achieve their ultimate goal: that is be available to whoever needs more training, who needs guidance into other work. That is their main objective. I am sure that through closer scrutiny of the act, and improvements so that it can more readily meet the needs of every region, its application will certainly continue to serve the better interests of our population.
I also noted the problem dealt with before by the members for Ontario and Greenwood (Messrs. Starr and Brewin). I mean the problem of the student, of the young man who has been out of school for 12 months. I too wish to draw the attention of the minister to this point, because there seems to be ambiguity about the subject even in manpower offices. When a youth goes to a manpower office, if he has been out of school for only 10 or 11 months, he is told: You are not eligible and they are right about that. That requirement is vigorously enforced. But the problem
October 26, 1967
3518	COMMONS
Supply-Manpower and Immigration arises when a candidate has been out of school for 13 or 14 months. He is then told: You are not eligible under the law; you have not been in the labour force for three years.
I should like the minister to clarify this point, if he can, because it is clear that if a youth has been out of school for 15 months, perhaps for two years, he was not part of the labour force for three years. I discussed the matter with professors, with counsellors who are not connected with the manpower office, pointing out the fact that some candidates were required to have been out of school for three years, and all agreed that it was a misinterpretation of the act. This point should be made absolutely clear especially with the manpower officers, so that the youth who left school, either high school or any other, in the last 12 months, may be eligible because 1 think that he is best suited for such training. He is ready. He has interrupted his studies only 12 or 15 months ago, and he is ready to carry on either to improve his skill in the same line or to turn to something else.
I shall ask the minister, as did the hon. members of Ontario (Mr. Starr) and Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), to clear up the matter and to give us his interpretation, so that we may advise at least those who write to us and who ask us what to do in such and such case.
I mentioned earlier that I had been a little surprised with regard to the reduction in the appropriations in the farm section. I was going to urge the minister to increase that amount since he has probably received requests from the C.F.U. and every other farm organization in an effort to step up and increase the number of those training courses available to the farmers.
Now, I believe that what is most needed today, especially in my area but also in many areas of the province of Quebec, is the training of our young farmers and even those not so young, because in those areas, in 75 per cent of the cases-and the minister knows this very well-we have some mixed farming. Farming is carried on in an amateurish way and that is the reason why today we are short of truly qualified people in the agricultural field.
But we have, especially among the younger generation, a large group of people who want to take up farming on a full time basis, who are one hundred per cent farmers, and I believe that these courses are well designed to help these people. And I can assure you,


Mr. Chairman, that this winter we will have them again-I was told that there would be some in my area-but here again we will be short of qualified instructors to train all those farmers. I am aware that this may lie outside the minister's area of responsibility. However, surely the minister can investigate the matter and use his influence or at least help farm agencies to secure the teaching staff and facilities required for these courses.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I have but a few words to say about immigration. Again, I think that the amendments brought to the Immigration Act will benefit the Canadian people as a whole including the people of Quebec, because, on the primary basis of skills and regional needs of qualified manpower as indicated by the minister, I am sure that we will admit to Canada immigrants that will represent to us not just additional mouths to feed, but real assets, in brief, individuals who will actively participate in the progress and development of Canada.
As for the former conditions about the age, competence and relationship for the arrangements concerning employment, I think that we Quebecers cannot very much criticize the minister. The only criticism we could make concerns discrimination. The hon. member for Greenwood referred to that a while ago when he said that there was some discrimination in the department of immigration. And what has always surprised me, as it must surprise the minister, is the fact that some discrimination is made in the case of applicants for citizenship.
If we want to work to establish unity in Canada, the two founding peoples of Canada should at least be on an equal footing.
One thing has always staggered me, and that is the fact that a British immigrant coming from England obtains his citizenship after two years, whereas someone coming from France or another country obtains it only after five years.
I may be wrong-let the minister correct me; I see him nodding his head now-but that is what I have always been told. As we are here to get information, I should like the minister to dot the i's. Personally, I should be pleased if that discrimination did not exist because that is what I have been told repeatedly. I promised myself I would, at the first opportunity, ask the minister to tell us what the facts are.
In conclusion, we are quite pleased in general with the estimates of the minister this
October 26, 1967

year and we wish him every success in the discharge of his duties.
[DOT] <5:10 p.m.)


Mr. Johnston:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to raise a few points in this afternoon's debate.
I concur in the remarks of the hon. member for Roberval, who has just spoken, about the complications that arise through the operation of the three year waiting period under the retraining scheme. I think of the older person who returns to the ordinary, academic school to improve his academic qualifications, graduates, and then finds that he cannot apply for assistance which would be most useful to him in retraining as he has not been in the labour force for three years. That sort of situation can create real difficulties. The hon. member who spoke before me went into this matter in greater detail than I shall.
With respect to the various aspects of immigration, I think all members of the house support the new regulations which allow for a wider range of immigrants and for easier entry into this country, though in the area of sponsored immigrants some interesting factors develop. May I quote from page 4 of newsletter No. 3 which deals with the new selection policy for immigration.
We feel that the relative of a Canadian or of a landed immigrant, coming to Canada as a worker, should have precedence over other workers and should be admissible with fewer qualifications than are required of independent immigrants ...
The greatest preference in this type of immigration would be given to sons and daughters, parents and grandparents who do not qualify as dependents, brothers and sisters and nephews and nieces under 21, if sponsored by a citizen...
We would also propose to extend the sponsorship privilege to cover nephews and nieces over 21, uncles and aunts and grandchildren. These relatives would not be admitted as freely as the first group but would need lower qualifications than an independent immigrant.
We see a genuine sliding scale in the regulations. The point I wish to bring to the minister's attention has to do with the closeness of family relationships. One factor has been overlooked in the regulations, the factor of the Canadian who has no living relative in Canada but has a living relative outside Canada. I am talking of a Canadian with resources at his disposal to establish such a relative in this country. It seems to me that each Canadian ought to have a basic right to sponsor somebody at some time. We allow some Canadians to sponsor many people for entry into this country. Yet a Canadian who may have been born here and has made a great contribution to Canada and built up a

Supply-Manpower and Immigration personal fortune may find that he cannot sponsor relatives from outside the country because they fall outside the list that is included in the regulations. As a result he is frustrated in obtaining the admission of his relative because that relative does not fall within the closely related group. Nevertheless, since the Canadian has no other relative his relationship with the relative outside Canada may be as close as his relationship would have been with a brother, sister, father or any of those who receive better treatment under the regulations.
I am concerned about the minister's drive to bring French speaking immigrants to Canada. Somehow I feel that we should not become involved in the numbers game with respect to this area of division within the country. The minister's effort is worthy and I do not think many Canadians would not welcome immigrants from France, Switzerland and Belgium. But I very much doubt that there should be specific latitude for French speaking vis-a-vis English speaking immigrants. The minister is rowing a leaky boat in this regard.
The governments of Switzerland and Belgium are concerned about the increasing use of the English language within their countries. Because of language difficulties which have arisen in both countries English has become very much the second language. We might obtain quite a number of immigrants from those countries without obtaining the balance, or imbalance, which may have been in the minister's mind with respect to French speaking immigrants when he gave us the figures this afternoon.
We can learn something about immigration from Switzerland where, though one-sixth of the labour force comes from outside the country, the economy seems to function adequately. I hope that French speaking immigrants who otherwise would not be admissible to this country will not enter Switzerland for the purpose of using Switzerland as the road that leads to this country.
I know that as strong a federalist as the minister will not wish to see two immigration departments in the country. I hope we will not see two departments and I hope we will not play the numbers game to which I have referred. At this point I might ask, what is the goal for next year? Are we to do better in this regard than last year? Personally I think it would be better not to count separately the numbers of English speaking and French speaking immigrants entering the country. This aspect of immigration might be
October 26, 1967

Supply-Manpower and Immigration left unmeasured. I think all immigrants ought to be made equally welcome to this country.
Finally I wish to raise a question about a subject that has been brought to my attention. The hon. member for Greenwood spoke about refugees and their problem. Is the government working on a project to bring to Canada some of the Tibetan refugees who fled from their country when it was overrun by communist China and who entered India, a country that is sorely burdened with overpopulation. I have seen some of these people in the Himalayan region of India where their prospects are extremely limited because the country is overpopulated. At the present time we are taking from India a fairly sizeable number of immigrants who, because of their educational and technical qualifications, are needed in this country. These people are playing a very important role in our development. It might be one way of aiding India in a rather unusual and different direction if instead of simply taking the cream, the best people their educational system offers, we endeavoured to alleviate in some small way their refugee problem.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Ian Grant Wahn: Mr. Chairman, most members of the house welcome the helpful and reasoned statement presented today by the minister and his assurance that as soon as possible a new immigration act will be considered and introduced in the house. I am sure the minister will consider all reasonable suggestions made by members of the committee. Those who know the minister and have had experience in dealing with him know that he is a man of strong views but that when reasonable suggestions are made he considers and adopts them.
The hon. member for Greenwood referred to section 61 of the Immigration Act which does permit the making of discrimatory regulations. In the past discriminatory regulations have been made under this section. However, the new regulations introduced by the minister and effective October 1 completely removed all vestiges of discrimination under the law and regulations as they now exist. The hon. member for Greenwood also referred to the section of the Immigration Act relating to prohibited persons. This is another section which, when the new act is introduced, must be considered very carefully and the necessary reforms made.
As the hon. member for Greenwood knows, under the present statute the minister has
[Mr. Johnston.l
wide discretion to issue ministerial permits to allow the entry of persons who may fall within the prohibited classes. I believe that this discretion has been exercised by the minister in a very fair and reasonable manner. Nevertheless, it is desirable that as soon as possible a new immigration act should be introduced. Hon. members in the committee today realize the volume of legislation before the house. Perhaps, as one unkind observer has implied, we in this house suffer from legislative constipation and need a procedural enema. In the meantime, however, a great deal can be done under the existing legislation by means of enlightened regulations and an enlightened administration of the law and the regulations. I suggest to members of the committee that we have been getting this from the present Minister of Manpower and Immigration.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ian Grant Wahn: I would particularly like to draw the attention of the committee to the very encouraging increase in the number of immigrants who have come to Canada in recent years. The figures I have indicate that in 1961 the number of immigrants admitted to Canada was 71,689. In 1962 the number was 74,586. In 1963, the first year under the present Liberal government, the number was 93,151. In 1964 the number was 112,606. In
1965	the number increased to 146,758. In
1966	the number increased still further to 194,743. In the period from January 1 to August 31 this year the number increased even more, by 27 per cent, and amounted to 125,836 for that part of the year. It is quite clear that this year substantially more than 200,000 immigrants will come to this country and make their homes here.


Mr. Roxburgh:: I hope the hon. member for Ontario is taking note of these figures.


Ian Grant Wahn: These figures indicate that the rate of immigration at the present time is three times higher than it was in 1961 when a Conservative government was in power. The low figure for 1961 may not have been due to any lack of will on the part of the then Conservative government but may rather have resulted from the massive unemployment which then existed and which the government then in office appeared to be unable to do anything about.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: Or a mixture of both.
October 26. 1867	COMMONS


Ian Grant Wahn: Possibly a mixture of both. I find it difficult to overemphasize the importance and the value to Canada of this large inflow of immigrants. The whole question of immigration was very carefully considered several years ago by a commission of the United Church which studied immigration and its effects on Canada. The commission published a report which contains some very interesting and useful information even though it is now several years out of date. For example, it pointed out that statistics of post-war immigration show that three quarters of the immigrants coming to Canada are adults, one-half are workers and most of the workers are young people in the most productive age group between 20 and 44. For example, the report says that of the 124,700 immigrants who arrived in Canada in 1958 more than 58,000 were between the ages of 15 and 29. Canadian surveys of immigration figures for other years also emphasize the youthful character of immigrants. Not only were they workers, they were young workers and, more important, they have been skilled workers.
A Department of Labour report indicates that about two thirds of the net addition of professional engineers and draftsmen since the end of world war II have been immigrants. Another Department of Labour survey shows that 35 per cent of the skilled and highly skilled trade positions in Canadian industries in 1956 were occupied by immigrants who had received their trades training abroad. These youthful, skilled workers have performed an invaluable function upon which our present prosperity has been largely based.
Not only have these immigrants brought new skills to Canada but they have also brought a substantial amount of new capital. The report by the commission of the United Church points out that between 1946 and 1962 immigrants brought to Canada over $1 billion in capital and almost half a billion dollars worth of settlers' effects. They have established numerous new businesses in Canada which have provided employment for Canadians. The report points out that from 1950 to 1962, 9,850 new Canadians established businesses of their own for which they paid over $116 million. Of this sum they made cash payments in excess of $72 million. These new businesses created employment for almost 45,000 Canadians.
In 1961 the research staff of the department of citizenship and immigration made a survey of 7,000 immigrants who had obtained .heir Canadian citizenship papers. Of this
DEBATES	3521
Supply-Manpower and Immigration group about 350 had established their own businesses and created jobs for over 3,400 other Canadians. In other words, these 350 newcomers created new jobs equal to almost half of the entire group of immigrants under survey.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
It is apparent therefore that immigrants who seek entry to Canada do not seek entry as supplicants and should not be treated as such. They should be welcomed as guests who are bringing valuable gifts to this country. I believe I saw figures which indicate that almost half of the total number of immigrants to Canada have come to the Toronto area. Certainly Toronto has good reason to rejoice in the number of immigrants who have come to our city. It is upon their efforts and with their help that the post-war growth and prosperity of our citizens have been founded.
Because of the importance of the department, and indeed I can think of few other departments of the government which are of equal importance, it is absolutely essential that the facilities and service provided by the department should be first rate. I wish to congratulate the minister upon the improvement which he has made in the facilities, the staff and the services provided by the department. Many years ago some of us had the impression that the old department of citizenship and immigration was to some extent an orphan, cramped and restricted by its budget and perhaps not given the same consideration as certain more glamourous-appearing departments. The minister has done a great deal to upgrade its status and to improve the facilities and the service provided by the department not only abroad but in Canada. The importance of the department certainly justifies these efforts.
While I am on my feet perhaps I might refer to two difficult problems. I am sure that the success which has met the minister's efforts to date indicates that he will be able to resolve these problems successfully. In the manpower service, which is so essential to our national well-being, I suggest that we should consider very carefully and avoid duplication of any service now being provided in a satisfactory manner by private agencies. I say this not because I think that private industry should have a monopoly in any field of labour placement but simply because the revenues and expenditures of any governmental department are limited
3522	COMMONS
Supply-Manpower and Immigration and therefore must be spent in the best and most effective manner.
If in fact placement services are being satisfactorily provided by private agencies, then there would seem to be little purpose in incurring public expense and duplicating such facilities. I know, for example that there are many efficient private agencies in the larger centres which specialize in filling vacancies for skilled and white collar employees. If these agencies are in fact doing a good job, I hope the minister will not endeavour to duplicate them at the expense of the ordinary taxpayer.
The second problem, and one which has been referred to by a number of hon. members, relates to the necessity of preventing any gap developing between the federal and provincial programs involving retraining and vocational training. This matter has been referred to by most hon. members including the hon. members for Ontario, Greenwood, Roberval and Okanagan-Revelstoke, and clearly it is of vital importance and concern to most members of the committee. It is a difficult problem because, as all members of the committee know, it involves the most delicate relations between the federal and the provincial governments. It involves coordinating the federal responsibility for maintaining full employment with the provincial responsibility for education and social services.
The hon. member for Greenwood in particular referred to the fact that school drop-outs and hippies were not able to benefit from the present federal program. I believe the minister is aware of the necessity to co-ordinate very carefully the federal program for retraining those who have been thrown out of employment as a result of technological change with the provincial programs and the provincial responsibility in the fields of education and social service. It is a very delicate and difficult problem and one which does not admit of any easy solution. It is a question to which the minister will have to devote himself, and I am sure he will work closely with the provincial authorities in solving it successfully.
In the same general field there is of course another important principle to observe. The minister must be very careful that federal moneys which are administered by provincial authorities are well spent. This is the responsibility of the federal government. If federal moneys are provided we must make certain that the provincial government is spending

DEBATES	October 26, 1967
them properly and with the best possible effect.
Suggestions have been made that some of the training programs in the province of Ontario which are administered by provincial agencies are not administered with maximum efficiency. Again this involves very delicate and difficult problems of co-operation between the federal and provincial departments. Sometimes it appears to me that it is very difficult to get proper co-ordination and co-operation at the departmental level between provincial and federal authorities and I have often thought it would be desirable for the minister or for federal ministers in general to experiment with the creation of joint federal-provincial agencies with perhaps community involvement to avoid this particular problem. I believe that the minister's department may perhaps be experimenting with agencies along that line.
There is one extremely important reform for which the minister deserves a great deal of credit and a great deal of support from all members of the house. Under the regulations which became effective at the beginning of this month the principle of racial equality has been finally and completely established in our immigration laws. I believe it was the hon. member for Roberval who referred to the continuing discrimination under the citizenship laws or regulations. If I am correct in my belief, these are not administered by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration but by the Secretary of State, so I will not discuss them at this time. Under our present immigration regulations and laws, certainly the last vestiges of racial discrimination have been removed. I believe that they have been removed in practice as well. Sometimes practice is more important than the letter of the law.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
To illustrate the fact that discrimination has been reduced in practice over recent years I should like to refer to the figures on Chinese immigration. In 1961, Mr. Chairman, the number of Chinese admitted to Canada totalled 894. In 1962 the number went down to 876. In 1963, the first year of the Liberal government, the number almost doubled to 1,571. In 1964 the number doubled again to 3,210. In 1965 the number increased to 5,234. In 1966 the number was slightly lower, 5,178. From January 1 to June 30 of this year, the number admitted was 3,173 an increase of 32 per cent over the corresponding period in the previous year.
October 26, 1967	COMMONS
It is apparent, therefore, that at the present time, the rate of immigration to Canada in so far as Chinese are concerned is over seven times as high as it was in 1961 under a Conservative administration. I am particularly interested in these figures because many members of the Chinese community live in my riding of St. Paul's in Toronto. I thought that members of the committee might be interested in these figures as an illustration of what has been done in practice to overcome the racial discrimination which in previous years disgraced the administration of our immigration laws.
I think I should mention also, as an example of what is actually being done in practice, that the present application form for landed immigrants which became effective October 1 deletes any reference to the country of ethnic origin. I believe this is indicative of the intent of the minister in these regulations. Perhaps more important in so far as practice is concerned is the fact that for the first time the factors which should be taken into account by immigration officials who actually assess the intended immigrants are set out very clearly.
The hon. member for Greenwood expressed some apprehension about what he called the points system. He mentioned that in the interview with a proposed immigrant the immigration official is required to make a personal assessment of the character of the immigrant and to take into account such factors as adaptability, motivation, initiative and similar qualities. The hon. member for Greenwood expressed some apprehension as to what might happen if some immigration official had the opportunity of making a personal character assessment of him. I will make no comment one way or the other with regard to his fear. I believe it is unfounded. Instead I simply point out the hon. member for Greenwood that every day each of us is required to make an assessment of the character of people, and immigration officials are no different from the rest of us. In practice I assume they will act fairly. Despite the complaints which are inevitable in a department such as this, the general record of the department has been good.
This completes the remarks I should like to make at this point, Mr. Chairman. In closing I would simply say that I am particularly impressed by the fairness of the regulations which have been introduced by the minister.
I welcome those provisions which widen the classes of relatives that can be admitted to Canada, either on a sponsored or nominated 27053-223
DEBATES	3523
Supply-Manpower and Immigration basis. This will mean that a great many more families will be reunited, and this is of great social importance. I welcome the new appeal procedure which has been introduced. This is the first time we have had a meaningful appeal procedure in our immigration regulations. The new appeal procedure may be some indication of a move toward a principle which would be of great international importance, namely, that those of us who have had the good fortune to be born in this country cannot expect to monopolize a great country such as Canada. Perhaps those born in other countries who can qualify and who would make good citizens have a right to be admitted which should not be entirely dependent upon the uncontrolled discretion of those of us who happen to live here at the present time.


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: The hon.
member for Bow River.


Mr. Mongrain:: 
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I listened with some interest to the question of privilege that was raised. I do not want to spend any time on it but I would point out there are 96 Conservatives in the house and so far we have had only one speaker along with one from every other party. If we work the matter out on a pro rata basis we should have the most speakers from the opposition side.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Would the hon. member allow a question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No, because I have only a few minutes. I want to make four points. First of all I want to deal-


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege. The hon. member has just said something I consider nonsensical for the intelligent man he is.
If I am speaking 6th, I will not prevent any member of the Progressive Conservative party or any other from speaking. If, anyway, there are 26 speakers, whether I speak 5th, 6th or 25th, they will be speaking more often than I, which I admit because they are more numerous.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: As I was saying, Mr. Chairman, I am going to divide my speech into four parts. First of all I want to deal with debates on estimates generally for a moment. The hon. member for Ontario, the Leader of the Opposition, made an outstanding contribution in this debate and asked certain questions of the minister. I should like to say something as an individual about the new


rules. All of us want to get on with the business and to see it done, but one of the great weaknesses in the guillotine method of closing off debate on estimates is that serious questions put to a minister are sometimes never answered. For example, the other day I asked some ten questions of the Minister of Trade and Commerce about the grain problem, which is very important to the farmers of western Canada. The minister sat throughout the debate until the end of the day. Perhaps his estimates will not come before the committee again and I will never get an answer.
The hon. member for Ontario, a former minister of labour who conceived the vocational training program, part of which has been adopted by the government and part forgotten, asked some serious questions based on his experience as minister and on the fact that he is the chief critic on this subject for our party. However, it seems to be somewhat an exercise in futility if we put questions to ministers and never get answers. After all, the idea of debating estimates is not just to make a pretty little speech but to find out ministers' programs.
By way of introduction to this point, Mr. Chairman, this might be a good time to read words which have been quoted with approval by the present Prime Minister, words approved by the former prime minister who sits in this house, words used by Arthur Meighen. Under the procedure which prevailed in the old days we could say to a minister that his estimates were not going to go through until he gave us some answers. I am not referring to this minister personally; I just give that as an example. But now we ask questions which are just left in Hansard and are never answered. How can the members of the opposition do their work if that is the way we in this house have to operate?


Jean Marchand: May I ask the members of the committee why they believe I am not going to give any answers?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I hope the minister will, but other ministers have not. I believe that this minister is very congenial and is liked by members on both sides of the house. I can see he is the sort who would be liked outside the house as well, not only in his constituency but in any part of the country, because he is that type of man. But with the greatest respect to him, we have not had from other ministers answers to questions we have put on Hansard.
October 26, 1967

I should like to tell the committee what Arthur Meighen said. I am not going to read the whole speech but these words were quoted with approval by the present Prime Minister when speaking to one of the clubs in Ottawa. I think they have also been quoted with approval in this house by the former prime minister who sits on this side. Arthur Meighen said:
It should supervise all expenditures and prevent overexpenditure by exposing to the light of public opinion wasteful expenditures or worse. It finds fault; it suggests amendments; it asks questions and elicits information-
We have been asking questions and trying to elicit information but have been unsuccessful.
-it arouses, educates and moulds public opinion by voice and vote. It must scrutinize every action by the government and in doing so prevents the shortcuts through democratic procedure that governments like to make.
The absence of a strong opposition means a one-party state. A one-party state means an all-powerful cabinet.
That is what we have today, Mr. Chairman, an all-powerful cabinet. Perhaps these new rules will be made permanent or they may be changed. But if the new rules mean that questions we ask members of the government are never going to be answered, then they are being used as a guillotine to keep government information in the drawers so it cannot be made public.
The government's expenditures this year are the highest of any government. That has been pointed out over and over again. Compared with the expenditures of the United States government the expenditures of this government have risen 25 per cent, and the United States is fighting a war. The opposition cannot get information about the expenditure of millions and millions of dollars on the part of hon. gentlemen on the front benches opposite. Those, Mr. Chairman, are my words of introduction to the minister and I want other ministers to read them and think about this point. These new rules must not be allowed to prevent us getting the kind of information we require.
To show how important this point is I should like to use this illustration. I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether he spoke to the United States government about dumping approximately 100 million bushels of wheat in our eastern markets, and I have not had an answer. I also asked him whether there would ever be a dollar subsidy paid, because we will never sell wheat below the floor price set by the agreement, and that 27053-2231
DEBATES	3525
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion question has not been answered either. We do not know whether we are subsidizing the wheat farmers or what is happening. They are not selling one bushel of wheat and no subsidy is being paid. I want that statement to go across the country because I am tired of the phony nonsense that we are getting from certain ministers.
I am not attacking this minister personally; I know he will likely answer. But we do not get answers from the old school ministers. This minister is a new minister and I hope he will co-operate. I am talking about the old set and you know whom I mean, Mr. Chairman. I imagine hon. members opposite also call them that behind closed doors.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. It being six o'clock it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, with the unanimous consent of the house may we continue with my estimates until seven o'clock?


Maurice Rinfret: That
request must be made with the Speaker in the chair.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before the house makes a decision about what is to be done with private members' hour perhaps I might read the questions on the adjournment motion this evening: the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Langlois)-Indian Affairsi-introduction of legislation re Indian claims commission; the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Gray)-Income Tax, request for forgiveness of interest on tax arrears of pensioners; the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave)-Health and Welfare, inclusion of optometrists in health resources fund teams.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, with the unanimous consent of the house I wonder whether we can continue with my estimates.


Michael Starr: Agreed.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house that the committee of supply be
October 26, 1967

Supply-Manpower and Immigration resumed and that consideration of the estimates of the Department of Manpower and Immigration be continued?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Knowles:: Until seven o'clock?


Jean Marchand: Until seven o'clock.



FISHERIES


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, before the house
returns to committee I wonder whether I could have leave to table copies in English and in French of order in council P.C. 19672025 respecting co-ordinates of points from which base lines may be determined pursuant to the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The committee of supply will now resume.

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



DEPARTMENT OF MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
Departmental Administration-
1. Administration, operation and maintenance, $4,206,600.
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I was talking about my position in connection with the rules. I shall leave that subject now. I have always felt that it is a proper thing to amalgamate or correlate departments of government if greater efficiency is likely to result, so when I heard there was to be a department of manpower which would be able to supervise immigration policies, pools of labour, vocational training and so on, I thought it was a good idea. But the new department will be effective only to the extent that the minister receives co-operation from his fellow ministers. He cannot be successful alone.
My hon. friend from Ontario drew attention to some of the weaknesses of the program which has been put forward. I doubt

that the minister will ever be able to implement this program effectively, nor do I believe he will be able to make the changes suggested by my hon. friend. He cannot do so because he will not receive co-operation from the Minister of Finance. That is his problem.
I am one of those who believe we are facing in this country a serious financial situation brought on by the present government. As a result the Minister of Manpower and Immigration will have to bear a lot more responsibility in the near future than he has done up to now. Lay-offs are taking place and we are moving into a future when they will be more frequent. I want to come to grips with one situation of which I have personal knowledge.
On Thursday night and on Friday I was absent from this house. We hear a lot about absenteeism. Where was I? I had been invited to speak to a meeting in Calgary arranged because 400 men had been laid off by the C.P.R. You cannot just sit here in Ottawa if you want to know what is going on. You have to move around.
Briefly, there are between 800 and 1,000 men employed in the workshops at a place called Ogden in tho suburbs of Calgary. These workshops have been there for years employing highly skilled people. The payroll is large. What has happened? The labour union cannot get answers from the C.P.R. One morning 400 men were laid off. The company said it was only for a month, possibly for two months. But the men are not sure. I asked the minister to tell us what the situation there is. He was most courteous. He told the house today that those 400 men, or some of them at least, were already back on the job. This was the information available to him through the department. I have checked with the union and they tell me that this is not correct, that in fact there are still 400 men working out of the 800 but that the 400 who were laid off are still without work.
I know the minister would not come into the house and misrepresent the facts as he knew them in any way. He gave us the facts as they were made known to him. He said that many of the men were back, more than half; I have not checked the blues-


Jean Marchand: On this point, perhaps I did not express myself clearly. I said they had been called back to work. This does not mean they are actually back at their jobs.
October 26, 1967	COMMONS


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, when I hear "called back to work" I assume it applies to tomorrow morning, not to next year. I am told they have been laid off for a month or two months. This matter is within the minister's sphere of responsibility. I believe there is a scheme on foot to move these workshops out of Calgary. What will happen to these men in such an eventuality? Most of them are over 45; some are in their fifties and some are in their sixties. It is all very well for the minister to say they will be able to move elsewhere and find alternative employment. We all know how difficult it is for men over 45 to find work; they cannot, as a rule, find alternative employment today.
We are all familiar with what happened in Winnipeg. We know what happened when Air Canada moved its shops. I believe the same process is going on under the C.P.R. I have been informed that the company is now contracting the repair of its big diesels with General Motors. This is a foot in the door to get rid of its own facilities. Why have these men been laid off? I am talking about correlation and I intend to correlate my speech today. I will tell you why, Mr. Chairman. It is because the Minister of Trade and Commerce has not come clean in this house on the subject of wheat.
The men to whom I have referred are employed repairing cars which are used to haul wheat to Vancouver and the great lakes. Today there is no wheat movement; cars are piled up all over western Canada. Wheat is not moving from the farms and the call for cars has declined accordingly. The Globe and Mail says the farmers are being subsidized. I say the editor should go to western Canada. He would not have to worry about a single dollar finding its way into the pockets of the farmers, because no wheat is being sold. Some tremendous speeches were made on this subject the other night by hon. members from western Canada. It may be that the C.P.R. will use this situation as an excuse for closing down its shops and farming out the repair work to General Motors.
Let me tell the minister that when 1,000 men are thrown out of work in a city with a population of 250,000 it really makes an impact. In the area of Ogden itself it is a matter of economic life or death. Our problem does not affect the Department of Manpower and Immigration alone. The hon. gentleman is, I believe, one of the leaders of his party in Quebec. He is either the leader or the second in command of the Liberal party there. It is a great thing to gather a lot of
DEBATES	3527
Supply-Manpower and Immigration responsibilities under one roof, but the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce will not come clean. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, for whom I have a lot of affection personally, went to the United States and said: "What are you doing, breaking your word to 52 nations by shipping wheat at lower prices and taking away the export markets of Canada and other countries?" I asked questions day in and day out on this point when the former minister of transport was here and was ruled out of order. That was the great parliamentarian Jack Pickersgill who was able to leave the house and get a job for himself at $40,000 a year. I warned him about another problem. Let me read this to the minister. The hon. gentleman is not to be blamed for it; I am his defence counsel this evening. He is trying to do his job but he is carrying a load placed upon him by these other fellows. Just listen to this from the Financial Post:
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
The U.S. has won long-term coal agreements from Japan for shipment of coking coal for metallurgical use in the face of competition from Canada, Australia-
Key factor in the United States deal-
What was the key factor? I say to the minister that his colleagues in the government sit around and do nothing.
-it may run to $1,500,000,000 over the next ten years-is the shipping cost which has been "bugging" Alberta-B.C. coal mine operators. Japan has received assurances of stability in freight rates-
It has received those assurances from the United States. What has the C.P.R. done with this contract? I asked Mr. Pickersgill over and over again when he was the minister of transport. He replied that the C.P.R. was a private corporation and he did not want to interfere with it. Now he is gone, having landed himself a big hot-shot job for $40,000 a year. If any Tory had introduced a bill to create a job for himself worth $40,000 a year there would have been headlines about it in every newspaper. Yet now we are supposed to look at him with great respect in his new job.
The C.P.R. carried the coal from Michel, B.C. to Vancouver, but the Great Northern Railway in the United States said, "You allow us to build a line 30 miles long from Michel to the United States and we will ship the coal at one third the cost you are paying now." The C.P.R. sat silent and did not change its rates. Now we have this new transport commissioner. I don't know if he
3528	COMMONS DEBATES	Ociober 26, 1967
Supply-Manpower and Immigration will do anything. He was pretty friendly when he sat in this chamber and I expect he will be friendly when he sits as commissioner, but the fact is that because of what has happened the coal contract has now been lost to Alberta.
In 1957 when I ran in the federal election in Bow River, which takes in Canmore and the hard coal mines throughout the foothills near Banff, the coal miners there were all unemployed. There was nothing but poverty and destitution in the area. Then the Conservative government went to work. The then minister of trade and commerce, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, went to work and made coal contracts with Japan, brought in a subvention of $4 per ton, got the men back to work, got the mines working and got things going. But now the coal operators of Canada are suffering again and some 2,000 or 3,000 men are being thrown out of work, not because of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration but because of his colleagues who have been sitting around and have not been doing anything.
Decay has begun in the Liberal government. That is what has happened. Two contracts, the wheat contract which brought in approximately $2 billion of new money last year and the coal contract, are going down the drain. Liberal members may say I am preaching gloom and doom. If I could do that like the Secretary of State for External Affairs used to I would really be a preacher. He went across this nation preaching gloom and doom when there was a recession that we inherited and one would have thought in listening to him that the whole world was collapsing.
The Minister of Manpower and Immigration has my sympathy this afternoon because I predict we are going to have massive unemployment within the next six to nine months. Decay has set in because of the government's financial debacle. The minister's own backbenchers admit this. This is what they tell government ministers in caucus. I would love to be a little mouse hiding in the Liberal caucus to hear them beg their government to do something. Our job is to brush the dust away and bring these matters out in the open in this chamber so that the public may know what is going on. I am not attacking the minister personally, but the loss of these two contracts has resulted in Canada's economic health failing.
Now let us get down to brass tacks. What has been going on in connection with the finances of this nation to bring this situation

about, and why has the minister such heavy responsibility? Here is the best explanation I have read for a long time, and I think it fits the Liberal government to a T:
There were Caesars before Caesar-and after him -who dealt in bread and circuses. Caesar was high priest not only of the corrupted religion of the day, but of a debauched electorate as well. He poured out the public moneys from the treasury for their amusement; he manipulated the price of their bread; he told them always that these blessings came from Caesar. And it was quite a while before the Roman people tumbled to the fact that the big party was on them, after all.
Doesn't this fit the government today?
Over inflated payrolls, printing-press money, and government largesse for political purposes may corrupt the electorate as surely as vote stealing at the polls, and much more successfully.
What beautiful language, and it fits. A more apt quotation never fit better. It certainly fits this Liberal government. How did they get power?
Those who seek power beyond the will and intent of the people gain their foothold by winning over the voters with appealing promises; something for nothing, security without work, entertainment without price.
We have lots of that.


Mr. Choquetie:: Chiefly from you tonight.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, sir, but any time you are on the stage you are the best comedian.


Auguste Choquette: You still look like Red Skelton.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You enjoy life. You get up and talk just for a laugh. But this is serious. People are out of work. Taxes are high, we are facing a financial crisis, and you joke. I continue with my quotation:
After all, Mussolini and Hitler were elected at "perfectly legal" elections-
Then they stayed fast in office. Canada, of course, is a democracy and people will have something to say about that. Just the other day I received a letter which is much better than any speech of mine could ever be. I never heard of this lady before but she wrote to the Minister of Finance and sent me a copy of her letter. This is what she wrote:
Dear Mr. Sharp:
First it was a compulsory security number, as I so dramatically discovered five months ago. No pay for a week of substitute teaching-not because of lack of effort or lack of ability, but because of a lack of a social security number. You will be pleased to know that I am now a law-abiding citizen.
October 26, 1967	COMMONS
Second it was a compulsory pension plan. How marvellous that my husband no longer has to prepare for our old age. The government will magnanimously look after him. Where I fit in, your equivocal literature doesn't really say. But why worry? Welfare can always take care of me until I become a widow.
Third is the oncoming compulsory medicare. How wonderful that those unselfish men in Ottawa are going to look after my family's personal health- and all for free. The fact that our municipal and income taxes are becoming unbearable is too mundane to be worthy of mention.
But the Carter commission surpasses them all. It will create a delightful state-controlled country with all the benefits of a planned economy, planned lives and no selfish incentive for individual effort. Our system will become vacuous and brutal as the rewards of work and the thrill of daily living are eliminated. Truly a glorious Utopia for my children.
The letter is signed by Mrs. Mildred B. Chisholm of R.R.4, Calgary, Alberta. I cannot make a better speech than what her letter says.
The government is doing nothing and that is why workers are being laid off in Calgary by the C.P.R. That is why men are being laid off in the coal mines. That is why they are going to be laid off in Nova Scotia. As the quotation I gave says:
There were Caesars before Caesar . . . He poured out the public moneys from the treasury for the people's amusement.
The government introduced one telling amendment to the Bank Act. I think it is a cute little change. It offsets the chance of there ever being another Coyne affair. It says that if the governor of the Bank of Canada will not pour out public money, turn a crank and create money, as a certain group in this house used to say, the cabinet can write him a letter and say to him: You are a nasty little governor; we have a dreadful financial problem; we are going to hold another election and we are going to pour out the money even if it brings about greater inflation which in turn will create more strikes and less profits and raise the cost of living for every pensioner in the country; you will do what we tell you. In such a circumstance the governor could not control monetary extravagance.
This minister, Mr. Chairman, has the toughest job because he is looking after manpower. How can he get these people back to work? The fact is that he cannot until the Minister of Trade and Commerce gets out and sells the coal and stops the United States undercutting us so Canada can sell its wheat again. There is no wheat being sold now. Some people are saying to the government: Don't worry about it because in this situation you
DEBATES	3529
Supply-Manpower and Immigration will not have to pay any subsidy. The farmer is suffering, the labourer is suffering. Yet right across this country when you pick up newspapers you see, except for a few exceptions, articles saying that Canada is enjoying an unusual boom. I forget what the figure is but the old age pensioner is going to get either $1.56 or $1.76 more to offset the rise in the cost of living.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
Does the minister know what has happened to rents in Calgary? They went up from $10 to $20 a month. The government pretends to be magnanimous by giving the pensioners something extra. By the same token the cost of living is going up because of inflation and because of continued government spending undertaken without responsibility.
The nation will wish to ask some pointed questions of the Prime Minister. We have gone through a most unusual period in Canadian history involving strikes and management-labour problems which have gone on for long periods without settlements. We have the Pearson formula for 30 per cent wage increases. How can you have 30 per cent wage increases without increasing the cost of living. We are caught in a vicious circle.
Over and over again I have asked the Prime Minister whether the Dean Woods report, which will relate to the problem of industrial unrest, has come to his attention. One year ago the Prime Minister said that an interim report would be ready in two or three weeks. I asked again at this session whether it would be ready soon. He said he would look into the question and that he had asked for an interim report. I doubt whether that report will be ready by the time this session ends. I will keep asking for it and if I am here for the next session I will ask for it then. I will continue to ask for it until it is made available. I doubt that the report will be ready by the end of the next session because the government does not wish to follow the recommendations that it will very likely contain.
The Liberal party wanted the responsibility of governing. They bid a high price for the privilege, as is evident from their literature. They sought the responsibility. All I ask of them is: Please govern. People in Calgary and elsewhere in this nation are out of work because of this government's policies. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration is not responsible entirely. The Minister of
Supply-Manpower and Immigration Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have not given leadership or direction. I never saw a cabinet before which expressed so many different opinions in so many parts of the country. One cabinet member says in one part of the country that taxes are to be raised. Another says in another part of the country that they are to be lowered. Nowhere do we see cabinet cohesion. Never before since confederation have we seen the degree of irresponsibility which is apparent now.
The minister has my sympathy. He has a tough job but he willingly took that job. I know that the minister undertook his present portfolio because of his humane sentiments and the experience he can bring to his job. That is good. But a government is like a building. You must make sure that the roof does not leak and that water does not run down into the building and crack the concrete foundation. I say to the minister that if he stays in his job he will turn grey in the next month because of the bigger and bigger mess that will result from the government's actions. This government has been completely senseless and irresponsible.
We shall see the results of increasing industrial competition. The United States is crowing about the great agreement that has been signed. But we will see lay-offs in Ontario and much unemployment throughout the country. It is all very well for the government to say, "Good gracious, the United States has doublecrossed us in its wheat dealings." That is nothing. In Ontario especially there will be unprecedented unemployment because of what this government has done. There are Liberals who wish they could sneak out of office and hand the reins over to us so we could clear up the mess.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with the estimates of a department that is as important as any in the federal government today. Manpower and immigration policies are crucial to the continued successful existence and development of this country.
The hon. member who just spoke has treated us to one of his usual colourful displays. I wonder whether he would have dared to make a speech of that kind when this country was really in trouble when his party was in power. I have not had the opportunity of checking Hansard and I am not saying he did not speak, but I suspect that when there was a need to speak up about the lack of action, the lack of activity, about the hundreds of thousands of people out of work, he

October 26, 1967
sat in his place. What counts is what people do when the chips are down, when the need is to do something constructive and effective when one has a chance to do it. Unfortunately for the hon. member and his party the record is there. They did nothing. I suggest to this house that the memory of the Canadian people is not as short as the hon. member thinks it is.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Read the Gallup poll. The memory of the Canadian people is not short so far as the Liberal party is concerned.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: We shall see when the time comes. Polls come and go. Though members of the official opposition have themselves commented about this sort of thing, as well in the past. We shall see what happens when the Canadian people have an opportunity to compare the record of their government and this government to make a judgment the outcome of which I am confident will be continued support for this government and this party.
One of the two halves of the department deals with manpower. Certainly this department, and particularly this section, has a key role in improving the productivity of this country. It is not enough merely to build buildings in the way that was done by the party of the Acting Leader of the Opposition and to fill them with people who in many cases were trained for jobs that did not exist. This government has recognized the need not only to see that buildings are built and classrooms are filled but also that workers are matched to skills, that real information is available as to the skills required in this country, and that training of all sorts is encouraged in ways that mean that people who want to do so will be financially able to take courses that are offered across this country.
This is the type of necessary work that is being carried out by this new department as its reorganization proceeds. There are facilities that did not exist before this department came into existence in its present form, facilities to determine the jobs required in this country, to determine the skills required, to match people to jobs, to make sure that we have not only the necessary courses available but that courses match the requirements of this country for the skills of today and the future.
Let us look at some examples. Let us look at the separation of the national employment service from the unemployment insurance commission, the turning of it into an active

October 26, 1967	COMMONS
agency of manpower policy and its transformation, going on at this time, into the Canada manpower centres. This move was undertaken by this government and the minister's department under the leadership of the minister, a move that has been greeted with praise and encouragement by thoughtful observers across the country.
When the Acting Leader of the Opposition spoke on behalf of his party he made some reference to the abandonment, if I have the word correctly, of the productivity council set up by his government. I suggest to this committee that the council was not abandoned; instead, its functions were absorbed by the economic council. Those functions are being carried on by the economic council, the very body praised so fulsomely by the Acting Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Bow River who just spoke and quoted from the report of the council.
I ask this committee to remember the criticism by informed and thoughtful observers, of the lack of effectiveness of the productivity council when the previous government was in office. I ask hon. members to remember that, if I am not mistaken, the then president of the Canadian Labour Congress, Mr. Jodoin, resigned from the council in protest against it not becoming an effective instrument of economic development in the way that the mission sent to Europe under the auspices of the council had urged after studying the experience of European countries.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
The recommendation of the mission to Europe, calling for more effective measures of consultation and planning, came during the existence of the productivity council as it then stood. Of course, the useful work of the council has been carried on through the economic council which was created by this government. Even more important, we find not only consultative agencies but bodies designed to actually carry out programs working in the area of improving productivity, the manpower section of the Department of Manpower and Immigration working on the training side of productivity and the Department of Industry working in the area of technology.
There are problems that arise in this period of adjustment when the federal government is taking a somewhat different approach to the question of manpower. I think we should recognize at this time the achievements of and the constructive work being carried out by the manpower side of 27053-224
DEBATES	3531
Supply-Manpower and Immigration the minister's department. At the same time, I think we in this house should urge the minister to make sure that the training activity, the retraining work being carried out by his department extends as widely as possible and is as flexible as possible, to make sure that those who actually need retraining, whether or not they are working at present or whether they have been here for only a relatively short period, will be able to have this training in the interests of the economic development and the continued prosperity of this nation.
I should like at this time, Mr. Chairman, to turn to the other side of the minister's department, namely, the immigration branch. Certainly the new regulations for the selection of immigrants, the new points system, is a step forward in the creation of methods for the fair, reasonable and humane selection of people to join with us in building this country.
These regulations broaden the classes of relatives who can be considered. They are aimed at treating people on an equal basis no matter where they come from in this world. The points system provides a flexibility that was not present under the former rigid approach whereby a person either qualified completely on the basis of skill or fell within a narrow category with regard to relatives who could sponsor him, and if he did not fall completely in one area or the other he could not come to this country.
At the present time, under this new system, if a person does not have a very high level of education, complete training in a skill, but there are other factors that can be taken into account, relatives willing to support him, a certain knowledge of our two official languages, these things can be added together in a way that should make it possible for the person who wants to come to this country and contribute to its development to come here and make a better life for himself and his family, to the benefit of all of us.
But while I am praising these new regulations and praising the minister for responding to the suggestions of the immigration committee, of members on this side of the house and the other side who helped bring about this new system, I should say that I do not think the present structure of the points system should be regarded as being engraved on tablets of stone.
A certain period must go by in which the administration of the points system as constituted at the present time should be studied and observed. But I think it would be a great
3532	COMMONS
Supply-Manpower and Immigration mistake if after a period of study and transition, which should not be too long, the government failed to take into account the actual experience of administering this system and treated the points system as something immutable, as something handed down from above that cannot be changed without threatening the very structure and foundation of this country. This would be a mistake.
Although the program has been in operation for a relatively brief period, we can see some areas of it, some aspects, which I think give cause for concern. I refer particularly to the section of the regulations entitled "Norms For Assessment of Independent Applicants" and in particular to the category "Personal assessment" which reads as follows:
Adaptability, motivation, initiative, resourcefulness and other similar qualities to be assessed during an interview with the applicant by an immigration or visa officer, the total assessment up to a maximum of 15 to reflect the latter's judgment of the personal suitability of the applicant and his family to become successfully established in Canada.
The minister may well say: The reason we provide this category and assign it 15 points is to help people to come into this country when they may not be able to measure up completely to the other norms of education and training, occupational demand, occupational skill, age, and so on.
I certainly agree with that, but I am somewhat concerned that this particular category can be used in exactly the opposite way. Let me explain why I say this. First of all, 15 points are given for personal assessment. This is almost the same number of points as for education and training, which category provides up to a maximum of 20 points. It is exactly the same number of points as for occupational demand, which provides a maximum of 15 points. It is more than the number of points for occupational skill, for which a total of ten points is provided. It is certainly more than the number of points provided where the applicant has a relative who is not eligible to sponsor him but is willing to assist to some extent. Only five points are given here.
I suggest that as we obtain further experience in administering this points system we may find that too many points have been given to the category of personal assessment. At least the other categories are capable of some degree of objective measurement and objective definition. But this clearly cannot be done with this category of personal assessment, where the officer has to consider such

DEBATES	October 26. 1967
qualities as adaptability, motivation, initiative, resourcefulness, and so on. These are all wonderful words and are qualities we look for in immigrants, but I have some doubt whether any one of them can be assessed by an immigration officer in the course of an interview of 15 or 20 minutes.
These terms have been the subject of consideration and study by social scientists and researchers in universities for many years. I have grave doubts whether even they can provide, even after a period of lengthy research and study, definitions and criteria which can be established and applied to people in a way which permits decisions to be made on the crucial question of whether people being tested have the qualifications to come into this country.
Shortly before the time came when I would be able to speak on these estimates I went into the parliamentary library and found a volume entitled "A Dictionary of the Social Sciences" which was compiled under the auspices of the United Nations educational, scientific, and cultural organization. The book is described as containing terms pertinent to the fields of anthropology, economics, political science, social psychology and sociology. It occurred to me that if the minister has teams of sociologists studying the reasons why immigrants are not interested in coming to this country from certain other countries- and I think this is a very useful work-possibly similar efforts would have been aimed at evolving the category of personal assessment. Therefore I decided to look up the terms in this dictionary. First I looked up the term "adaptability". The term "adaptability" does not even occur in this book; it is not there at all. Since I do not want to be unfair, I would point out that the word "adaptation" does appear, and it is defined as follows on page 8:
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
Adaptation may be defined as the process, and the resultant condition, in which changes in an organism, system of social organization, group, or culture aid the survival, functioning, maintenance, or achievement of purpose on the part of an organism, personality, group, culture, or any part thereof.
I wonder if an immigration officer can apply this definition to an individual after an interview of 15 minutes or of several hours, because subparagraph 1 of this definition reads as follows:
As can be seen the present usage of the term has become so broad as to be diffuse and almost meaningless.
October 26. 1967	COMMONS
Then I decided to turn to the next term which is "motivation" for which there is a rather lengthy definition in the book, part of which I will read:
The term motivation refers to any organismic state that mobilizes activity which is in some sense selective, or directive, with respect to the environment. Since a great deal of human behaviour that is obviously motivated, in this sense, cannot be directly associated with any specific, discriminable organismic states, it is necessary to distinguish one motive from another in terms of the goals (q.v.) toward which behaviour is directed, if the term is to have a constant meaning regardless of whether or not the motive in question corresponds to a specific, known physiologic state.
I know the minister shares with me the aim to have our system administered in a fair and equitable way, and he has achieved remarkable progress along these lines. Perhaps he could tell me what training has been given to our immigration officers to assist them to apply the criteria in this definition to an individual in 10 or 15 minutes.
The next term is "initiative". I looked it up and found its definition to be as follows:
The initiative is a political device-used widely in Switzerland and in state and local governments in the United States-through which the electorate may by petition propose a statute or an amendment to a constitution.
It goes on to define this concept at greater length. I think it is of some significance that the term "initiative" does not even exist as a concept in social sciences applicable to the individual human personality, and yet the department is asking its officers to assess applicants who wish to live in this country on the basis of a concept of initiative which hundreds of social scientists at the level of people like Clyde Kluckhorn, Margaret Mead and Barbara Ward have not been able to define in this volume published under the aegis of UNESCO.
Then I turn to another term, namely "resourcefulness" and this is not in the book either. What I just said about initiative obviously also applies to the term "resourcefulness".


Edward Richard Schreyer: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Yes, when I complete my
remarks. Since I will try not to speak at great length, there should be some time left for questions.
I think it is obvious that while the aim of providing some type of assessment of the personality to help make up for lacks in education and training is a good one, and I am certainly not opposing it in principle the
27053-224J
DEBATES	3533
Supply-Manpower and Immigration way this has come out in the initial stage is subject to abuse, to subjective decisions and subjective judgment in a way which is not consistent with what I am confident the minister had in mind when proposing this points system. I might add that he is asking officers to apply these concepts who, in spite of the fact that the majority of them are well inten-tioned and interested in their work, are certainly not qualified to carry out a detailed assessment of the personality, whether they have 15 minutes or 10 hours in which to do it.
I think that I have at least in part made the point that while there is a need for a period of study and observation of this points system there is already one aspect of it which, so far as thoughtful and fair-minded people are concerned-and I certainly include the minister in this category-should be a matter of concern-that is that it will be used to turn upside down what I am sure is the aim of the minister and the government, namely to broaden the admissibility of immigrants to Canada. The purpose of this discussion in committee of the whole is to have an exchange of ideas, and the minister has been most reasonable in taking part in this exchange both in the house and in the special committee on immigration. I would urge him to take my remarks into account, I hope that before much more time has gone by he will see the necessity for some appropriate modification in this points system, so that this situation will not be continued where there are immigration officers, no matter how interested and active they may be, who are not really equipped to carry out an assessment of personality on the basis of criteria which do not even exist as concepts in social science, and if they do exist they do so in a way which permits them to be applied only by highly trained people after the most lengthy and careful studies. I might say that if the category exists, and I say there is a place for it, certainly there is room for a reduction of the number of points given for it, and an increase of the points in the category of relatives. Certainly the fact that an applicant has a relative in Canada willing to assist him in becoming established is worth more than five points. I think it should be possible to put the points which would be taken away from the category of personal assessment into the category of relatives.
I want to deal with another point which has less reference to the points system as such than to the present method of considering the applications of visitors. I understand that a person who applies for an immigration
October 26, 1967

Supply-Manpower and Immigration visa while visiting this country is not given any credit for arranged employment in Canada but automatically loses 10 points. It seems to me that if we are really interested in encouraging skilled people to come here we should welcome those who come here on a trip of an exploratory nature to see whether they can fit into our society. It is unrealistic to expect someone who has a home and a good job to give it all up and to come to this country, even after having had the opportunity to read all the leaflets and talk to the immigration officers in his home country, without having a chance to study the situation personally. I certainly think it should be possible for someone to come here as a visitor to see whether or not he likes the country and can find a suitable job, and then file his application in a way which would not discriminate against him. His application should certainly not be considered more quickly than it would be if he were to remain in his home country and file it there, but I do not think he should start out with a couple of strikes against him because he came here to visit and decided he wanted to stay. It is unreasonable to expect such a person to incur the expenses involved in buying a ticket to go back home an amount which may be sufficient for him to pay to bring his family over, and then have to make an application back in his home country.
When the minister will speak later on in the debate perhaps he may provide some clarification with regard to the deduction of points where arranged employment is made. I think it would be most unreasonable if this deduction were to take place after the prospective immigrant came here and arranged for employment, especially if in the first place he did not intend to stay here permanently but, at the urging of relatives decided to apply and told the immigration officer that he has found someone who wanted to offer him a job in his trade. If we can accept the argument of the department that there is something wrong in having a more open acceptance of applications from visitors, one should also possibly be able to accept the argument that some points should be deducted if a person comes here after making prior arrangements for a job here and arrives here ostensibly as a visitor. Certainly this argument cannot be applied to a person who comes here as a visitor and, at the urging of a prospective employer, comes to the immigration officer and says he would like to stay here. I think it is unreasonable, under those circumstances to take ten points from the

points available to him. I urge the minister to give further consideration to this aspect as well.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman. I will say that while I have attempted to put forward some criticisms in a constructive vein of some aspects of this points system, I feel it is a great step forward, a great improvement over the previous approach to the selection of immigrants. My remarks are aimed at helping the system work better, at helping the minister achieve continued and even greater success in his responsibility, not only in this department but as one of the leaders of the government of this country. After all, in spite of the criticism that may come from this side of the house, or the other side, I think the memories of the people of this country are not so short that they cannot remember that in the early 1960's when the party now in opposition formed the government, immigration fell to some 70,000.
It was only after this government took office that the number of immigrants rose in a way which reflected the needs of the country, and a better approach to the humane treatment of our fellow human beings. Certainly, there is a great difference, no matter what criticisms I or others may bring forward during the study of these estimates, between the almost 200,000 immigrants who have come this year and the 70,000 who came under the former government. This shamefully low figure along with others was a blot on the record of that government.
So, in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I say that I have put forward some suggestions for improvement. I commend the minister upon his willingness to listen to suggestions and to consider individual cases as well. I am confident that the department, under his leadership and the government of which he is a member, will continue the progress that came about only when this government took office, and will continue to provide the necessary increase in immigrants for the benefit of this country and its people.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Chairman, after listening to the previous speaker-


Edward Richard Schreyer: I have a question which I should like to direct to the hon. member for Essex West. The hon. member was critical of certain concepts involved in the new immigration policy. In particular, he stated that the use of certain terms, such as initiative,
October 26, 1967

were difficult to express because they lacked precision. I should like to ask him if he would agree that we have the same problem when this term is used in connection with economics and taxation. This term is used so frequently, that I ask him if he would not agree there is an equal lack of justification for its use?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: No, I would not accept that statement. There are dictionary definitions, but I think there is a difference between dictionary definitions and the more precise definition required when one operates in the area of the sciences, even the social sciences. I will be the first to agree that the social sciences have not yet achieved the absolute certainty that some of the other sciences have. While I believe that my criticisms are valid in respect of the attempt to use the word "initiative" as a concept in the measurement of individual human performance or potential performance, I think that as a broad general concept related to the activities of people, parties, governments or humanity in general it is capable of continued use. Certainly it has justification in so far as the achievements of this government to date are concerned.


Richard Albert Bell: Interesting, indeed, Mr. Chairman, has been the speech of the hon. member for Essex West. He has sought to set himself up as one of the principal critics of the department of immigration, and yet when the chips are down he wants to go along with and be part of the minister's policy. Really, he cannot have it both ways. He puts one foot firmly on each side of the fence, while the wire eats into his soul. This is the type of operation of which the hon. gentleman has been guilty in the joint special committee. In the committee he has set himself up as someone trying to be in opposition to the department, and yet he comes into the house and takes an entirely different approach. Sir, I do not believe I can make any other comment except, "Oh, consistency, thou art a jewel."


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He is having a love-in this afternoon.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: May I ask a question?


Richard Albert Bell: I listened with care to the hon. gentleman and I hope he will listen with equal care to me.


Mr. Munro:: Many of these changes are the ones you wanted.
Supply-Manpower and Immigration


Richard Albert Bell: I do not know what the hon. member for Hamilton East is mumbling. He usually sits in his seat and mumbles. I wish he would get up and make a speech.


John Carr Munro: May I get up now, then, and ask a question ?


Richard Albert Bell: The hon. gentleman may get up and make a speech later, when I have finished.


John Carr Munro: My only comment was that many of these changes are the ones you, yourself, wanted.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. Would both hon. gentlemen sit down please. The hon. member for Carleton has the floor.


Richard Albert Bell: During the last session of parliament immigration policy was considered in detail in a joint special committee of the Senate and House of Commons. In my view this was a good committee. It is regrettable that the government and its supporters have not seen fit to continue the work of that committee at this session, so that a proper report could be made to parliament and acted upon.
The committee itself was established on May 18, and the members of the committee were appointed on May 29. There has not been one sitting of the committee since May 29. The responsibility rests with the government whip to call that committee. No one else but the government whip can call it. This is neglect of a very vital issue on the part of the government whip.
The briefs that were submitted to the joint special committee at the last session were of an exceptionally high calibre. They deserved, but have not received, the intensive study of the members of the committee. The house, and I think the nation, are entitled to a detailed and exhaustive study of the provisions of the white paper.
In earlier debates, sir, I have expressed my opinion that the white paper was window dressing. It needs to be strengthened greatly and clarified before it could become an acceptable basis for a long range, genuinely expansionist immigration policy. The evidence taken before the special committee clearly indicates that while the white paper purports to be expansionist it is, in fact, latently restrictive; that while purportedly non-discriminatory it is latently discriminatory.
3536	COMMONS
Supply-Manpower and Immigration
I suggest to you, sir, that these aspects must be purged from the white paper and from the legislation which presumably will follow it.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. It being seven
o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At seven o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: Mr. Chairman, just before the recess I had endeavoured to deal with the inconsistencies of the white paper, equalled only by the jewelled inconsistencies of the hon. member for Essex West. I should like to continue and to deal with some of the briefs which have been submitted on behalf of a variety of organizations and governments to the special joint committee on immigration.
I thought the most impressive brief of all was that submitted by the government of Manitoba. The minister of industry and commerce, Hon. Sidney Spivak, pointed out that each economic region of Canada has special problems related to the need for immigrants, each its own particular potentials, problems and objectives.
While it is certainly true that the more heavily developed and industrialized regions of Canada may require more skilled and fewer unskilled immigrants, the less developed areas of Canada actually require more unskilled and semi-skilled immigrants. I think a brief quotation from the Manitoba brief, as it appears at page 199 of the proceedings and evidence of the special joint committee, will make this particular point:
The policy proposed in the white paper claims to be nondiscriminatory. It is in terms of geography and race. But it does in fact discriminate against the kind of people Manitoba needs today to enable our economy to expand and grow. The federal "policy" is not expansionist as it claims. Rather it imposes unrealistic standards in a small and highly selective, increasingly competitive skill and education market. It simply does not recognize the facts.
That is the point I should like to make about the white paper, Mr. Chairman: It simply does not recognize the facts. It does not seem to me that the new regulations adopting a points system are adequate enough or flexible enough to meet this point of view. In many ways I would prefer what I

DEBATES	October 26, 1967
have heard described as the old "eyeball" system.
The hon. gentleman from Greenwood was worried that he might not be admitted to Canada if suddenly he were confronted by an immigration officer who, looking him over and applying the points system, sought to describe him. For myself, Mr. Chairman, I like the eyeball system. I believe in the judgment of the individual by the properly trained immigration officer.
I repeat, sir, what I have said before often in this chamber, that if the ancestors of the members of this chamber had had to meet the selection criteria laid down in the white paper, few of us would even be citizens of this country of which we are now representatives in the parliament of the nation.
I venture to put on record, Mr. Chairman, the recommendations of the Manitoba brief, and respectfully to endorse them in full, as they appear at page 200 of the proceedings and evidence of the special joint committee on immigration:
The following recommendations respecting Canada's immigration policies and programs are submitted for consideration:
National immigration policy is not sufficiently flexible to meet the needs of each region and province. Programs should be specifically designed to help overcome regional disparities.
Critical labour shortages cannot be met because of existing immigration rules. Procedures should be established immediately which will permit prompt immigration action to overcome existing and future persistent labour shortages.
Proposed immigration policy will hamper "frontier" development. Special programs should be created to help encourage "frontier" development-
Rigid admission standards based primarily on education are unrealistic and do not meet needs of the economy. They are discriminatory rather than expansionist. Education and skill admission standards should be revised to take account of the immigrant's aptitude and potential.
Those words I would adopt in full, Mr. Chairman. I say to the committee that nowhere has the failure of our immigration policy been so evident as in the recruitment of agricultural workers. The extent to which the department of immigration has let down the farmers of this nation is exposed in an answer to a question of mine which appears in Hansard for June 21, 1967 at page 1769. The third part of the question was:
3. Of the immigrants who were admitted to Canada in 1965 and 1966 (a) how many were destined for the agricultural labour force (b) what percentage of the total immigration inflow for each of the two years did these represent?
October 26, 1967	COMMONS
What was the answer, Mr. Chairman? In 1965 the workers destined for agricultural employment numbered 2,362; the percentage of the total immigration was 1.6. In 1966 the number was 3,153; the percentage of the total immigration was 1.6. In each of those years, Mr. Chairman, only 1.6 per cent of the total inflow of immigration was directed to agricultural employment, the industry which still today is the very bedrock of our national prosperity.
Yet every day, Mr. Chairman, more and more farmers are compelled to give up farming or to restrict their activities because of this shortage of labour; and no one knows that better than the man who with such distinction occupies the chair at the present time. The almost total lack of farm labour at this time is verging upon a national crisis as well as a personal tragedy for very many farmers. What plans has the department in this regard? None was outlined. Will the minister when he replies outline the plans the department has in this respect?
Another sufferer from the excessive emphasis upon skill and education is the mining industry. All of us have seen the recent press stories, which I am not going to read into the record, setting up the critical labour shortage in that industry. The department has been dilatory and negligent in its lack of recruitment programs for labour in these two basic industries.
[DOT] (8:10 p.ra.)
One of the major problems of the department results from the discrimination against the overseas staff which exists in comparison with the treatment accorded the overseas staff of the Department of External Affairs and the Department of Trade and Commerce. The officers of the department of immigration ought, as a matter of right, to enjoy the status and prestige accorded at least to the overseas staff of the Department of Trade and Commerce. They do not. Those men and women who are selecting our future citizens are engaged in work at least as important to Canada as those who are promoting our trade. The just grievances of the overseas staff of the department of immigration should be removed at once.
In his reply, I would ask the minister to tell the committee what action has been taken to promote the immigration of noncommunists from behind the iron curtain. We are told there are extensive pools of highly trained and intelligent people seeking to
DEBATES	3537
Supply-Manpower and Immigration leave some of these countries: Was any advantage taken of the recent and most welcome visit of the Polish parliamentary group to discuss emigration from that particular country? Canadians of Polish origin are among our most enlightened and publicly minded citizens. The Canadian Polish Congress is a great national organization. This country could use many more citizens of the qualities of those of Polish origin.
Again, I should like the minister to tell us what co-operation has taken place between his department and the government of Manitoba in respect of the latter's program under which free passage is offered as a means of attracting immigrants to that province. Is this program a success? Ought it to be emulated on a national scale? Earlier, in the course of another debate, I expressed the view-which I reiterate now-that we should extend broader and more generous inducements with a view to attracting desirable immigrants. The Australian plan has worked; it has attracted to that great country a large number of most suitable immigrants who might otherwise have been admitted to Canada.
Turning to another subject, I submit with great respect that the minister has been less than vigilant, or less than expeditious, in getting the new immigration appeal board into full operation. There was an unconscionable delay in making the appointments, and the actual commencement of operations on a new basis was delayed much longer than we were led to expect. Why has this been the case? The board may well be the white hope in immigration policy. Let us give it every opportunity to build up a new and, I hope, humanitarian jurisprudence in the immigration field.
Mr. Chairman, a concomitant of the failure of the minister and the government to get the special committee into action is the further delay in the total revision of the obsolete, one might almost say antedeluvian, Immigration Act. The target date of the previous government for this revision was two years following the enactment of the new regulations in January, 1962. That target has been missed by 3| years. My advice to the minister is: Let us get on with this job. The Immigration Act is a hodge-podge of inconsistent antiquities. Let us bring it into the 20th century and make some attempt in its drafting to look forward to the 21st.
October 26, 1967

Supply-Manpower and Immigration
I believe the committee is entitled to a full statement from the minister about the progress of the department's program in connection with the granting of immigrant status for persons who overstay their visits to Canada, as outlined in the hon. gentleman's statement of July 8, 1966. At that time, there were certainly between 25,000 and 35,000 persons who were in Canada illegally. How many of these have since been legally admitted? How many new illegal entries have been made since that time, according to departmental estimates? Has the policy of July, 1966 solved this continuing problem, or has it merely settled some individual oases while ignoring the arrival of new illegal entrants?
Many members of this house have been concerned about the presence in Canada of so-called draft dodgers from the United States. The ease with which a United States citizen may enter Canada either as a visitor or as an immigrant is something no one wishes to restrict. I recognize equally that the whole of the North American continent, United States and Canada alike, owes a great deal to dissenters, religious, pacifist and otherwise. But I think this committee needs an assurance that we are not merely lending ourselves to the breach of the laws of our neighbour. We need to be assured, in the second place, that the admissions are legal, and that they are allowed for purposes which would serve our national interest. Third, we should be satisfied that the entrants are not persons of a type likely to engage in illegal or illicit activities while in Canada.
The minister owes the committee a detailed statement. I seek to place no impediment upon the proper and legal entry into Canada of United States citizens, including those who are genuine non-conformists, but I do not wish our country to be a haven for drug addicts, perverts and other escapists from reality.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Miller Bell: 
Mr. Mackasey:: Irishman?
October 26, 1967


Thomas Miller Bell: -and resent those who place me on one side or the other.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: How did you become an Irishman?


Richard Albert Bell: My people were rebellious when France was sleeping in medievalism. I stand with the third force in Canada which demands total equality with those two races who arrogate to themselves special designation as founding peoples. I ask only genuine Canadianism for one and all in a united Canada.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Chairman, I have only a few words to say in this debate on the estimates of the Department of Manpower and Immigration. To begin with I would like to congratulate the minister. Since he came to Ottawa and was made minister in charge of this department he has been instrumental in introducing significant reforms both in immigration and manpower. The new rules for the admission of immigrants are a big step forward because they make a more realistic assessment of the true value of a potential immigrant. Previously too much value was given to the formal training of the immigrant and not enough to the other factors which make a person a good Canadian.
The new regulations have been directed to economic ends to correspond with our manpower needs. This is extremely important, but above this I believe the new rules with the points system are more humane, more just and more orderly. As a member of parliament from a city constituency which has a high percentage of immigrants, I have already found examples where the new rules have provided for a more humane and better flow of immigrants.
But with all new plans there are bound to be a few kinks which have to be worked out with experience. I merely want to mention a few of these and make some suggestions to the minister about them. I believe the most sensitive area in the new method and points system involves the men who interview prospective immigrants and apply the points system. One can easily see how easy it would be for the interviewer to let his personal prejudices influence his granting of points, especially in the areas where quick judgment is required, and where really no quick judgment can be made. It is to be hoped that all interviewers will be properly instructed, and I think they should be given more specific rules for guidance.
Supply-Manpower and Immigration
It appears to me, Mr. Chairman, that too often the interviewers and other officials in the department resolve any doubts against the prospective immigrant. It would seem to me that it would be much better and more humane to resolve any doubts in favour of the immigrant. Too often people have been refused entry or sent back to their own countries merely on what would appear to be the personal whim of the interviewer or of the official in the department. So, whereas I feel the new rules and regulations are a big step forward, and really the right sort of thing, it is most important that they be applied by people who would apply any doubt in favour of the applicant.
Although the new rules have removed any discrimination, they really will not be effective until we have placed more immigration officers and more personnel in countries where the demand for immigration is high, and where the pressures of the population explosions are also high. I have particularly in mind Indonesia, India, Hong Kong and the West Indies. I have encountered problems in my own constituency concerning prospective immigrants from these areas, involving people who have been waiting for years to get into Canada because of lack of personnel or lack of offices, many of them people with high qualifications and who, apparently, could become very good Canadians.
I realize that in the matter of immigrants coming from developing countries we must work in co-operation with those countries, so that we do not take away from them some of their own people who are needed to develop them. It would be ridiculous on the one hand for our government to try to assist the development of these countries through our external aid office and, on the other hand, take the people they need away from them.
I believe the minister has announced his intention of correcting other problems such as those concerned with the handicapped and mentally ill. The sooner amendments are made to the new rules, to allow an immigrant family to bring with them a member of that family who is chronically ill or handicapped, or who has some type of disease which would not permit his admission as an individual, provided the family is willing to take care of that person, the better it will be. It is completely inhumane to allow a family to come to Canada, yet disallow one brother or son merely because he has some type of illness which would bar his admission as an individual immigrant. So long as the family
3540	COMMONS
Supply-Manpower and Immigration is prepared to take care of him he should be allowed to come to Canada.
With regard to prospective immigrants from behind the Iron Curtain I have personally encountered problems where the security check involved takes too long and is applied with too much rigour against people who, in the long run, are often shown to have nothing against them which should prevent their coming into this country. I say we should allow such prospective immigrants to come into Canada provisionally, if they meet the test on all other points, with the stipulation that if anything shows up later in their security check then they would have to leave the country. I believe a somewhat similar procedure is followed in other countries.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I think the new policy we have introduced covering the manpower retraining program and the manpower relocation program is a big step forward in this age of technological change, in which men often lose their jobs in middle life because of new technology and new types of processing. However, I have found that some men who applied for the retaining program were refused admission because they were over the maximum age laid down. One man I have in mind was 56, and another 58.
I have also found instances of people who were refused because they did not have sufficient education under the regulations covering the retraining program. If this retraining program is to be really effective I believe it should apply to men who are in their middle age, even if they do not have grade 11 education. In one case I know that a man was refused because he did not have grade 11 education, and he wrote me about it. He was a man who had a trade, but who lost his job because of new technology. This man was refused retraining because he did not have grade 11 education. In other cases, as I have said, men were refused admission to a retraining program because it was claimed they were too old.
I believe that one of the most difficult areas in manpower is with respect to middle aged workers. Even if they can be retrained those of this age group have the most difficulty in finding jobs. I have found that many men of ability who still have much to offer Canada and to the economic growth of their regions cannot get jobs because of the restrictions many companies impose with respect to

DEBATES	October 26, 1967
age. The department responsible for manpower must work to correct this problem. We should do something to remedy restrictive rules in the department's regulations which prevent persons such as I have mentioned from entering into retraining and relocation programs because of age or education.
As I said at the beginning, the department's difficulties are kinks which will be ironed out. They are natural. I think the minister, in setting up this department and introducing into immigration and manpower new procedures, deserves a great deal of credit.


Mr. McCleave:: I shall try to be brief, for two reasons. First, many others wish to talk in this interesting debate and, second, the Leader of the Opposition in an able address covered many points I had wanted to cover. I shall not repeat them, except to urge on the minister the wisdom of letting a committee of the House of Commons examine this program and the work of this department. Probably that could be done next year. That way we could learn more than by having exchanges in the House of Commons. Experts could be called before the committee to testify. One point that could be looked into, for example, is the 25 per cent of unplaced job applicants registered with the former national employment service in 1966. They were male and over the age of 54. Only 1.2 per cent of those who were in training were in that age group. Obviously, those in the 54 and up age group face a serious problem. They may be regarded as untrainable for new jobs, or as not having the inclination at that time of life to take job training opportunities that are available.
On points such as these it would be useful to hear experts from inside and outside the department. The problem is a neglected one and perhaps cannot be solved by the Department of Manpower and Immigration. Nevertheless in a sense these people are being forgotten. I mention these matters to the minister in all earnestness, hoping that, say next year, a committee may be set up to examine in depth the operations of his department.
This afternoon, if I heard him correctly, the minister mentioned that the department was not concentrating its efforts in the area of moving people from one part of Canada to another. It preferred, and I hope I have this correctly, for problems to be solved in the provinces in which they occur. The President
October 26, 1967

of the Treasury Board who made a remark some years ago that brought a storm from Atlantic Canada about his ears will no doubt tell the minister that such an approach is wise.
Another aspect the committee could examine is the effectiveness over the last six years of the department's programs. In a powerful indictment published in the Monetary Times for June, 1967, an article entitled "The Manpower Mess", had this to say in part:
From 1961 to 1966 program 4 (training in cooperation with industry) and program 5 (training of the unemployed) soaked up $100 million. For this figure, the government claims some 200,000 Canadians participated in one way or another. But there is little to show what their participation achieved. The dropout rate may be as high as 60%, and the profitability to those who completed the courses is practically unknown.
I do not know whether these strong words are correct, and perhaps the minister, in replying, can say whether he takes exception to that statement published in the Monetary Times. Such a statement implants a nagging doubt that can be resolved better by an *examination in the more intimate setting of a committee of the house than by an examination in this awesome forum.
I continue quoting from the article:
Even Ontario, which made greater use of the funds than all other provinces combined, heard its own economic council report:	"Program 5
lacks well-defined objectives at all levels of its operations: federal, provincial and local. The lack of objectives complicates the development of effective policies and the use of meaningful performance measures. (Its role) has not been defined and continued procrastination could result in a training program for the unemployed which diverges widely from the nation's and the province's real needs."
Again, sir, I say that this is compelling evidence to show the need for such important programs, in all their aspects, to be examined.
I was pleased to hear the minister announce that he would broaden the statistical operations that support the manpower program. Admittedly he spoke in the other language of Canada, and while we have excellent translation facilities one cannot always catch what is being said. If one is too close to the minister he hears him speaking in his original language, which is distracting; and if one is too far away he can hear a buzz coming from behind the curtains, which is distracting, too. I gather the minister said that the statistical information so far available to him and his officials was incomplete and that new statistical devices were to be employed. This is wise.
Supply-Manpower and Immigration
In the March, 1967, issue of the Canadian Statistical Review a feature article on Canadian manpower statistics supports the need for more and different types of information with respect to unemployment in Canada. There is the labour force survey taken from 35,000 households. It is a national survey, a sort of spot check here and there, but does not examine the problem in detail. As the article I have just referred to says on page 3 of the publication:
For those in the labour force with a job, some qualitative information is available regarding their industrial and occupational attachment within broad groupings. Similarly, for the unemployed the number of weeks seeking work is recorded. Because of the relatively small size of the sample (about 1 per cent of the population of working age) sampling variability limits the amount of detail from this source. Thus for most series only Canada and regional data are available.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
The article, in speaking of administrative records, says that those records are deficient and are limited in usefulness as economic statistics. I am glad to see the minister coming to grips with this problem.
I should like to know about that. Again, I think a committee approach, where one could call in experts and deal with this new type of statistical approach, would be helpful. While the minister can be very frank with us and give certain answers, he is perhaps just filling in Hansard and we are occupying ourselves with technical information that is of interest to only a relatively small number of members.
On the question of immigration, Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the minister for taking, in the Halifax area, a step that has been long overdue. After consultation with the Department of Transport and some urging from Halifax members and the port of Halifax commission, the minister has now corrected the problem. In the past when groups of, say, below 250 immigrants arrived in Halifax it was not feasible to arrange special trains for them, and frequently while awaiting the regular service they had to hang around the immigration sheds. * This represented a rather bleak welcome to their new country. Instead of the red carpet that was promised in Rome, say, they found these cold and somewhat institutional rooms of very poor comfort. This was their first impression, quite apart from their arrival in the beautiful harbour of Halifax, upon landing in this country.
3542	COMMONS
Supply-Manpower and Immigration
The minister has solved this problem by making hotel accommodation in Halifax available to these groups of newcomers to Canada. I should like to put this on the public record. People who are not able to board special trains immediately are provided with hotel accommodation. This was a very humane and very reasonable step, which I presume will be applied in other parts of Canada.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, we have had some discussion today about the ten-point system. The hon. member for Greenwood and the hon. member for St. Paul's wondered how well they would qualify and what criteria would be used. They wondered whether you can judge a man accurately by looking him in the eye. My suggestion is-and this method can be used to test any person, particularly somebody who asks you to endorse his note-that the test should be: Would you buy a used car from this person? I throw that suggestion out as a swift alternative to the laborious setting down and totalling of points. However, I do have reservations about the test I have suggested. I am afraid that were it applied completely it might mean that Canada would become occupied by little old ladies, of both sexes, who drove their vehicles only on Sunday.


Mr. Saltsman:: Mr. Chairman, the minister expressed his optimism tonight and hoped that Canada would have one of the best manpower policies in the world. We all agree that this is what we would like to have in this country. However, I do not think we are as close to achieving that desired result as the minister seems to think.
I believe there is little cause for comfort in the progress of the manpower department. Many of the problems of that department are beyond the ability of the minister to solve. I think this has to be stated. I should also like to say that a couple of weeks ago I brought some matters to the minister's attention and was very pleased when he rose at the end of my comments and put some forthright statements on the record for the guidance of people in offices across this country.
We know that the minister has failed to attract the necessary personnel to his department. We understand this is a general problem and applies not only to his department but to others. I believe the minister has tried to attract these personnel and I hope that before this debate concludes he will tell us frankly what are the difficulties and what
1 Mr. McCleave.]
DEBATES	October 26, 1967
solutions he has in mind for correcting the problem.
It is also fairly obvious that the minister has had to change his plans with regard to making payments under some of the programs, because of the difficulties encountered at the federal-provincial level, in terms of defining the jurisdiction of the federal government as opposed to that of the provincial governments. Until the government finds a better solution than has appeared up to this time, the whole program will be bedevilled by these strange situations that cannot be corrected and which cause enormous inconvenience to people seeking retraining in this country.
I hope that my remarks tonight will be somewhat more rational than those of the leader of the official opposition. The hon. member for Ontario began by criticizing the minister for his failure to provide enough money for retraining programs. The hon. member said that the absence of funds in this area resulted in the exclusion of people from retraining programs. He then concluded his speech by taking the government to task for spending too much money and for not reducing the tax load on the citizens of this country. I suggest there is room for legitimate criticism in this regard; but this was not that kind of criticism. I believe that the kind of criticism in which the pot calls the kettle black does not help us in the course of trying to solve these problems.
When members of the opposition, whose record while in office contains, amongst other things, a history of the highest unemployment rate in this country for many years, rise and criticize the government for the present level of unemployment, some questions have to be raised. I believe the problem of unemployment is of paramount importance and it is the chief point with which I should like to deal tonight. Before doing so, however, I should like to point out the third difficulty in the minister's department that has not been adequately explained.
I believe the department has been excessively cautious from the commencement of the program to the present time. If we consider the mobility program, for example, we have seen it revised from one stage to another. It started out with loans and grants and has now progressed-I might say, favourably progressed-to a structure of grants and has got away from loans.
October 26, 1967	COMMONS
From the inception of this program we have pointed out the difficulty of a proposition which included loans and grants. We have now progressed to the grants stage in the program. We have not, however, reached the stage of a clearcut understanding that the grants must be substantially higher than those now proposed by the minister.
The hardcore unemployment in certain areas of this country points up the need for mobility in those areas. The reason people have to be moved from certain communities is not that of individual unemployment, the kind of individual unemployment that occurs in an area that has diversified industry. It results from a complete shutdown of an industry, from the obsolescence of an activity, and it means that the working community suffers greatly. One of the chief obstacles in moving people in a situation of that type is that to move them from the surroundings in which they have become accustomed to living means that they lose everything they have worked for all their lives.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Usually it means the loss of a home. If the community is on its way out and there is no opportunity to sell that home, even giving people an extra $500 under their allowances is not an adequate compensation. The department will have to consider compensating losses of this type in the same way in which society generally has to do it when it expropriates land for the purpose of building a highway or an expressway. It is not enough to say: We will give you something toward your future. That "something" does not go very far. Since the dislocation is part of the over-all price that society pays for change and progress, that price should not have to be paid for only by the victims upon whose shoulders the dislocation falls. The remedy is a house for a house. This should be obvious to hon. members in the opposition.
I have seen people in my own riding being forced to migrate from their homes and the homes of their ancestors, after the most productive years of their life have been spent, and having to start out in new surroundings where, generally speaking, housing is difficult to obtain, at a time when the money they have received does not go very far, and when much of the furniture they have acquired is either no longer useful or too costly to move. What they need is an adequate opportunity for resettlement, and that cost should be borne by society generally rather than by these people in particular. If a mobility program is to adequately reflect the needs of this
DEBATES	3543
Supply-Manpower and Immigration country, then this is the position that we must take.
It seems that the minister is frequently put in the position of a painter who has to cover the defects of the carpenters who are building the structure in this country. I should like to suggest to the minister that, like any other painter, he could camouflage some of the minor flaws, but if he wishes to preserve his reputation he had better talk to the carpenters and review the structure because there is a limit to what even painting can do.
The threatened closing down of Dosco is an example of the sort of thing I am talking about. Here is an industry which decides on its own and for its own reasons, without regard for the disruption that it creates in the community, to cease operations. The minister of manpower is left to pick up the pieces and to try to patch up the job or paint it over to make it look good. The real failure in this case is the failure of the government to have anticipated this problem and to have done some structural work before the roof fell in. Apparently the minister recognized this, and in the Globe and Mail of October 17 he is reported to have said the following:
-Change is inevitable in a dynamic economy, but corporations have to accept their responsibilities to the communities in which they operate... and legislation may be needed to enforce the point.
I suggest to him that it is not that legislation may be needed, but that legislation is needed. I would like to hear from the minister as to what he intends to propose to the government by way of legislation to prevent Dosco from abdicating its responsibility, and what he proposes to do about other similar situations.
We may have reached the point where we will start hearing proposals from Liberals and Conservatives to nationalize Dosco. Certainly such proposals have already been made by my own party. I think there is a great danger in such a proposal. It seems that the only time when nationalization is proposed is when the particular industry has collapsed and it becomes the only way to preserve some of the social and human elements involved. In time people will forget about the irresponsibility of the company and will only remember the difficulties it had in operating, and then blame nationalization for what is essentially a fault of the government in not having anticipated the situation.
There was a time when Dosco should have been nationalized, and in the last 10 or 15 years that suggestion has been made to successive governments. However, it was
October 26, 1967

Supply-Manpower and Immigration always pooh-poohed. Right until the last minute the impression was left that the people in Cape Breton were in no danger and there was no need for the government to step into the picture. That optimism has not been borne out and a serious crisis is facing Nova Scotia. Referring to the labour government in Britain will not absolve the government of this country from its failure to live up to its responsibilities, for its camouflaging of the circumstances and for waiting until disaster strikes. The government will not impress the people in Cape Breton by muttering about the labour government in Great Britain.
I should now like to speak about some of my own personal experiences and observations as the representative of the riding of Waterloo South. We have a unique riding in the sense that there is a tremendous diversity of industry in our area, all the way from textiles to machinery. It has been instructive to observe what has happened over a period of years. The experience in the riding has convinced me of the tremendous urgency and need for a manpower policy, and this is why I have been such a strong advocate of the upgrading of training and of generally increasing the level of skills to meet the growing needs of an industrial society. However, one conclusion that must be reached when examining the manpower policies is that no manpower policy can be successful unless the minister insists on an economy of full employment. A year and a half ago when the employment situation was better than it is today I had the opportunity to see how readily manpower programs were instituted. Today we find our older workers cannot find employment and people who want to work cannot find work because of their age. We find that part-time female workers cannot find employment, young men out of high school are also in this position and immigrants from abroad as well as people from other provinces who have moved into the riding are experiencing difficulties in obtaining employment. This was not the case when the level of employment was higher. When industry needed workers there was no obstacle to developing special programs for women who wanted to work part time. Immigrants could be absorbed readily and so could people from other parts of Canada.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
The minute you get some unemployment, some people are classified as unemployable or only partially employable. Then, the old problems that have faced this country for many

years come to the fore. We hear statements from the Minister of Finance, when he expresses concern over inflation, to the effect that something has to be done to take the heat off. The implication in many of the minister's speeches is that we must increase the level of unemployment in this country. I urge the minister of manpower, as a person who knows what unemployment means to the ordinary man, to use all his influence within the cabinet to make certain that this kind of policy does not prevail. Other solutions have to be found to control inflation in Canada. The solution of creating more unemployment is totally unacceptable to our society.
The solution of increased supply is one that should be sought. We have many opportunities for increasing efficiency and productivity of our industry. The solution to this problem is not the sole responsibility of the minister of manpower, but he should use his influence within the cabinet to make sure that the approach of increasing supply and productivity is the one that is pursued, rather than the suggestion that a little unemployment is the answer to our economic ills. Before this debate is concluded, I hope the minister will indicate his position on this question. I see some consultation is taking place between the two ministers in question. I feel that the country deserves an answer from the minister of manpower. He should tell us where he stands on this particular issue, and which position he will support.
We all believe in the programs that are being suggested, such as the mobility program, retraining programs, increased market information, better placement service, improved provincial planning and increased aid to education. All of these things are of the greatest importance. However, they are effects rather than causes. We should never lose sight of the fact that under full employment, even in the absence of a directed program, most of the essentials of this manpower policy find expression.
There is mobility in spite of inadequate government measures. The unemployed in one part of the country find that there are job openings elsewhere. The word does not always come through government agencies but often results from visits back home or through previous migrants. Training takes place in plants that previously refused to consider such programs, once the pool of skilled labour dries up. Individuals who were considered unemployable by reason of age or lack of skill, suddenly become useful when
October 26, 1967	COMMONS
the cream is skimmed off the labour market. The hard core cases no longer seem to be such hard cores. Unemployment amongst the young ceases to be a crisis. Admittedly, a planned manpower program would speed up this process by making the way easier for both management and labour, and for that reason it should be aggressively pursued. Good manpower programs would also do the research and set up the machinery to overcome the guessing and uncertainty of the grapevine. For these reasons, we are all in favour of manpower policies. I would conclude by pointing out to the minister that all of this is conditional and dependant on the philosophy of full employment.


Mr. Hymmen:: I am very pleased to follow the hon. member for Waterloo South, because the two ridings, of course, make up the county of Waterloo, one of the most highly industrialized areas in the country today. A great many of our people are immigrants, and they have become excellent citizens. I certainly want to take this opportunity to congratulate the minister upon his initiative in continuing the expansionist policies of this government with regard to immigration. The hon. member for St. Paul's cited some statistics, and I will not repeat them. I will just mention that from the year 1961 to the year 1967 the number of immigrants to this country increased from 72,000 to over 200,000.
The hon. member for Carleton, a former minister of immigration, expressed some concern at the number of agricultural workers who are brought into Canada. I can appreciate that concern. Until there is some change in the economy of our agriculture sector, which of course is one of our more important industries, I am afraid that the agricultural workers brought to this country will soon drift to the urban areas, to which many of our own citizens are going. One interesting statistic indicates that we had 195,000 immigrants in 1966, about half of which were classified as workers and the other half as dependants. One quarter of the working category were classified as professional and technical people.
We need a great many more people in this country in order to develop our true potential. Canada, of course, is a land of opportunity with a land mass slightly larger than the United States of America to the south of us, but with only one tenth of its population. I am reminded of a highly industrialized midEuropean country from which many people come to my area, which is not as large as our
DEBATES	3545
Supply-Manpower and Immigration newest province, Newfoundland, and yet has three times the population of Canada.
I wish to speak to the new immigration regulations and commend the minister upon the introduction of these regulations. I have a very specific interest in doing so because they will provide more uniformity in the consideration of applicants, aside from the two basic considerations of character and health. Up to the present time, these considerations have been left to the discretion of officers. In spite of the points system, which has been criticized by members of the opposition, the new regulations will certainly provide uniformity in the consideration of immigrants from all over the world, and provide what I am sure this government wants to provide, an opportunity for more people to come to Canada. At the same time, these regulations recognize family relationships. This was one of the main questions considered by the standing committee on immigration. They also remove some discrimination from certain geographical areas, to which I am sure the hon. member for St. Paul's was referring earlier.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
My reason for speaking briefly this evening is to point out that just about the time when the new regulations came out several questions were asked of the minister concerning an immigration case in connection with which the C.B.C. had broadcast a program. The person in question happened to reside in my riding, one Bertram Peterson. The news media have an important job to do in criticizing government policy, but it is also very easy to find an exceptional case and to magnify it. There is always a certain amount of public support for the exception, but very often the important consideration is the number of cases that are not exceptional. For every exception to the rule there are a thousand legitimate cases of assistance to immigrants to this country.
I have met Mr. Peterson, Mr. Chairman, and had I been an immigration officer-I do not class myself as trained in this connection-I would probably have accepted him. He is a very personable young man who came here for a visit and for the first time except for a short period in 1966, he was given an opportunity to apply for permanent residence while a visitor. Unfortunately, under the new regulations he did not qualify. I understand that as of this week formal notification has been sent to him that he should leave the country. However, he may
3546	COMMONS
Supply-Manpower and Immigration take his case to an inquiry officer and, following that, if necessary to the immigration appeal board.
Although I support the regulations, Mr. Chairman, I feel-and I think the members of the committee on immigration felt much the same way-that compassionate cases, or cases involving exceptional circumstances, should be considered by this enlarged appeal board. I think the committee on immigration felt that this was one of the most important functions of the immigration appeal board.
It is very difficult to consider all of the circumstances surrounding an application. I know that the hon. member for Carleton earlier referred in laudatory terms to the people who come to this country from Poland. I know many Polish people who have made excellent citizens and who have brought to this country a heritage which is ten times the heritage of the Dominion of Canada. We are, of course, celebrating our 100th anniversary, but the nation of Poland has celebrated its millenium. We are very appreciative of the co-operation given by the Polish government in allowing relatives of people in this country to immigrate to Canada.
I often listen to questions asked of ministers by members of the opposition, and time and time again hon. members opposite suggest that the minister is taking too long in answering, that they should answer a question on motions. Last week the minister of manpower did try to make a statement about the Peterson case, on motions, but was told that that was not the place to do so.
In spite of the fact that I have appealed to the minister in connection with the Peterson case and was disappointed, as I know was Mr. Peterson, that his appeal was not granted, I trust that some way can be found through the procedures which have been indicated to enable this young man, despite his lack of certain qualifications which are necessary under the new regulations, to remain in the country. I say this because I am sure he is the type of citizen we want here.
Just a word about the manpower program, Mr. Chairman. Many problems have arisen in the implementation of this program, the federal government having accepted responsibility for 100 per cent of the cost. I think no area has had more problems than my constituency of Waterloo North, most of them surprisingly enough in the urban centres of Kitchener and Waterloo.

DEBATES	October 26, 1967
Under the old shared cost program between the provincial and federal governments new facilities have been provided and the staff has been increased. The program has also been enlarged. As a matter of fact, almost three months before the changeover took place on April 1 last it was indicated to me that there was some concern over the apparent proliferation of activity under the program. I realize members of the opposition have placed on record statistics relating to the lack of trainees under this program, and I also realize it is highly desirable for every citizen of Canada to take part in the program, should they desire to improve their education or training. Nevertheless I feel there must be some control even if all who can benefit themselves and upgrade their skills are given every opportunity to do so.
I do not share the concern which has been registered this evening about the three year restriction on school drop-outs and hippies. In many of these cases there is lack of motivation. I think the provincial departments of education should accept responsibility here. I am sure that some of these people would benefit if they worked for several years and developed a desire which would motivate them to undertake some form of training.
I have one suggestion to make to the minister which I would ask him to consider seriously. Under the present regulations I do not think consideration is given to women recently widowed and with dependants and who, because they have not previously been members of the labour force, are not able to receive the training they can certainly use in order to provide for themselves and their families. This is one area in which serious consideration should be given to enable these people to provide for their needs.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I want to raise a question of privilege at the outset, because I will have a few words to say on a subject not necessarily relevant to the debate but which I mentioned this afternoon on another question of privilege when I said that I felt I was a victim of discrimination and segregation within the house on the allocation of speaking time.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I suggest that the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres confine his remarks to the item before the committee.
October 26, 1967


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I should like to remind you that I want to speak to a question of privilege first. I think I am entitled to say what I have to say on the question of privilege. I am an independent member and feel discriminated against when it is time for the Chair to recognize speakers.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. Again I suggest to the hon. member that he has been given the opportunity to speak and should confine his remarks to the matter before the committee.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: On the same question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, may I repeat-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. A procedure is laid down in the House of Commons for those who have any complaint against the conduct of the Chair. If the hon. member has such complaint I suggest he follow that procedure; for the moment I would hope that he would confine his remarks to the estimates of the Department of Manpower and Immigration.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Since I am a new member in the house would the Chair kindly tell me the rule or regulation that prevents me from invoking a question of privilege at this time?
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I must advise the hon. member that he was not recognized on a question of privilege. He was recognized in order that he might comment on the estimates which are now before the committee.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Thank you. I will keep to that subject.

Mr. Chairman, as far as the estimates of the Department of Manpower and Immigration are concerned, I have some remarks which may not be more brilliant than those which have been made until now but which at least will offer the advantage of not being politically inspired, remarks with no other meaning than: "Because we are Conservatives, we could do better than you; or because we are Liberals, we are doing better than you."
This afternoon, I was among those who felt admiration for the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) who seems to be a brilliant criminal lawyer. If ever I were to seriously break the law out west, I would call on his services, because he seems exceedingly brilliant when he speaks on legal or criminal matters. But when he is being

Supply-Manpower and Immigration influenced by political partisanship, he is less brilliant, Mr. Chairman. In fact, this afternoon, he gave a speech which, to my mind, settled nothing. He said this: The Canadian Pacific wants to eliminate from Calgary certain operations involving the lay-off of 300 or 400 employees.
I should like to remind the hon. member for Bow River that the city of Winnipeg also at one time complained when Air Canada wanted to remove some of their operations. The city of Montreal could complain at this time that Bell Telephone will be moving 350 or 400 employees to Ottawa. My own city could complain that some operations have to be moved elsewhere.
Mr. Chairman, the basic problem is not the fact that industries must move, but if we go to the bottom of things, the problem is that we are entering the age of automation, and as a result we must realize that we cannot expect industries to continue their operations and meet their expenses unless they submit to the requirements of this age of automation.
I say to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration that his program is a good one; it is an excellent one in the circumstances and it is not his fault if it is ten or fifteen years too late, but I feel he should arrange for studies to be made about the situation of the labour market and of the Canadian economy in the next thirty or thirty-five years.
I know that the Americans have been able to establish committees which attempt to anticipate our mode of life in twenty, twenty-five, thirty or thirty-five years from now. We are told that in the year 2000, hardly more than 20 or 25 per cent of the people will be employed during a reasonable part of the day. If the present rate is maintained, automation will intensify and this is what should already be anticipated.
Complaining about the Canadian Pacific or Air Canada, or my complaining because enterprises must move out of my town to meet the demands of automation, this does not solve the problem itself. We are merely applying poultices, trying to solve the problem partially; and we have to start all over again the next morning.
I want the minister to understand that I am not saying this to criticize his policy, because what he is doing is immeasurably better than what we have known in many a year; nor do I want to seem to play politics. I feel that if the Conservatives were in power they would probably be doing the same
3548	COMMONS
Supply-Manpower and Immigration thing, because it is a necessity in this day and age. But unfortunately, the parties in power never manage to put the poultice on the sore before it festers and becomes almost incurable, whereas they should anticipate 10, 15, 20 or 25 years ahead of time and adopt such measures as would keep the situation from becoming so serious.
Nevertheless, I congratulate the minister because I can tell him, on the basis of my personal experience, the experience in my own riding, that our manpower office, with an establishment of about thirty or thirty-five experts, works marvels in difficult circumstances, even though the legislation has just been implemented. I would like to quote some names and the testimony of people who took advantage of its services, and who tell us that the legislation initiated and implemented by him is in the van and gives good results. It would probably be indiscreet to go too far in that field. Nevertheless, I want to congratulate him.
I will repeat also, Mr. Chairman, a thing that I already told the minister. I do not say it to his address but rather to others. I think he is being saddled with too many responsibilities. They would be enough to keep busy a minister of immigration, a minister of manpower and possibly a leader of the Liberal party in Quebec.
I wonder if this habit of putting a crushing burden on a man is not destroying leaders who could give their full measure in another field, but who are expected to give it in three completely unrelated fields with the result that unfortunate things happen, as we have found out. There comes a time when this affects their health; we lose those men and they have to be replaced and others have to be initiated with all the inherent delays, and their loss is to be regretted.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
I mention this again, hoping that those whose task it is to choose the leaders know how to divide responsibilities. In saying that,
I do not doubt the talent and capability of the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand). I have seen him work with the labour unions for such a long time that I am well aware of his extraordinary vitality.
I know that his responsibilities have just been increased a thousandfold. Knowing him,
I know that he, too, would like to excel in his work, but one cannot do so when one is trying to do three things at once. I mention this, because I think it is the sort of thing

DEBATES	October 26, 1967
which only an independent member can mention in committee.
As I said before, the basic problem we are discussing concerns manpower retraining and vocational training, which must be undertaken in the light of the era of great automation in which we are entering. Already in five or ten years excessive automation will make it difficult to find employment for our people, and studies made by the Americans in particular show that in the year 2000, which is not so very far away, only about thirty years from now, only 20 or 25 per cent of the population will be reasonably employed. What will other people do then? A department of recreation and a department of idleness will have to be set up, because all those people cannot be left to starve to death as a result of automation taking their jobs away from them.
For the time being, Mr. Chairman, after listening to all the speeches made this afternoon, and in which there always is something worth remembering-and when I rise to ask the floor, I would not think for a moment that my words could be any better than anybody else's, perhaps just as good but not better-I simply would not want to repeat everything that has been said here, and well said at that. However, I should like to forget the partisan views expressed by the Conservatives when they say: If we had been in your shoes, we would have done a better job; and then the Liberals reply: When you were there, you were unable to do any better.
I am a believer in historical development, and if today I can enjoy television, drive a car, and things like that which were unavailable in my father's and grand-father's time, it is precisely because historical evolution and progress occur independently of us and shall continue to do so.
All we ask from those who have responsibilities, is to do what they can. I think that the Tories, when they were in power, did whatever they could under the circumstances, with the means at their disposal, and I think that the same can be said of this Liberal government. I should like my remarks to be constructive, rather than necessarily destructive, because my personal aim is not to overthrow the government. It is simply to offer my co-operation, so that the duly formed and democratically elected government may under the present circumstances, act in the public interest and provide for all as much of the good things of this world as possible. This is the justification for my remarks.
October 26, 1967

I will say to the minister, as I have already done, that I feel it would be advisable to give specal directives to the department of manpower to make sure that the so-called old people-that is over 40-may, if they are still in good health, find some employment, or they should be taken care of some way or another.
Now, the minister knows, because he has worked in the labour movement, that over 40 or 45 years of age, it is extremely difficult to find employment due to the requirements of collective bargaining, group insurance and many others, and that Canadians are doomed to idleness despite the fact they could increase the productivity of the country, because they have acquired over the years an experience which helps them to produce more efficiently than younger workers and thereby contributes to the national production. I feel we do not take good enough care of our old people, and one is old at an early age these days. Every week, not only in my riding, but in surrounding ridings, people tell me that at 40, 42, 45, they are too old to work. To my mind, there should be a special section in the department of manpower to deal with the so-called old people. I say that there are old people who, at 65, are much younger than many others, because their morale is good, their health is good, and they could help to increase national productivity instead of becoming a burden on public funds and being condemned to the demoralizing idleness to which they are doomed under our present system.
I repeat to the minister that I want my criticism to be constructive. He has already gone a long way towards improving working conditions, and my remarks are not intended to criticize his administration.
I should like also to repeat a suggestion I addressed very briefly yesterday to the minister of forestry (Mr. Sauve). I say "briefly" because, as everyone, I had to limit myself to twenty minutes, and as I had been relegated to the end of the list, at the last moment, I was asked to co-operate and limit my remarks to two minutes, and I did so.
I told the minister of forestry, and I repeat it to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand), that there should be in the department of manpower a special section to deal with young people still in school and who could work during their two or three months' holidays to pay part of their tuition.
Supply-Manpower and Immigration
I was saying that a special program, perhaps a widespread reforestation program or something of the kind should be set up; that would be to the benefit of the country and it would also reduced overcrowding in the plants, make room for others and also reduce the budget for scholarships and costs guaranteed by the government. On the other hand, those young people might derive from it an education and salutary discipline.
I feel that in co-operation with his colleagues, the minister should study the possibility of introducing a bill so that all those young people still in school-I am talking about those at the secondary and university level mainly, young people of 18, 19, 20, 21 and over-would be assured of getting a job and an income, without swelling the labour market, and at the same time some discipline.
I would not call that military service. We could give it all kinds of names but if the government intends to set up a similar system, it would not involve much more expenditures since it is already obliged to meet certain needs by various means, such as scholarships and others. Furthermore, it might relieve the labour market.
Earlier, someone talked about woman-power which is too often neglected. When I refer to womanpower, I mean the widows, for instance, who still have children to raise; the wives whose heartless husbands have deserted them without paying them alimony; the ladies who may still be young at heart but not so young in years, who must provide for their maintenance. A special division in the manpower department must be set up for them so that they may earn an honest living, and have a place where they can find out what benefits are available to them, what social legislation has been set up so that they would not have, as it is the case now, to go and fish for themselves, if I may use that term, to avail themselves of all the opportunities of the legislation.
This brings me to repeat another suggestion I made to the minister the other day to the effect that courses in human relations should be taken by all public servants, federal, provincial, municipal and others, who get up one fine morning and think themselves miniature potentates oblivious to everything that is going on in the world and who treat their customers, who are the taxpayers, the citizens who pay taxes, with unmitigated cynicism. I do not say this situation is general but it exists and they probably become blase by hearing so many problems. But the problems exist just the same, and they should
3550	COMMONS
Supply-Manpower and Immigration learn what is being taught to employees of private enterprise. They know that if they do not deal properly with the customers, the latter will patronize rival stores.
This does not exist in the public service, but nevertheless, the public servant should be constantly reminded, once or twice a year, that he is dealing with human beings who, after all, are not his servants but his employers, since they pay taxes, since they vote on election day and since they are kings on that particular day, that he must treat them with every possible consideration and not wait until they inquire about all the possibilities of the legislation, in short, that he is being paid by the government to put all his knowledge at the disposal of taxpayers in order to acquaint them with the legislation and help them solve their problems.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I say it is not current enough and, once more, this is no reflection on the minister. I am merely making constructive suggestions. Lectures on public relations should be regularly given not every five years but every year and as often as necessary. Experts should check the way the employees of these offices manage their work; it must be borne in mind that they are dealing with human beings endowed with sensitiveness, with a soul, with personal and family problems and who deserve all the consideration that the public servant should give those who help pay his salary, who elect the people who will decide when he is going to be employed in the service of the community.
Mr. Chairman, this afternoon, mention was made that it was perhaps not reasonable to require that a candidate be out of school for three years. I think that, as in everything else, there are arguments for and against. Of course, I know that manpower services cannot empty schools to absorb the students, but I wonder if it might not be possible to find a compromise, because there are special cases. For instance, I am thinking of a case I witnessed back home: a boy had to leave school to help his widowed mother take care of the family. After working a few months, he became unemployed. He could not avail himself of the services the manpower offices offer ordinary unemployed. If he could then he should have been told.
I see that the minister is protesting and I am happy to hear him protest because I will call someone to order. Someone in the office should think of human relations and tell

DEBATES	October 26, 1967
him: My friend, you are entitled to such and such a thing. Do not compel him to come three or four times to the member's office to say: I went to the manpower centre but without success because I have been out of school less than three years. I repeat my suggestion about human relations.
As far as naturalization after five years is concerned, that is clearly questionable; there are pros and cons. I imagine that the immigrant who is here, even though he is not naturalized after one, two or three years, has all the privileges enjoyed by Canadians, except perhaps that of voting; he can wait three or perhaps four years, that is immaterial, that is not too serious.
French immigration was discussed; that is another problem. It must be understood that, in general, French-speaking people are not prone to emigrate. I think that the minister will not contest that statement.
It should also be said that the province of Quebec is not organized to welcome Frenchspeaking people. I should like to illustrate my point with two cases. The hon. minister will forgive me for using them as examples but I think they are typical.
Some months ago I received in my office a young French immigrant, an orphan who had all sorts of problems. I do not intend to tell his story; suffice it to say that he managed to get into the country. He has been unemployed since then.
In his own country, he had studied what we call mechanics-he worked on precision machines-then he came to Canada and, for some reason or other, the immigration service was unable to find him a job in his line of work. I wonder how he managed to get into the country. At one point, he was given a job as stone mason. He went to work as a bricklayer but he is only so high. He is shorter and thinner than the minister. Think of it. He did not last a day; the contractor fired him. That is obvious. Then the immigration and manpower office found him a job as a welder; he went to work as a welder, but he did not last half a day. He was not a welder.
He is living in dire poverty and he came to my office to tell me so. That is a typical case, Mr. Chairman. He said to me: Listen, I would very much like to work, but this is my trade; I studied at home and that is all I know. I cannot carry cement or cinder blocks on my shoulders, because I am a little over 4 feet tall and I weigh barely 100 pounds. I would not mind working as a welder, but I am not trained for that and I cannot keep a job.
October 26, 1967	COMMONS
Therefore, there is something lacking in the immigration service.
I want to talk about another case the minister is aware of, as I received a letter from him today; as it is neither personal nor confidential, I can quote it. It is the case of a man from Haiti who came here and took training as an electrician. As everyone knows, to obtain an electrician's license in Quebec, a period of six months training as an apprentice is required. As he is being refused a working permit by immigration, he cannot get his six months apprenticeship permit.
Mr. Chairman, I repeat to the minister that I am not blaming him for this, but some officials who know nothing about human relations. As far as I know, this boy has now been waiting for six months to be allowed to complete his apprenticeship and get his certificate; after that, he is perhaps ready to pack up and go back home, but nevertheless he cannot get permission to work. There is an employer who would like to hire him; in fact, out of kindness, he has paid for his studies. While they lasted, he had to follow a crash course, and because of red tape or bureaucracy, he was unable to work. Now he is inactive, idle, and lives on hand-outs from social agencies. Then I say to myself: there is something wrong somewhere.
Mr. Chairman, as I said, the minister is the last person to whom I would direct destructive criticism, even to whom I would inflict sorrow, for I am greatly impressed with the tremendous amount of work that he does. However, I do mention these things, which probably escape his attention, because I am aware he has too many responsibilities to shoulder.
He has been given the responsibilities of three departments. Amazingly enough, he has assumed them up to now without weakening, but I think some day his burden will have to be eased, so that he can show what he is capable of doing and know what is going on in all his departments.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to raise another matter, but since I am the first to object when a member speaks one minute beyond the time allotted to him and since I insist on the right to speak for myself and for the others as well, I shall be brief. I find the manpower program, under its present form, an excellent one, at least in the present circumstances. Nevertheless, some thought should be given right now to the fact that within the next five, ten, fifteen or twenty years, we shall be facing an excessive automation which will bring about the lay-off of a
DEBATES	3551
Supply-Manpower and Immigration great number of workers quite willing to work. The problem will not be settled by saying that the Canadian Pacific has laid off 300 workers, that Dosco has laid off 1,000 others, that Air Canada has dismissed so many and some other company so many. Let us prepare for the coming age of automation-whether we like it or not-and let us try to provide for some legislation which will enable everyone to earn a living some way or other, or else, let us find a means to enable the people to live, although unemployed, if things should come to that. That is where there should be set up organizations likely to anticipate what will happen in the country within the next twenty, twenty-five or thirty years.
If we wait for unemployment to become general, for the sore to fester, it will be too late, Mr. Chairman. We will be putting poultices to relieve the sore, as we are doing with manpower; poultices are being applied and have good results and that is fortunate, because otherwise the situation would be much worse. But we are not reaching the root of the problem.
Having said this, Mr. Chairman, before concluding, I will make another remark which is not in order: In the rotation of speakers, I intend to come back as often as the rules-


Maurice Rinfret: Order please, the hon. member is requested to speak on the estimates of the Department of Manpower and Immigration.
At the beginning, he made some remarks and was reminded by the Chair that he should limit himself to the estimates under consideration. I will ask him to kindly observe the instructions of the Chair and not to revert to the same line as at the beginning of his speech.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your fatherly advices. I appreciate it-


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please, the hon. member's time is up.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: I only wanted to tell you that I had finished.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the perplexity of the Chair in having to choose among three speakers. I am sure that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration appreciates that his estimates will not be
October 26. 1967

Supply-Manpower and Immigration passed this evening and that he must bear with members of the House of Commons who wish to exercise their democratic privilege of speaking on his estimates.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Just keep it short.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: This is the first time during the present session, to say nothing of the previous session, that I have taken the opportunity to speak on the estimates of the minister. Realizing that my remarks may continue tomorrow, I wish to pay particular tribute to the minister in question who has been charged by the government with what in future, must be considered perhaps the most important ministry of the government. The ministry of manpower will grow in importance for many of the reasons which the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres outlined, also because the growing and pressing problem of technological change will bring about unemployment in more segments of the economy and a scarcity of trained personnel in others.
I think the present minister is particularly suited for the role he has accepted. He has, very wisely I believe, agreed that there is a relationship between immigration and manpower. As the minister of immigration he is sensitive to the desires of many people around the world to come to Canada, and as the minister of manpower he, more than any other person, should be aware of where these newcomers can best be accepted into the Canadian economy. Further, Mr. Chairman, I think the minister is blessed with a very active, objective and sensitive parliamentary secretary-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: -who has long been allied with the labour movement in this country and, as parliamentary secretary, rarely gets any applause or recognition in the house-myself, of course, excepted.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It is very tempting to get into a debate with the hon. member for Waterloo South over the question of Dosco. But being by nature very non-partisan, I shall bypass this temptation. However, when he was suggesting the nationalization of Dosco I hoped the hon. socialist member might have gone all the way and suggested the nationalization of the steel industry in its entirety, rather than a particular segment of it.
I have great respect for those who believe openly in the Regina manifesto, even those who hide this fact and only periodically remove the shutter from their innermost thoughts. When we discuss Dosco I think we must realize that the problem stems from a very selfish, inefficient management, one that leans to socialism in their callous approach to the problems of the maritimes and to the responsibility and moral obligation they have to the people of Nova Scotia. I think the attitude of this corporation to the people of Nova Scotia is perhaps the best reason for the implementation of the very objective recommendations contained in the writings of Judge Freedman.
In concluding my remarks on that particular topic, Mr. Chairman, because I would rather discuss other matters, I think we all agree that many of the problems which have resulted in the particular problem of Dosco arise primarily from the realization that the source of raw materials makes it practically impossible for that industry to overcome the geographical handicaps of its location. This of course is true also of the Bell Island operation. Once again I understand that the minister of manpower has come to the rescue and has done a very commendable job in retraining these workers and making it possible for the wonderful people of this part of the province to adjust to the change.
I wanted tonight to talk not only about manpower but to tie in manpower, the Minister of Finance, and the problem that concerns me, that of national unity and separatism. At, first glance there may seem to be no correlation or relationship in these matters, but as one who has lived for 46 years in the province of Quebec and has not hesitated over the last four years to speak on the problem of national unity and separatism, I submit there is a very evident strong relationship between separatism, national unity, manpower and the Department of Finance.
Last week when speaking on the estimates of another department I expressed the opinion that I have expressed many times in the last four years, namely that as long as the question of separatism is confined to the world of the intellectuals, the selfish politicians, the demagogues, and the professors, we have basically very little to fear. I have expressed the opinion before, and I repeat it tonight, that perhaps more than any other segment of the Canadian population, the average French speaking Canadian of the working class shows as great or perhaps a greater

October 26, 1967	COMMONS
degree of responsibility when it comes to assuming his responsibilities and obligations as a Canadian.
I expressed the opinion last week in debate that when, and if, separatism permeates the working class as did the Social Credit phenomena in 1962 we would have something to really worry about and something this country would have to face up to; and I said that perhaps at that moment it would be a little too late to regain the type of Canada that we are all thinking about.
I am looking at the clock, Mr. Chairman, and hoping that I will be able to develop this theme a little more fully tomorrow. But I should like to point out to the members of this house that at the present moment there are, according to the figures released last week, no less than 83,000 people out of work in the greater Montreal area. This is an alarming figure when one realizes that no less than 66 per cent of those 83,000 people are male workers. Of course the balance is their female counterpart. It is an alarming figure when one realizes also that of those 83,000 workers no less than 13,000 work directly in the construction industry. In other words, we now have 13,000 people out of work in the Montreal area as a result of the curtailment of large projects that normally at this time of year would keep them busy in the construction industry.
When one considers also the number of people out of work because they are connected indirectly with the construction industry, the electricians, the plumbers, the bricklayers and all the others, many of whom are new Canadians affected by this recession in the construction industry, one can understand that the prospect in the city of Montreal is not as optimistic and as rosy as it has been in the past, or as it should be in Canada's largest metropolis.
I should like, in the minute or two that I have at my disposal, to put another statistic before those hon. members who may be following me from other parts of the house and want to make an objective contribution to the debate. Recently a poll was carried out in the Montreal area. This bears out my contention of last week, that the potential dangers of separatism come from unemployment. Although a figure recently released by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation shows that only 7 per cent of the population of Quebec endorse separatism, anywhere from 10 per cent to 18 per cent of the population of the greater Montreal area who were canvassed regarding the cause of separatism-
DEBATES	3553
Supply-Manpower and Immigration and they came from the class of people earning $4,000 a year or under-endorse the philosophy of Rene Levesque. This is a significant figure and I should like to repeat it. Although only 7 per cent of the population of Quebec endorse separatism, upwards of 18 per cent in certain areas of the city of Montreal endorse the philosophy of Rend Levesque, and these 18 per cent are concentrated in those areas of the city where the income is $4,000 a year or under. This indicates that what I said last week-


Maurice Rinfret: Order. It being ten o'clock it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house.
9 (10:00 p.m.)


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I wish simply to point out that under the rules there were only six days left for some 13 departments to be considered in committee of supply. We agreed on an order of priority, hoping we could thereby deal reasonably adequately with the more important departments left, giving one day to each of six departments.
I am simply pointing out to the committee, and for the benefit of the house in considering the rules, that it is quite apparent that members on the government side as well as members on this side find themselves without adequate time to discuss in full the estimates of the departments which it is considered are important to discuss. I hope this committee and the house will bear this in mind when we come to consider this artificial limitation of 30 days for the consideration of the most important things that parliament meets here to consider, that is the spending of public money.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I did not raise a point of order.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Under what parliamentary procedure did the hon. member participate in the debate? Did he speak on the estimates?


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the government house leader could tell us whether any changes have been made in the
3554	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion plans about which we have been told earlier this week.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will begin consideration of the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs. The President of the Treasury Board will not be here tomorrow, therefore we cannot call the estimates of that department. If we complete the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs tomorrow we will continue with the Departments of Industry and Public Works and on Monday we will take up the estimates of the Treasury Board.


Mr. Monteith:: Could those not be considered on Tuesday? It was my impression from earlier discussions that the estimates of the Treasury Board would be considered on Tuesday.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would be quite happy to reach an arrangement to consider the estimates of the Treasury Board on Tuesday, but I will have to have some time to consult the other ministers who might be available on Monday for the consideration of estimates that have not been passed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it certain that the estimates of the Treasury Board will come before us?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, back in 1966 a number of people in the country were rather surprised to find notices in their mail boxes from the Department of National Revenue asking them to pay interest on overdue installments of income tax. It is true that the interest requested was in most cases not large, $1.50, $2 or $3, but in spite of the small amounts in question these notices caused a great deal of concern to the people who received them. In most cases these people are retired and their only income apart from their old age security pension is some modest amount of interest from government bonds or from a bank account. Obviously people on limited incomes feel that even an additional expenditure of 
DEBATES	October 26. 1967
$2 or $3 could better be used for their own purposes than placed in the hands of the friendly tax collector. At the same time many felt rather disconcerted that somehow or other they were now expected to pay tax in instalments, when they never had to do so throughout their working lives and when they did not receive adequate notice or, in the case of some, did not receive any notice at all of the department's view that they should pay tax in a different manner.
It would appear, possibly because of the department's new computer which I hope is the servant of the department rather than its master, it was easier to determine exactly who would come within the provisions of section 49 of the act. Under it if people receive no income or only a limited amount of income from employment, they are supposed to pay their tax in instalments. I believe this provision was originally intended to apply mainly to people in the professional class or to those with large investments. Perhaps because of the greater efficiency of the administrative forces of the department, people in a much different income category were now found technically to be in the class of people who were supposed to pay their tax in instalments.
I, and I suppose other members as well, wrote to the minister on behalf of a number of people in this group, pointing out that this created a number of difficulties for these people. They would have to pay these additional amounts in interest if they did not pay the tax in instalments. Many of these people were advanced in years and had various infirmities which would make it difficult to make out forms four times a year and to estimate the tax and some of them were able to have only a limited amount of education. They were all accustomed to having the tax deducted at the source by their employers and filling in a form once a year and then paying any balance owing.
As I say, I pointed out to the minister in corresponding with him on behalf of a number of these citizens, the hardships created because if these people did not pay their tax in instalments they would be liable for interest. If they attempted to comply with the regulations, they would have all the difficulties of filling out or finding someone to help them fill out the forms. These are people who have spent all their lives helping to build up this country. They should be spared this hardship if at all possible.
October 26, 1967

The year is drawing to a close and the time tor settling up accounts with the Department of National Revenue will soon be upon us once more. I felt this question was of sufficient urgency that I could bring this matter up in this adjournment debate. I ask the minister if he will not see if something can be done for the people in the category I have mentioned. They are mainly retired people who have a very limited income, even taking into account this interest in addition to their pension. I hope the minister can help relieve these people of this burden. I have had the response made to me by the department: Well, if this was not done the people could rearrange the way they get their income and avoid paying the tax in the year in which it is due.
In most cases, this does not apply to the group in question. I believe Canada savings bond interest is payable only in the fall, and this procedure cannot be changed. Yet the people with this type of limited income to which I have referred are asked to pay taxes in instalments before this interest is due. In conclusion, I ask the minister to take action to help the people in question by removing this burden from them.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury-Board):: Since I became Minister of National Revenue, this has been a very perplexing problem. I think that the requirement that people pay income tax in instalments when they have income from sources other than salary is a very fair provision of the act. The ordinary person who is working for a salary has his tax deducted monthly. This parliament put into the Income Tax Act a provision whereby other people had to pay quarterly, which is a little less onerous than the provision applying to a person earning a salary who has his tax deducted monthly, a (10:10 p.m.)
In the past, because of the difficulty of computing interest, since it required four computations in order to determine the interest payable by one person in a year, small amounts of interest were overlooked by the department merely as an administrative matter. I may say I am very pleased we have a computer in the Department of National Revenue dealing with personal income tax returns because we process them faster and we save the government of Canada a large amount of money every year. I could quote figures that indicate that 10 or 12 years ago it cost $2.08 per $100 to collect it, and that the cost is now 27053-225
DEBATES	3555
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion down to something like 96 cents. Nevertheless I have been worried about people who were on a salary, who retire, and then start to receive the old age pension and find themselves suddenly charged $2, $3 or $4 interest.
As a result of this, during the last year I have had a study made in my department of this question, and we have come to the conclusion that the cost of collecting-that is to say, the cost of putting out the information, submitting the bill to the taxpayers, collecting the money, following it up, writing letters and answering inquiries-is not worth the amount of tax that is collected. In other words, it costs more to collect these small amounts than is warranted by the amount of revenue that is received by the crown.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I have decided, and I hope parliament will support me-and if I recall correctly the last time my estimates were before the house for consideration, I am sure all hon. members will support me-that we will take action in order to eliminate interest charges of under $5 to the taxpayers of Canada. This means that ordinarily a person with a small income who starts receiving the old age pension but fails to remit the instalments in the first year, even though we have given him warning in his first old age pension cheque that the cheque will be subject to tax, will not have to worry about this in the future. I think that by imposing this $5 limit most of the urgent cases will be taken care of.



HEALTH AND WELFARE-INCLUSION OF OPTOMETRISTS IN HEALTH RESOURCES FUND TEAMS

Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, in a few months time Canada will have a system of medicare-


Stanley Howard Knowles: We hope.


Robert Jardine McCleave: -and the scramble going on to overcome the shortage of trained personnel in the medical health field will become even more acute as time goes by. I understand that in a statement published recently in a Toronto newspaper the minister indicated some of the steps that his department was taking in a commendable effort at least to alleviate this very serious problem.
How acute the problem is we recall of course from the debate on the health resources fund. For example, I have some staggering statistics that my colleague from Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard), who himself is a doctor, placed on the record. I am not going
3556	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion to refer to them but they are to be found at pages 6378 and 6379 of Hansard during committee study on the resolution stage.
My purpose in being on the late show tonight is more or less in the form of a fishing expedition. I hope the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) will give us some idea of the co-operation he is enlisting from non-governmental sources in his efforts to help the manpower and woman-power shortage in the health field.
The Canadian Association of Optometrists has issued a statement. They feel that the minister is calling on outside help without calling on them. Their statement says, in part:
Despite its prominence in the eye care field optometry has not been invited to participate with other health professions in these important studies. This means that decisions which will deeply affect optometry will be made by other health professions, some of which have opposing interests to optometry.
When I raised the question originally in the house I specifically narrowed its context to optometrists, but I was really using them as an example of a particular paramedical group. Therefore when the minister replies I hope he will indicate whether he is calling on others from the paramedical field, as well as on optometrists, to play their part in helping his department and the provincial governments entering into medicare to overcome this very crucial shortage of trained personnel.
DEBATES	October 26, 1967


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the interest of the hon. member in this particular study that has been established in conjunction with the health resources fund. We have decided to select a team of persons for the purpose of continuing studies in the health and manpower field. This team will consist of three members. We have selected a physician, representing a very large and important component of the health professions, and we have selected a nurse, since the nursing profession is also very important and represents a large component of those engaged in this work. There will be a third person, as yet unnamed, who will likely be selected from one of the allied health professions. There are a large number of allied health professions, including optometry, dentistry and physiotherapy, for example.
The fact that a profession is not included by representation on this team is not to be taken as indicating any lack of appreciation of its importance. We hope that as our program develops and as we rely on further advice from the professions an opportunity will be given to all the professions to give their counsel. In the case of optometry, let me say this is a very important profession for which I myself and all members of the house have a very high regard.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.19 p.m.

Friday, October 27, 1967 Mr. Brown: -later to be aided-