1969-03-25

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
March 21, 1969-Mr. Lessard (LaSalle) (Chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications) :
That the Fifth report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, presented to the House on Wednesday, March 19, 1969, be concurred in.
Mr. Speaker:: Order. Presenting reports
from standing and special committees. The hon. member for LaSalle-


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, before calling this motion in the name of my hon. friend from LaSalle I wonder if it would be possible for me to raise a question of order concerning a recommendation in the report. In doing so, I take no exception to the preamble of the report and the analysis arrived at by the transportation committee as a result of its travels.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Order.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Obviously, I
take no exception to the first recommendation.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands has risen on a point of order. My understanding is that the President of the Privy Council has risen on a point of order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the minister has risen on a point of order, I would suggest to Your Honour that in all propriety he ought to state his
point of order. I take it from the remarks he has made so far that he is objecting to certain statements in the report. That is not a point of order. If the minister has a point of order, the house should hear it and Your Honour should rule on it.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest I should hear the point of order before I can rule on it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, Hear.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am directing myself, as I indicated, to the final recommendation of the report and wish to raise a question of order with respect to that.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I trust I might be heard before others participate in the discussion of this matter.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But don't get into the heart of the report.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I raise a point of order with respect to that part of the report which deals with the passenger train service in Newfoundland. That part reads as follows:
Your committee recommends that the order of the Canadian Transport Commission, authorizing the Canadian National Railways to suspend rail passenger service in Newfoundland on April 5, 1969, be left in abeyance, until your committee tables its complete report in respect to this question.
Incidentally I believe the correct date is April 15 and not April 5, 1969, as stated in the report. My question of order is whether it is in order for a standing committee to make recommendations that this house itself could not make. I would like to submit two considerations in this regard. The first is that the standing committee cannot by resolution in effect purport to repeal what is already an act of this parliament. I would like to make reference to the provisions of the Railway Act in this regard.


Mr. MacEwan:: Then what is the point of committees?


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker-
March 25. 1969

Transport and Communications


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on a point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: With respect, I submit that the President of the Privy Council is debating the substance of the report. The motion has not been moved. He has no right to violate the rules of the house in this way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, one wonders why hon. members are so anxious to prevent my stating my point of order. I have not at all got to the substance of the report. I trust that I might be heard on my point of order so that Your Honour will be in a position to rule on it. My point of order is on a twofold basis. I indicated in the first place that in effect the report attempts to do something which neither the house nor any of its committees could do, that is, by itself repeal an act of parliament without a bill.
The second point is that the subject matter referred to in the report is sub judice. Perhaps I could point out the basis for raising the point of order. I hope I will be heard in this regard. Under the Railway Act provision was made for an appeal from the Board of Transport Commissioners of Canada to the government-


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Prince Albert on a point of order.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, is the
minister going to have the privilege of rewriting that with which he does not agree? First, there is the suggestion that certain committees are directed by Liberal members and that they should carry out the wishes of the government. Now we have a recommendation from a committee, and the minister does not accept it. In other words, it is further evidence of how far removed from actuality and reality is the committee system when a minister starts to rewrite that which he does not like.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to bring to the attention of the minister and of all hon. members that the Chaiir is in a difficult position. Actually 1 do not know at this point exactly what is the point of order of the

minister. In point of fact the only matter with which the Chair is faced at the present time is the motion by the hon. member for LaSalle (Mr. Lessard) that the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications be concurred in. I have some serious doubts, as other hon. members appear to have, as to whether we can go behind this motion to question certain procedural aspects of the report at this time. This seems to be what worries a number of hon. members, particularly the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas).
Perhaps the minister might come to the point quickly and I will hear other hon. members on this subject. In view of the uncertainty of the situation I might be allowed to take the matter under advisement. But for the purpose of order, the minister might be allowed a few moments to indicate what exactly is the point of order.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity and will repeat that my point of order is founded on two bases. The first is that if it was out of order for the committee to make that report, it would be out of order for this house to be asked to concur in it, because it is in essence beyond the power of parliament to act by way of resolution rather than by bill. The second reason is that the matter in question in the report is in fact sub judice before what is declared by law to be a court of record, and I should like to refer to certain provisions in Beauchesne and in May's seventeenth edition which, I maintain, support the point of order that I am making. So I wonder if I might be heard in this regard.
As I indicated, the Board of the Transport Commissioners of Canada was declared to be a court of record for the purposes of the law, and under the National Transportation Act which was passed by this house on February 9, 1967, that status was continued in relation to the Canadian Transport Commission. I should like to refer Your Honour to the Railway Act which is in the revised1 statutes, 1952, section 53 (1). I will not set out in full the provisions of that section, but will point out in other words that parliament has already dealt with the matter of appeals from the Canadian Transport Commission and has indicated that appeals are to be made by way of applications to the Governor in Council, and not by application to this house or any committee of this house. In short I submit
March 25, 1969	COMMONS
that it is not in order for a standing committee to try by resolution to repeal a decision of parliament taken by bill.
The second base for my point of order is that I submit that the matter in question in the report is already under judicial consider-tion, that it is in fact sub judice, and as such the well established principles both in this house and at Westminster are operative here.
I refer to the fact that section 9(2) of the Railway Act in effect constitutes the Canadian Transport Commission as a court of record.
I should like to refer Your Honour to page 127 of Beauchesne where the following is said:
-it has been sanctioned by usage both in England and in Canada, that a member, while speaking must not...refer to any matter on which a judicial decision is pending.
I should like to refer Your Honour to page 454 of May's seventeenth edition where the same principle is outlined, and also to page 396 where the following statement is made:
A matter, awaiting or under adjudication by a court of law, should not be brought before the House by a motion or otherwise.
When we examine the order relating to rail passenger service in Newfoundland we see it was made on July 3, 1968, by the commission and that in fact the commission had not yet made its final determination on this question, -in other words that the matter is still before the commission. The interim order made on July 3, 1968, says:
If, prior to April 15, 1969, Canadian National Railways fails or is unable to perform any of the conditions enumerated above, or if at any time before that date the Committee (i.e. the committee of the commission) is not satisfied that the bus service is at least as good as the present passenger train service, it may, upon notice to Canadian National and to all parties who appeared before it in December, 1967, reconvene the hearing-
In other words, it is perfectly clear that no final order has been made in this matter and that it is still before the Canadian Transport Commission. That commission is a court of record and therefore the long and well established practice of the house that such matters, being sub judice, are not to be dealt with on motions of the house, applies in this case, and I suggest that a motion for concurrence in this report should not be received at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: It may
well be, Mr. Speaker, that everything the
DEBATES	7059
Transport and Communications President of the Privy Council says is correct. It may well be there are defects in this report. But with all due respect, it seems to me the minister should not be able to introduce at this time statements with regard to proceedings before the Canadian Transport Commission, and that such statements ought not to be taken into consideration here.
I suggest with deference, Mr. Speaker, that what the minister could well do is this: Once the matter has come before the house on the substantive motion of the hon. member, he can introduce a subsequent motion to amend it or to send it back to the committee. The way in which the minister is attempting to deal with it now is, in my submission, not the proper way. Of course, once the motion has been put and the debate commenced it will be open to the minister or to anyone else to move an amendment or raise a point of order. The motion cannot be disposed of now by the action of the minister in drawing attention to certain proceedings, not yet completed, which are before the Canadian Transport Commission, and of which this house has not been apprised. Those proceedings were certainly not part of the work of the committee.
If, in the course of the debate, after an appropriate motion to amend put forward by the minister, Your Honour were to reach the conclusion that there were difficulties in connection with the wording of this motion, then Your Honour would have the right to rule accordingly. But in my view the matter should be allowed to proceed. It would then be incumbent upon the minister or upon any other hon. member to make a motion at the time we are debating the substance of the issue.


Stanley Howard Knowles: wish to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that I have no desire to prevent the President of the Privy Council from speaking on this matter, but I do feel very strongly that he should speak at the proper time.
Your Honour had called on the hon. member for LaSalle to proceed with his motion which reads:
That the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, presented to the house on Wednesday, March 19, 1969, be concurred in.
Before the hon. member for LaSalle was able to get to his feet, the President of the Privy Council raised a point of order. I submit that it is a spurious point of order and
March 25, 1969

Transport and Communications that it violates citation 318 (3)	ot
Beauchesne...
A member will not be permitted in presenting a report to make any remarks on the subject matter; he can only properly do so on a motion in reference to the report.
I suggest that if this limitation is placed on the member of the house who has the moving of the motion in his care, it applies to everyone else. The minister should have waited until the motion had been made, at which point he could speak and argue against the report to his heart's content.


Mr. Bell:: And vote against it if he likes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are other citations which state what can be done with a report from a committee. Citation 323 (2) states:
A report from a committee cannot be amended by the house but it must be referred back to the committee.
Paragraph (3) states:
On the consideration of a report, motions have been made expressing the agreement or the disagreement of the house therewith, or motions are made which are founded upon, or which enforce the resolutions of the committee.
My point is that it is perfectly in order for the President of the Privy Council to take objection to the contents of the report, and it is even open to him to argue, when it is before us, that it is an improper report-that it violates the constitution, or what have you. To have done it in this way however, and bring in a debate before the motion is before us is, I submit, highly irregular.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
In my view, whatever views the President of the Privy Council has, Your Honour should give the hon. member for LaSalle the opportunity to move concurrence in this report, his motion being already on the order paper. Having been instructed to do so by the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, I submit he has the right to move the motion, and that other members of that committee as well as members of this house have the right to speak on it pro or con, including the President of the Privy Council. I think he should have waited till the proper time.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my comments will be quite short and similar to those of the previous speakers.
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) .1
This situation seems to repeat itself. In fact, this is the second time that objections are made to a committee report being concurred in and if the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) does not accept the report in which concurrence has been moved today, it will become customary from now on to reject certain committee reports as a result of a minister's objection.
The minister can perhaps object to it, but the authority of the house is such that it can refuse to concur in a report and defer it. again to the said committee instructing it to consider it more thoroughly.
If we refuse to consider this report today, we will set a precedent and we can ask ourselves which reports will be concurred in, since ministers may object to some of them. I feel that no hon. member can accept or reject the report of a committee which has been empowered to present a formal report to the house.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, as leader of the government in this house the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) should exhibit a superior knowledge of the rules. This afternoon he has fallen into a lamentable lapse. I would point out to him that this house is not his servant in any way at any time, notwithstanding the fact that this is perhaps the first time that a leader of the house has been given a cabinet position that entitles him to devote his attentions exclusively to the leadership of the house.
This house has passed certain rules as a result of which certain authorities or competences have, with a great fanfare of trumpets, been passed on to committees; but every time a committee dares show one iota of independence, like an overnight mushroom the President of the Privy Council is bound to pop up.
Like my colleague on this side of the house, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), and also the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I say that the President of the Privy Council has lamentably jumped the gun. In arguing the substance of the matter before Your Honour he could not recognize the difference between a point of order and a point of substance. I put it to you that, as in the case of other motions that hae appeared before Your Honour, the President of the Privy Council has been most precipitate in rising to his feet to argue, not a point of order to the effect that the report was improperly on the order paper, but a
March 25, 1969

point of substance. This is where the President of the Privy Council has shown, shall I say, his lapse in failing to distinguish between a point of order and a point of substance.
He and the government can argue all they want about the contents of the report. They are as free to do so as hon. members are free to argue in favour or against, as their opinions dictate. But let him not confuse these two points. I put it to Your Honour that in so rising the President of the Privy Council himself is out of order, and that he should not be heard to continue his point. At the appropriate time the motion may be argued, but certainly not in this way. Certainly, the President of the Privy Council cannot presume upon his position as government leader in this house.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to call the attention of the house to a point that has not been considered. The President of the Privy Council objected to the motion before the house, contending that in some way the committee's fifth report was not worded correctly. That, really is not the point we ought to be concerned about.
I submit that in drafting the fifth report of the committee the chairman of the committee did an excellent job in trying to overcome a difficult situation. There is what amounts to a court order emanating from the C.T.C. which orders rail passenger service in Newfoundland to be suspended as of April 15. The Canadian National has taken the position that it will continue its passenger service beyond that date. Service is to be continued throughout the summer. In other words, Canadian National will not obey the C.T.C. order. In the last paragraph of the fifth report the chairman was trying to bring relief with respect to the very embarrassing position in which the C.T.C. finds itself. The order it has made prohibiting continuation of passenger service in Newfoundland is not to be enforced. Canadian National wishes to continue operating that passenger service and the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications is asking this house to come to the aid of the C.T.C. and rescue it from an embarrassing position.
The committee does not say that the order should never be complied with; we say it ought to be left in abeyance until the committee has had ample opportunity to study the entire question of rail passenger service in
Transport and Communications Newfoundland. I sincerely hope that Your Honour will not rule us out of order on this motion. Our idea was to rescue the C.T.C. from an embarrassing position. I urge hon. members of the house to concur in this fifth report.


Thomas Miller Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I see three hon. members who are anxious to contribute to the debate. I will, of course, hear them. But I suggest to hon. members that we are perhaps getting into the consideration of the substance of the matter. I agree with the views hon. members have expressed on this point of order up to now. The President of the Privy Council, to some extent at least, is considering the substance of the report, and I am not at all convinced that this is the time to raise a point of order. I shall not render a decision at this stage. I therefore invite hon. members who wish to enlighten the Chair to do so as briefly as possible.


Thomas Miller Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I will be brief. The President of the Privy Council suggested we have no power to amend or change a decision of the Transport Commission. Most of his argument was based on that point. He suggested we were wrong in bringing this recommendation before parliament. May I refer him to section 18 of the National Transportation Act which says in no uncertain terms that an appeal from the decision of the commission may be made to the minister. The Minister of Transport is in this chamber; he has the power to make this change. I therefore submit we were perfectly right in bringing forward this recommendation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, it ought to be understood that this report was unanimously agreed to by the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. To suggest therefore that it cannot be brought forward at this time is to slight the chairman. He has been directed by the committee to move the concurrence of this report in this house. I think he is therefore obligated to do so. I suggest that section 53(1) of the Railway Act provides for the Governor in Council to set aside a recommendation of the Canadian Transport Commission. The report of our standing committee in effect recommends that the minister should do that.
March 25, 1969

Transport and Communications
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
It recommended to the house that this action be taken, until the committee set up to investigate all transportation had an opportunity to hear those witnesses. This was concluded only a short while ago. I would respectfully ask, Mr. Speaker, that the motion now before us be put after which time I am sure many members will take part in the discussion.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, basically the point I wanted to make has been made. Perhaps the specific reference has not been drawn to the reason for the report being made, in committee, in the first place. The reason for the standing committee making a report was that a creature of the government had made a decision to abandon the rail service. The only appeal from that decision is through parliament and the Governor in Council.
Section 53 of the Railway Act specifically indicates that the Governor in Council may vary or rescind a decision of that body. I think, Mr. Speaker, there has been a tremendous misrepresentation here today as to exactly how the decision was made. There has been no decision made by parliament: The decision was made by a creature of parliament. We as a committee are asking parliament to exercise its right to rescind this kind of decision, and to act in its supreme capacity as being representative of all peoples of Canada. The only appeal is to parliament, and this is the reason for the almost unanimous recommendation from the railway committee.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, we have already experienced a similar situation-and I want to point it out very briefly-with regard to the same committee on transport and communications and an objection raised by same minister, namely the President of the Privy Council and the government house leader (Mr. Macdonald).
The matter had then be referred to the committee on privileges and elections. Here is what it was about. According to some, a recommendation which should have been in the committee report was not there. There followed a storm in a tea-cup and the question was referred to the committee on privileges and elections.
There were long hours of discussion; time was wasted and it was stated afterwards: The chairman of the committee on transport and

communications is an excellent member of parliament; he did a fine job and he is not at all guilty.
I want at the outset to pay him this tribute, Mr. Speaker.
Today, the opposite is happening. I remember that when we discussed the recommendation missing in the report of the committee on transport and communications, the President of the Privy Council rose and expressed the point of view of the government. He even took a decision, assuming a right that was not his. As a result, the members of the committee on privileges and elections were much embarrassed by the statements made earlier in the house by the President of the Privy Council.
I believe the situation is similar today, and we cannot stand for it, since the President of the Privy Council would like the house to reject a report that is not even before the house.
I think the President of the Privy Council is once more assuming a right he does not have, in order to undermine the independence of committees, to impede their work and, in short, to deprive them of the possibility of studying a matter in depth. He tends to dictate his opinions to them.
Mr. Speaker, I say this is sheer intervention from the government and I think the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) raised this point earlier in a very able manner.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think we should discuss the matter, and then the report of the committee should be tabled so that we could finally examine it. In my opinion, the President of the Privy Council should not be allowed to dictate to the house his interventionist and autocratic rules.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. Hon. members in the course of this procedural debate have referred to May and to other authorities, and have quoted sections of a number of statutes, which of course are not before the Chair at the present time.
As I had indicated in the first instance, it would be my intention to study Hansard, and the contributions made to the debate. Later on, at the first opportunity, I will express an opinion and make a ruling in connection with the several points raised by hon. members. I would feel in any event it might not be appropriate at this time to put the motion for debate. In view of the fact that today is an
March 25, 1969

allotted day, I think it will be the will and intention of the house that we should devote our work this afternoon to the consideration of the motion of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) rather than debate the motion of the chairman of the Committee on Transport and Communications. In any event, I will study the contributions made by hon. members and give a decision.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a brief statement on the order for motions. I regret I was not able to provide hon. members opposite with copies, but I was only in the position to make this statement before entering the house.
I am glad to be able to inform the house that shortly before one o'clock this morning a settlement was reached in the dispute which has disrupted postal delivery in Montreal for the past four weeks. The Post Office has terminated the delivery contract held by Rod Services Limited and transferred the contract to a new company, LaPalme Transfer Ltd. of Montreal. The union has signed a new contract with LaPalme Transfer Ltd. and all employees returned to work this morning.
As hon. members know, the breakdown in postal delivery in Montreal arose out of a labour dispute between Rod Services Limited and the C.N.T.U., representing the company's employees. This dispute, which last week degenerated into violence, was the culmination of three years of disruptions in service to the public, brought about by management-union differences.
During the past four weeks, when a number of Rod Service employees failed to turn up for work, postal delivery in Montreal was seriously disrupted, and this in turn affected deliveries throughout the country. The situation would have been a good deal worse but for the extra effort put out by Montreal letter carriers and postal clerks, and by the cooperation of the public.
The present contract with LaPalme Transfer runs to March 31, 1970. At that time, the Post Office will review the situation, depending upon the performance of the company and its employees, and in the light of the studies being conducted by the task force. I
DEBATES	7063
Postal Contract with Lapalme Transfer do not want to prejudge the future but I may say I am greatly heartened by the approach LaPalme Transfer has taken to the key problem of employee working conditions. I therefore believe that this solution will prove to be the best one from the viewpoint of the employees, the company, the Post Office, and the public.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, I rejoice in any diminution in the troubles in the Post Office, and in the troubles of the minister. I am very happy that some settlement has been achieved, and I hope it will be a lasting one. I regret that in the long interval of disputation aroused by the President of the Privy Council the minister could not have found time to send a copy over to some of us.
There are many facts that we would like to explore. For instance, I am interested in the expiry date of the new contract. I understand Rod Services had a contract which would expire the same date. I am interested in some of the phasing out formalities in relation to the Rod Services people. But, looking at this a priori, I am delighted that this very upsetting situation, where thousands and thousands and thousands of parcels have been held up in one of the most important distributing centres in the country, has reached some kind of settlement.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
I might say to the minister that I note his optimism. I have noticed over the months that he is always optimistic. Sometimes it might be the better part of caution if he occasionally admitted that he does have troubles in the Post Office Department. We do hope however that this settlement will be lasting, and that the mails will go through.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the difficulties the minister and the department seem to be having in all parts of the country, and in light of reports which come in daily to members of parliament about the tremendous drop in the morale of postal employees from one end of the country to the other, it is good to note that one of the immediate and most pressing problems has been settled.
I am sorry the minister could not give us a little more notice of this settlement. Let me say to him that at the proper time we will be interested in finding out the arrangements which were made with Rod Services after the
March 25, 1969
7064	COMMONS
Postal Contract with Lapalme Transfer minister, in a somewhat precipitous and unilateral way, decided to cancel their contract. Were Rod Services reimbursed or recompensed in any way? Was their equipment purchased? If that was done, Mr. Speaker, then a most important question has to be asked. When the minister proposed to cancel the contract with Rod Services, and if he proposed and agreed to recompense them, did he make any provision, before these new arrangements with the new company were completed, under which former employees of Rod Services will be employed by the new company, and did he make any arrangements or give consideration to compensating the employees of Rod Services who would be laid off?
Surely that is an important question, Mr. Speaker. How did the minister propose to deal with the company whose contract was cancelled, and how did he propose to deal with its employees? Was he proposing to deal with them on an equally equitable basis at the same time?
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we are glad that this problem has been settled, and we hope that we will not see the minister on his feet in the next few days discussing another problem in another city.


Mr. Rene  Malle@Champlain: Mr. Speaker, on account of the incredible mess in which the Post Office Department finds itself since the beginning of that dispute, we remain somewhat puzzled while the minister announces that he has at last solved the problem in part. If that is true, however, we can only rejoice. We would like to be sure that the new agreement will not mark the beginning of another messy situation.
The house has probably learned that the Ralliement Creditiste met in Montreal Sunday night and that its* members heard about the mess now to be found in the Post Office Department, especially in Canada's metropolis.
We were told that the official report of the House of Commons Debates for Tuesday- that was the Ralliement Creditiste's field-day-had not yet reached Montreal, whereas that for Wednesday had been received. We are anxious to know the reason for the delay.
In any case, we are only too happy if that settlement can help the minister find some solutions. For instance, we might suggest, if the trucks of Rod Services Ltd. have been bought, that they could be used as mobile post offices, since the department intends to close a very large number of post offices.
[Mr. Orlikow.l



INTERPARLIAMENTARY MEETINGS


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, as deputy co-president of the Canada-United States interparliamentary group, I am pleased to present, in English and in French, the report of the said committee. I beg unanimous consent of the house to have the proceedings of the meetings printed in Appendix to today's Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For Report above referred to, see appendix.]



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister if he is aware of a telegram received by the Secretary of State for External Affairs from Canairelief charging that Nigerian jets have been directed to destroy Canairelief mercy planes and suggesting that Nigeria is opposing construction of an airport for use exclusively by relief planes? Will he say specifically what representations Canada intends to make, with a view to protecting Canadians now engaged in mercy flights in Nigeria-Biafra?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. gentleman for giving notice of his intention to ask this question. Unfortunately I did not have sufficient time before two o'clock to go into it as fully as I would like. Under the circumstances I would suggest that I take it as notice and ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to deal with it tomorrow, when I expect he will be back in the house.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question I wonder if the Acting Prime Minister, in drawing this matter to the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, would be prepared to suggest that the government take the very unique opportunity offered by the visit of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to Lagos to make representations to
March 25, 1969

General Gowon on what Canadians feel about the abhorrent practice of attempting to destroy relief planes?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that this suggestion will be brought to the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.



HOUSING


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity as the minister in charge of housing, with reference to the statistical report on Canadian housing issued yesterday by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In view of their suggestion that even the construction of 250,000 units per year for the next five years would not eliminate the backlog, and in view of the fact that this figure is 25 per cent higher than the 200,000 units per year for the next five years recommended by the task force chaired by the minister, I want to ask the minister if in the light of this report he and his officials intend to revise upward the target for housing units for the next five years, and do they propose to ask parliament for the necessary funds to implement such a recommendation?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I prefer to deal in realistic figures. The figure of one million units in five years mentioned by the task force was described as a minimum target. I personally hope it will be exceeded by a substantial margin. However my hon. friend will realize from the report to which he refers that 200,000 units will improve the housing situation for Canadians very substantially, and anything beyond 200,000 units a year that we can do will improve it that much more substantially.
Beyond that you have to have access to information which has never been adequately codified. In other words, you have to know how many people live in doubled up accommodation because they prefer to do so, and we know there are some. We have to know the exact condition of several hundred thousand units that are described as poor in the housing stock statistics. I hope that we will be able to get more substantial, more precise information on these two matters in the course of the next few months, so that we
Inquiries of the Ministry will know precisely just what is required. In the meantime I can assure my hon. friend that the figures that have been suggested, if they are achieved, will make a substantial inroad into the problem and improve housing conditions for Canadians very materially. We will make every effort possible-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the fact that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation seems to have had in mind a higher and probably just as realistic a target as the task force may I ask the Minister whether there was any exchange of material between the task force and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation; were they asked to make any recommendations or provide any research material? Would the Minister be prepared to table the exchanges of correspondence regarding desirable targets which may have passed between Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the task force?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not think there was any exchange of correspondence on desirable targets. We did have access to the material on their projects, and some others which we asked for. I think our main target would not have been too different from what would have been set by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, if it had set one. The figure of 250,000 at the moment is beyond the capability of either the country or industry to produce. As soon as we have the capability to produce that amount I hope it will be national policy to do so.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Minister whether
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation was asked to suggest a target, and if so what was it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I cannot remember precisely, but I know there is no substantial disagreement in respect of the figures we have discussed.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister, in respect of the estimate of the number of housing units which will be required, whether the task force has taken into its calculation the large influx of people who will be driven off the farms of the country into the cities by the

March 25. 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry failure of the government to provide adequate agricultural policies?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Roland Godin (Porlneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Defence Production who is responsible for supplies-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Some of us have supplementaries on the' question of housing Which we would like to get at.


Mr. Speaker:: I must bring to the attention of the hon. member that we have already spent quite a bit of time on that subject. There are a number of hon. members who are anxious to ask questions. As the hon. member knows supplementaries are at the discretion of the Chair and an attempt is made from day to day to bring on as many subjects as possible. I believe this is the general wish of all hon. members. If there is an opportunity we might return to this subject later on during the question period.




Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport in his housing capacity. Arising from his statement that public housing would be continued in an "amended, improved form" to use his words, would he indicate what notice he has given municipalities or provinces of the sociological and other criteria which now must be met before C.M.H.C. will enter into public housing partnerships.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated in discussions with some of the provinces and with some representatives of the municipalities that within a few days I would hope to be in a position to give them, in guideline form, the criteria which will be applied in making judgments in respect of these matters.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister whether this would be in written form, so that every province and municipality could share the wealth.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in both French and English-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The patience of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway has been rewarded.



VANCOUVER-REQUEST FOR ACTION ON RENEWAL PROJECTS

Winona Grace MacInnis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This question is for the Minister. In view of the recent urgent appeal from the city of Vancouver that Ottawa take decisive action on two urban renewal projects will the minister permit Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to conclude an agreement with the city to proceed with at least one of the two projects in limbo?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: They will have to be looked at very closely, Mr. Speaker. The city of Vancouver has already demolished quite a few houses which have not been replaced, and this at a considerable expense both to the taxpayers of Canada and the people whose lives were disrupted. If it can be proven that going ahead with additional renewal projects at this time is the best use of the money available to provide better housing and better conditions for Canadian citizens, then of course it will be considered sympathetically.
March 25, 1969



IMMIGRATION


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I should like to ask the Minister whether or not an order or direction was made by his department that the self-styled revolutionary Jerry Rubin is not to be admitted to Canada, and if so did he find it understandable that the C.B.C. last evening by telephone to this fellow in the United States gave him four or five minutes on the C.B.C. to expound his revolutionary philosophy?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Yes, Mr. Speaker; the department has sent a notice to all officials at the border to the effect that Mr. Rubin is a prohibited person and that his entry into Canada will not be permitted.


John George Diefenbaker: Then I would ask the Minister whether he would communicate with the C.B.C. to ascertain why this individual should have been given the privilege, at Canadian expense, of speaking over the C.B.C., and why some of these petty Caesars in the C.B.C. can flout the authority of the government. I believe they should be made to realize that parliament does not intend to permit them to break the law of this country.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct this question to


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I asked a supplementary question and I am awaiting an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The action taken by the Department of Immigration with regard to Mr. Rubin speaks for itself.


John George Diefenbaker: The C.B.C. is not speaking that way. We pay for these revolutionaries to speak to Canadians.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct this question to the Minister of Defence Production. In view of the fact that the employees of
Inquiries of the Ministry Canadian Aviation Electronics at Winnipeg were informed this morning that certain contracts on which they had been working are to be transferred to a plant in Ontario, what steps will the Minister take to make sure that 100 or 150 of these workers at Winnipeg do not lose their jobs.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, I am
aware of the circumstances to which the hon. member refers. We are holding discussions between C.A.E. and the successful tenderer on this contract in order to try to alleviate as much as possible the effect of the transfer of this business. Talks are now under way.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General, and it is not in Latin this time. In the light of the important and urgent representation made to the government by the Graphic Arts Industries Association on behalf of the printing industry of this country, will the Minister say what consideration he is giving to the measures advocated by this important body to diminish the very serious effects of the impending increased rates on the printing industry?


Eric William Kierans: The objective of the Post Office is to take the Post Office out of the pockets of the Canadian taxpayer. We have introduced a number of measures, in two ways. We have attempted to improve service, to increase productivity internally, and also to ask those who use the services of the Post Office to pay for them, and not to make them a charge on the general taxpayer. It is in this light that I have regarded most of the submissions that have been made to me.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister also assure us that in taking the Post Office out of the pockets of Canadian citizens we will have mail service?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Postmaster General. The minister has told us of his

March 25, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry concern for the service. Will he advise the house why the passport division of the Department of External Affairs will no longer guarantee delivery of passports within four days by registered mail?



AIRPORTS


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainle-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
I wish to ask the minister whether he has reached a final agreement with the province of Quebec in connection with the establishment of a second Montreal international airport, and if Sainte-Therese is the site which has been finally chosen?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member's question is one which was asked yesterday during the question period.


Georges-J. Valade: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I believe the minister stated yesterday that he was expecting to make a statement very soon to the house. And I am asking him if he is ready to make it today.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not today, Mr. Speaker.


Georges-J. Valade: When?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Soon.



FISHERIES


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Can the minister report to the house the latest developments in connection with the Norwegian ship which was taken into custody by officials of his department yesterday as the result of its seal hunting activities'?


Mr. Maclnnis:: Even the C.B.C. has got that one.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, the Norwegian ship has been brought into St. John's, Newfoundland, and the Department of Justice has been asked to 
proceed in the usual way under the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.


John Howard Lundrigan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister prepared to tell the house the reason for the investigation and dismissal of Mr. H. S. Homans, who was suspended as the marine regional inspector of the Department of Fisheries in connection with the seal hunt?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether this is a supplementary question. If there is urgency to the hon. member's question, it seems to me it is the type' of question that should be discussed at the time of adjournment.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, the reason I asked the question is the situation surrounding the dismissal of this gentleman as a result of his involvement in the seal fishery. This is why I posed the question as a supplementary.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, this is a purely internal, departmental matter. But I can assure the hon. member that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the seal fishery.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I ask the minister and/or the Department of Justice, when they embark upon the prosecution of this case, not to be quite as generous as they were with the Japanese boat that was seized off the west coast a short while ago. I ask that they be a little more severe in this respect.



SEALS-REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION BY STANDING COMMITTEE

David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in relation to the questions on this matter by the hon. member for St. John's East. Has the minister come to a decision with regard to having these various questions relating to the seal fishery and the propaganda that has been shown abroad, as well as the issue of the fishery itself, placed before the fisheries committee for exhaustive consideration?


John (Jack) Davis: understand that the house Committee on Fisheries and Forestry will be meeting on Thursday evening. I intend to make a recommendation to the committee to that effect at that time.
March 25, 1969



ALLOCATION OF BOX CARS-DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WHEAT POOLS

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that he advised us on February 21 that he is personally supervising the activities of the transportation committee and the allocation of freight cars for grain movement, and in view of the fact that 5,000 fewer cars have been loaded so far this year compared with the same period last year, can the minister advise the house as to the result of the discussions held on Sunday with the heads of the two major Canadian railways? Will he also advise us what action is being taken to prevent discrimination against the prairie wheat pools in the allocation of box cars?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I know of nothing which can be done now to bring more wheat to the different ports than what is being done at the moment. If the hon. member has more specific cases to submit to me, I will be glad to listen to them and bring them to the attention of the Wheat Board and the transportation committee.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool requires 1,500 to
2,000	box cars to fill the space they now have available in their terminals at the Lakehead, will the minister advise what action is being taken to provide these additional cars at the country elevators of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I had a report just this morning from the Wheat Board. I will read part of it:
Stocks at the Lakehead this morning amounted to 65.6 million bushels. Cars in transit and on track were 5,808, roughly 12 million bushels. If the terminals can handle 78 million then sufficient grain has now been loaded to fill the terminals by the opening of navigation.
I could go on.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister has completely avoided my question. I am perfectly aware that the terminals he is talking about are full. I have just said that it is a fact that the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool terminals are not full. They require 1,500 cars to fill them.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that this is a matter of debate and not a point of order.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister, Mr. Speaker. Has the C.P.R. given any concrete evidence that it is trying to maintain at least the same type of service as the C.N.R., which is poor at best?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the performance of both railways in recent weeks has been excellent.


Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whether it is a fact that 5,000 more box cars were loaded last year than this year. If so, would it not be helpful if the minister would remove himself from the position of special supervisor of this activity so that the delivery of grain might be improved?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF YUGOSLAV DIPLOMATS

Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, may I mention the presence in the Speaker's Gallery of Mr. Vasil Grivcev, Yugoslavia's foreign trade secretary. With him are the other members of the delegation and His Excellency Mr. Tode Curuvija, Yugoslavia's ambassador to Canada.
Mr. Grivcev and myself have just concluded some very useful consultations on the subject of trade between our two countries. The minister will now be going to Toronto where he will meet with representatives of the Ontario government and businessmen of that province. Then, he will be going to Montreal for talks with representatives of the Quebec government and Montreal businessmen.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the house will wish to join me in extending to them a very cordial welcome.



PARTICIPATION OF ACTING MINISTER IN WASHINGTON TALKS

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Energy, Mines

March 25, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry and Resources with reference to the petroleum industry, in light of the national anxiety at the present time in this respect. As the minister has said that western Canada is not going to get any special consideration as to the oil market and the demand for Canadian crude, is he intending to join the Prime Minister in the petroleum discussions taking place at the present time with the President of the United States and the Secretary of the Interior of that country?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I hope not.


Hon. Olio E. Lang (Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, without wanting to associate myself with the introductory portion of the hon. member's remarks, I would assure the hon. member that I for one am confident of the Prime Minister's ability to handle that matter with the President at this time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister said the other day in the House of Commons that a special task force had been set up. Are members of that task force with the Prime Minister advising him in his discussions with regard to petroleum with the President and the Secretary of the Interior, the former governor of Alaska and oil king of the United States?


Otto Emil Lang: Again, Mr. Speaker, without wanting to associate myself with a good deal of the remarks of the hon. member, I am happy to tell him that at least one member of the task force is in fact with the Prime Minister.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder whether the minister would associate himself with the Canadian problem so far as petroleum is concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Gerald William Baldwin: You need not all be shy.



ATTENDANCE OF MINISTERS DURING QUESTION PERIOD

Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Can he tell us whether he is aware that on one occasion when one of his colleagues reported him to be in Toronto he was actually in his office and not in attendance in the house?


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Certainly the question as asked is not in order.


Donald MacInnis: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has, I hope, another question rather than a supplementary to one which was not in order.


Donald MacInnis: If my question is not in order, may I rise on a point of order and ask the house leader to explain why situations develop such as the one in which the Minister without Portfolio reported that the Minister of Transport was in Toronto while he was actually in his office. This matter was raised as a question of privilege on another occasion. Why did the house leader report yesterday that the Minister of National Defence was accompanying the Prime Minister to Washington when that was not the case, as the presence of the Minister of National Defence here today makes evident?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that the minister was accompanying the Prime Minister. If I was wrong, I apologize.
With regard to the earlier incident, my understanding was that the minister was on his way. It is as simple as that.


Donald MacInnis: It seems to me that a few other ministers now owe us apologies. Does the fact that the minister is now apologizing mean he will get off free or drop his arrogant attitude?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State. Would he seek an explanation from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as to why Mr. Rubin, who was prohibited from coming into Canada by the immigration authorities, was brought into Canada by that powerful creator of instantaneous electronic folklore, the C.B.C.?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the hon. member is repeating in different terms a question which was asked on precisely this subject a moment ago by the right hon, member for Prince Albert.
March 25. 1969


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: May I say with deference, Mr. Speaker, that the reason I am asking the question is that I heard the parliamentary secretary indicate that the first question had been directed to the wrong person. I am taking the opportunity now to ask for a reply from the right source.


Mr. Robert Stanbury (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will give the hon. member another opportunity tomorrow, which will be the next allotted day for directing questions to the Secretary of State.



CESSATION OF DAMP GRAIN DELIVERIES

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that the provincial co-ordinating committee on grain drying was told in Regina that all major line elevator companies are expected to cut off deliveries of damp grain before April 1, will the minister endeavour to have the elevator companies change this decision since, according to the same source, there are five million to ten million bushels of damp grain still to be delivered?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport.
With regard to the announcement made on March 21 of the appointment of Mr. Frank Lafferty of Ottawa, but a native of Quebec, would the minister tell the house whether this gentleman is a French Canadian or an English Canadian?



INDUSTRY


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question has a note of urgency and it is addressed to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development or his parliamentary secretary. Can the minister tell the house whether negotiations have been completed with Nova Scotia Pulp Limited for a large extension of its operations at the Strait of Canso and the establishment of a
Inquiries of the Ministry new newsprint mill? If so, can the minister indicate the extent of the government's involvement through Devco and other federal agencies and programs?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member indicated in his preamble that there was an element of urgency. This was not apparent in his question. Perhaps he might consider the possibility of discussing the matter at the time of adjournment.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, may I point out with all due respect that the note of urgency is very subtle.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Acting Prime Minister whether he could clarify the situation with regard to negotiations between the government and the Public Service Alliance. He took the question as notice. Perhaps he or the President of the Treasury Board may be able to answer my question today.
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board is prepared to answer the question.


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the
question was asked whether or not the Treasury Board was engaged in stalling in relation to the conduct of negotiations with bargaining units represented by the Public Service Alliance of Canada. I should like to say that there is neither the intention to stall nor the practice of stalling on the part of the government. We are most anxious to negotiate and conclude agreements with all bargaining agents, including the Public Service Alliance of Canada.
I am sure that hon. members will understand that the government as the employer cannot agree to everything that the bargaining units are asking for. We are meeting on a continuous basis with them and we continue to meet with them with a view to negotiating agreements which are acceptable to both sides. This is what collective bargaining is all about. In fact, an agreement was signed just yesterday with the printing operations group. I should like to reiterate that we are not stalling, but rather are putting forth every effort to reach agreements.

March 25, 19S9
Inquiries of the Ministry
Perhaps I should tell the house that we are meeting again with representatives of the Public Service Alliance of Canada this afternoon with a view to resolving our differences in respect of the two groups to which the president of the P.S.A.C. made reference, namely the administrative and foreign service category and the administrative support category. I understand that it is planned to have a meeting with representatives of the P.S.A.C. on Friday in a different kind of setting in order to sign an agreement covering a group for which the P.S.A.C. is the bargaining agent.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary
question which I hope will not provoke another lecture on bargaining. Will the minister say whether in these negotiations the government is seeking complete freedom to require employees to work scheduled hours of shift work, as is charged, and is also seeking freedom to make changes unilaterally in working conditions, as is also charged?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The matter of the scheduling of work hours is under discussion and endeavors are being made to reach agreed schedules. In so far as rescheduling is concerned, this also is under negotiation.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the minister. Can he tell us whether the class of civil servants working in the old age security pension and family allowances services has received particular attention during the present negotiations or whether it will be studied later?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that old age security pensions are my department's responsibility.


Georges-J. Valade: Then I will direct my question to the minister responsible or, in his absence, to the house leader. Will he inform the house tomorrow whether employees whose old age pension or family allowances are affected will receive an adjustment in pay in the early future?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking a question of a very general nature.

This question should normally be answered by a statement on motions.



NATIONAL ANTHEM


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that many people across the nation are concerned about what is our national anthem and that "O Canada", an anthem that has never received royal assent, is being used almost exclusively, does the Acting Prime Minister consider "God Save the Queen" to be our official national anthem?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that the question is not in order. He is asking for an expression of opinion on the part of the minister, so this question is not acceptable.


Percy Verner Noble: Mr. Speaker, may I say with all deference that I think people across the nation would like to have an answer to this question.


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt that a reply at this time to the hon. member's question would resolve the situation.
[Later: ]



REQUEST FOR LEGISLATION

Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lambion-Keni):: My question is directed to the leader of the house, Mr. Speaker. Does the government plan to bring in legislation regarding our national anthem, as recommended by the committee which made a unanimous report on this subject and, if so, when?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it is hoped we shall be able to bring in a proposed resolution on this subject later this session. The remaining question to be determined concerns the copyright, and as soon as this has been cleared up we shall feel free to put forward a resolution for consideration by the house to place both the national anthem and the royal anthem, in both languages, on an official basis.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. member for Port Arthur in his capacity as Acting Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In the light of the long delay in the introduction of the Indian claims commission legislation, in view of the refusal
March 25, 1969

to make up even a precis of the Stanbury-Fields taxation report, and in the light of the refusal so far to table certain correspondence with the provinces about the education of Indian children, as well as in the light of the delay-I could go on at some length, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Frank Howard: I could go on-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will not be able to go on throughout the question period.


Frank Howard: I did not intend to; the list is tremendous. I should like to ask the minister this question. Now that a certain obstacle has been removed from his way, could he proceed to clear up some of these long-standing questions before the other minister returns?



HOUSING


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
In view of the constant increase in the interest rate and of the fact that the recent report of the task force suggested the establishment of co-operatives which later would become an investment bank for housing, could the minister tell the house whether discussions aiming to establish such co-operatives are being held?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member's question should be put on the order paper.



VOCATIONAL TRAINING


Mr. W. C. Scott (Vicioria-Haliburlon):: My
question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, Mr. Speaker. Will the hon. gentleman reconsider his department's decision not to pay students attending manpower upgrading courses their return fares to go home at Easter, in view of the fact that these students were given to understand, until this week, that such payments would be made, as they had been made at Christmas?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that the question he is asking now relates to a matter which will be under debate in a few minutes.
Inquiries of the Ministry COMMUNICATIONS



STUDY OF MEDIA OWNERSHIP BY HOUSE COMMITTEE

Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: My question is directed to the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. Is it the intention of the government to refer the question of media ownership and operation to an appropriate house committee, similar to the Davey committee in the other place?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There is no intention to do so at the moment, Mr. Speaker. I think it might be a duplication of effort at this stage. We shall follow with interest the investigation being carried out in the other place, and if the report of that committee indicates that any action is necessary, consideration will be given to it at that time.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Will the policy of awarding cable television licences to publishing firms be reviewed, either by the appropriate committee of the house or by the government, in view of recent awards in this field by the Canadian Radio-Television Commission?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps I can remind the hon. member that, unless I am mistaken, the appropriate estimates are still under consideration by the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts. If he and other members wish to bring this question before that committee they might well consult the chairman and their colleagues on the committee.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON INTELSAT DISCUSSIONS

Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (Souih Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General in his capacity as minister in charge of communications. Can he say whether it is his intention to make a statement on motions outlining progress made at the Intelsat meeting which has just ended and outlining in particular the position Canada took with regard to regional satellite systems?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Intelsat conference was fairly well covered by the press. The major outcome-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member and to the minister that the only
7074

March 25, 1969
Business of Supply
sense in which this question could be accepted now is that the hon. member is asking whether a statement will be made. A statement should not be made at this time.



REQUEST FOR INFORMATION AS TO QUOTA

Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Mr. Speaker. In his recent talks with the industry and the grain trade, did the hon. gentleman receive an assurance that a six bushel quota would be reached by the end of the crop year?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, this was the position the Wheat Board took a number of weeks ago and I am not aware of any declaration changing it since then.



DELIVERY OF OUT-OF-CONDITION GRAIN

Edward Richard Schreyer: Can the minister assure the house that he will make representations to the Wheat Board in an effort to get it to rescind its instruction on country elevator agents not to accept for delivery any out-of-condition grain after April 1?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Sometimes members on the other side want the Wheat Board to take action to control shipments. At other times they do not. I wish they would make up their minds.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, this is a question of privilege as well as a point of order. At no time did I suggest to the minister that I wanted changes in the quota system. I am simply asking whether any steps are being taken by his office in an effort to see that all farmers have an opportunity-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



MOVEMENT OF BOX CARS TO LAKEHEAD

John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, since there is now no appreciable backlog of cars to be unloaded at the Lake-head or on the west coast, may I ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to advise the house whether the railway companies have placed an embargo on the movement of box cars to the Lakehead from certain delivery points and, if so, whether his department was informed before such action was taken? If the minister was told about this
IMr. Speaker.]
proposal, what action has he taken with regard to it?
Han. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, I have already read the first four lines of a letter I received from the Wheat Board. It continues as follows:
The railways are, therefore, cutting back on the number of loads for the Lakehead so that there should not be an excessive number of cars under load. The grain which will be loaded for the Lake-head in the next two or three weeks will be from the Red River Valley, barley from Alberta which is required for sales commitments, and a limited quantity of high moisture grain.
The agencies involved are trying to bring to the Lakehead the quantities and kinds of grain needed in order to market and to keep the drying facilities operating. This is the kind of control the house has been asking for the last four or five months. Now that weather is helping it is being exercised and I hope there will not be too much complaint. In the Red River Valley there is a flood possibility, so the Wheat Board and the railways are anticipating this possibility.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That this house regrets that the government has not provided for the development and retention of manpower resources in Canada and, in particular, of student manpower resources.
He said: Mr. Speaker, there are literally dozens of subjects we could have chosen to bring forward on this day, one of those allotted to the Official Opposition, but we chose to discuss the development and retention of manpower resources in Canada and, in particular, of student manpower resources, not because we on this side have any dramatic new solutions to suggest nor because we expect any miracles from the government but because it is vitally important to make it clear to Canadians, and especially to young Canadians, that the parliament Of Canada at least cares enough about this problem to devote a day to its consideration. Second, we have chosen this subject because we believe it is important to draw public attention to what we consider to be a failure of concern and a
March 25, 1969

lack of commitment on the part of the government in connection with an extremely important national problem. Third, we have done so because it is important to force the government through one of its ministers to make a statement of its policies and plans to develop and maintain manpower resources, especially student manpower resources, in Canada.
As I said in connection with a previous opposition motion this session, if we can succeed only in shaking the government out of its lethargy this allotted day will have been very well spent. Perhaps we may bring home to the public the urgency of the problem and in turn create sufficient pressure on the government so that a real manpower policy will attain the priority it ought to have in Canada.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
In a country with Canada's population, at our stage of economic growth and in our competitive position, there is nothing more basic than the development and retention of mam power resources. This is the key to economic progress and to creative excellence, as well as the availability of the highest standard of professional services of all kinds.
The so-called brain drain is, of course, an old problem, but its present dimensions reflect the failure of this country to achieve potential	growth-economic,	technological
and scientific. At the same time it deprives us of people who it must be assumed would have made a significant contribution to our growth and development. To the United States alone we have lost more than 214,000 Canadians in the past five years, and this despite certain job restrictions imposed by the United States government in 1965 and despite the selective service and draft laws of the United States, On the other hand, I am the first to recognize that there is a brain gain on the other side of the coin and that Canada is one of the chief beneficiaries, I could cite the percentages of doctors, engineers, architects and so on in Canada today who came here from other countries. The percentages are strikingly high in some cases, and I invite hon. members to look them up in Economic Council reports and other sources.
We in Canada have relied to some extent upon immigration for professional people, but there is nobody in this house, I trust, who would suggest for a moment that Canada can afford to lose young people in the numbers that have been emigrating from this country. Neither would anybody suggest, for example,
Business of Supply
that it is acceptable that some 30 per cent of our Ph.D.'s trained here leave for the United States. Indeed, the government itself has adopted the initiative undertaken privately several years ago by the Association of Universities and Colleges and is pursuing what is called "Operation Retrieval", designed to try to retrieve as many as possible of the 15,000 Canadians now studying abroad. Nobody will deny that this is a noble cause, but where are the careers in our own country for these people? In a month or so the government will be standing by watching how many of this year's graduating classes leave the country.
I should like to know whether the government has any idea how many have left. Have any studies been made of how many of this year's graduating classes are likely to be absorbed in Canada? If so, what policy conclusions have been drawn as a result of such studies? What are the projections for the next three to five years? Is there anyone in the government who knows or even cares?
I need not quote any authorities on the relationship between education and the development of our country; that vital connection is accepted by every member of this house. Surely the house is entitled to hear from the government what approach it is taking and how seriously and urgently it regards the problem facing us in the spring of 1969 and indeed in subsequent years.
I understand that some 88,000 students will be graduating from colleges and universities within the next month or so. On one campus after another in this country the story seems to be the same-fewer companies, fewer governments and fewer government agencies recruiting fewer people than last year. I am not going to go into the details; the situation seems to be clear. At Memorial university in St. John's there is a 10 per cent decrease in the number of companies recruiting their labour requirements; there are 15 per cent fewer at McMaster. And so it goes. There are fewer jobs available this year than last, with more students looking for them.
The size of the 1969 graduating class is apparently 20 per cent larger than last year-
88,000	compared with 59,000. The number of post-graduate degrees being granted this year is increasing at an even faster rate than undergraduate degrees-7,800 last year compared with 6,500 the year before. These figures are continuing to increase from year to year. The magnitude of our losses will, therefore, increase from year to year unless some action is taken.

March 25, 1969
Business of Supply
These people want to stay in Canada, and they are people Canada needs. Enrolments at our colleges and universities continue to grow. In the present academic year, 1968-69,
I believe there are over 250,000 students enrolled at universities and colleges and another 178,000 enrolled at various other postsecondary institutions in the country.
I cannot conceive of any failure more glaring than our failure to use the services of Canadians whom we educate. We are failing to provide an opportunity for these people to remain in Canada to contribute to Canada's growth and development. In such circumstances we must be very dissatisfied with the course of our economic and scientific development. There must be something seriously wrong when a country like Canada, which is trying to develop rapidly and is borrowing large amounts of capital to assist it to do so, nevertheless appears to be unable to utilize the services of a very substantial proportion of the people we are training and educating in Canada. I suggest this indicates that there is something seriously out of whack in our country.
A related problem is the really bleak and depressing situation so far as summer jobs for students are concerned. It is difficult to get accurate information as to the number of students seeking summer employment. One hears figures ranging from 400,000 to 600,000 and higher. Certainly the figures for those who were not successful last summer are grim enough.
Unemployment generally in this country has risen since then and opportunities for students have been adversely affected. A couple of weeks ago the situation in Ontario was summed up in a news article in this way:
An estimated 357,000 Ontario students will be competing for summer jobs with more than 100,000 other unemployed people this year.
The government of Ontario has, of course, appealed to employers throughout the province to make an extra effort. The federal Department of Manpower and Immigration is conducting, rather belatedly I must say, an advertising and promotional campaign. Despite the experience of last summer the problem has been allowed to lie until the eve of the closing down of schools without any attempt being made to develop a program to meet it. One of the basic root causes goes unattended, the lagging rate of economic growth which apparently is not even acknowledged-in fact, it seems to be denied-by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)

who continue to say: "Everything is going according to plan; our policies are working well."
The fact about summer employment for students is that there are many families and students to whom the failure to obtain a summer job means the difference between these students continuing or interrupting their education. It is nothing short of tragic that the education of young Canadians should be allowed to terminate for this reason. Unfortunately, that seems to be happening. It is happening especially with many young married couples where either one or both partners are trying to continue their university education.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I suggest it is not enough for the department to buy advertising space in the newspapers a few weeks before the summer recess. There will be a drastic shortage of summer jobs for students for the second summer in a row, and the lack of jobs is bound to affect the educational careers of many young Canadians. The problem is likely to grow in severity. Therefore I and other hon. members want to know today what the government intends to do about the matter. What plans are being considered to increase or strengthen programs of student aid in the country to overcome difficulties which are likely to increase in severity? Has the government considered any changes? Has it any plans to meet with the provinces to discuss possible changes? These are questions to which hon. members are entitled to hear answers. Surely this is an area in which the federal government could obtain the views of the provinces and give them leadership.
The situation in Ontario, because of its size, is serious enough, but the problem is extremely intense in areas of the country with slower growth which can less afford supplementary programs to encourage summer employment of students. In those areas jobs are likely to fall particularly short of requirements. There, many of the students come from families earning lower than average incomes.
I need not dwell on the fact that Canada cannot afford to lose these people. In an open economy like Canada's we must export. We know that technologically based industries are accounting for an increasingly large share of world trade. We ought to know that in Canada we are still not developing a technology-based economy and the people to develop it rapidly enough. This point was made very directly in an article last Thursday
March 25. 1969

in the Globe and Mail by Fraser Robertson in
which he said:
-more and more our exports are increased by the development of our human resources rather than of our natural resources. Increased technology has played a large part in this. Even more important than the know-how is knowing what to do, that faculty of entrepreneurial creativity which has had so much to do with U.S. business success.
Quite apart from the question of economic growth, God knows this country needs all the ability, talent and dedication we can summon from our young people. We have in this, country a host of social and human problems that require the attention, the ability and the work of young men and women whose training is in the humanities and social sciences and whose dedication is to the solutions of those problems. We need scientists and engineers who, hopefully, are concerned about the environment in which these problems may best be solved.
I wonder seriously what role the Department of Manpower and Immigration and its minister play in the formulation of government policies and in the consideration of problems of the kind I have been discussing. For example, and I think it is a very serious example, would the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and his department be consulted and have an important part to play in the decision to cut back the grants that were intended to build medical schools and train the medical and paramedical personnel the country will need to catch up with the present shortage and to meet projected requirements over the next few years? Were the minister and his department consulted? This, surely, is the type of decision which, while the matter is under the direct jurisdiction of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, should be subject to important and perhaps decisive advice from the Department of Manpower if that department is doing the proper job it is being asked to do.
I wonder whether the Department of Manpower is at all concerned or was ever consulted about the cut-backs in scientific projects supported by the government of Canada. Was the Department of Manpower in a position to advise the government as to the probable loss of scientists because of the cancellation of the ING project or the Queen Elizabeth observatory? More generally, and I think this is more important in the long run, is the department in a position to assess the effects in terms of scientific manpower of the uncertainty and confusion surrounding the federal government's science policy generally? To me this is
Business of Supply
the proper concept of a manpower department. The Department of Manpower ought to cut across every department of government and every policy of every department of government. Having made its own assessment of the manpower requirements of the country in the various fields, projected over a period of five, ten or more years, the department should have an opportunity to advise cabinet as to how every important policy of government or of any department is apt to affect our manpower resources and their potential. I regret to say that it appears that under this government the Department of Manpower is given a back seat. It appears that the minister is given an inferior status and that in the main he is accepting it.
What is of most concern is not that a problem exists. Rather, it is that there appears to be almost no awareness and almost no concern on the part of the government about our problems or the urgency of our problems which show every sign of growing more severe. What is most depressing about all this is that there is not a shred of evidence that any thinking about this problem is being done by the government. No thinking seems to be devoted to it; there is no planning and no real concern.
It is almost unbelievable that this government came to power last June with the support of so many young people in Canada. It is certainly astonishing that these urgent problems should have such a low priority with a government elected on the slogan of involvement and participation. What amazes me is that the hopes of our younger people and their genuine desire to do something meaningful in their country were cast aside so cynically by the government once it was safely back in power. Not only is the employment situation extremely difficult this spring, but nobody in the hierarchy of the just society seems to be interested any more. The government has not come up with any new programs to deal with this emergency. It has not even fully enacted or implemented the old programs.
On November 13, 1967, the parliament of Canada passed Bill C-150 entitled, "an act to establish a Canada Manpower and Immigration Council". That council was to consist of a chairman and not more than 15 members appointed by order in council. Among other things, the duties of that council were to advise the minister on all matters pertaining to the effective utilization and development of manpower resources in Canada. Under that legislation the minister was also to establish

March 25, 1969
Business of Supply
four advisory boards, the chairmen of which were to be members of the Canada Manpower and Immigration Council. Those advisory boards were on adult occupational training, adjustment of immigrants, co-ordination of rehabilitation services for disabled persons, and manpower and immigration research. When he introduced the bill and commended it to the House of Commons for support the then minister of manpower and immigration, who is the present Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, said:
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The hon. members will note that the role of the council is in no way restricted or limited. Its job will consist in advising the minister on all matters pertaining to the efficient use and development of manpower resources in Canada, including immigrants and their integration into Canadian life.
I consider myself fortunate in that I can bank- and the same goes for the officials of the department-on the wise counsels of those Canadians who act outside the department. It will facilitate the drawing up of an efficient program to develop an ever greater awareness in management of the ceaseless transformations in manpower needs across the country.
Indeed, the former minister of manpower and immigration told the house that he regarded it as a matter of urgency that the bill establishing the Canadian Manpower and Immigration Council be enacted. The bill became law in 1967 but to date not one appointment has been made so far as we are aware. Last November 14, when the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEac-hen) appeared before the standing committee of the house, the following exchange took place:


Mr. Caccia:: In December 1967 the Canada Manpower and Immigration Council Act was given assent. Has the minister any intention of implementing that act by appointments to the various councils proposed in that act?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We in the department have spent considerable time recently considering how best these councils could operate and be of maximum benefit to the department and to the country. I think we have it pretty clearly in our minds how we think they ought to operate. We have already canvassed major organizations in the country for suggestions as to possible persons to fill these council positions and we hope soon to be able to get it in operation. So we are getting ahead with it.
There is just no excuse for the delay in setting up this council. The concept of such a council is a good one. It would, as the former minister said:
-facilitate the drawing up of an efficient program to develop an even greater awareness in management in the essential transformation in manpower needs across the country.

Such a council, if the minister ever gets around to appointing it, will help to involve concerned and interested people in all sectors of Canadian society. It would keep the minister, the department and the government in touch with developing needs and opportunities. In short, it would do something to improve communications between the department and the people of Canada. It is high time the government and the minister roused themselves from their lethargy and set about to implement this piece of legislation passed by the previous parliament in December, 1967. No public announcement has been made in this regard. In this day and age I am sure it will seem absurd to many Canadians and many hon. members, as it seems absurd to me, to have to say that on a subject as vital as this the policy-making apparatus in this country suffers from a lack of information.
No one disputes the importance of keeping qualified young Canadians in the educational stream. This, one would think, is something of a national priority. In this age of computerized information retrieval systems, can anyone in this house tolerate the statement put out under the name the Minister of Manpower and Immigration last December 9 in answer to a written question under the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North? Allow me to refer to page 3647 of Hansard. It is clear that the minister said that the department keeps a record of their successes but not their failures. I quote:
A record of student placements was maintained separately from other placements of a temporary nature from July 25 to September 11, 1968. During this period 13,131 students were placed in employment.
The minister did not give any information as to how many students were unemployed. This is not proper statistical reporting. This is propaganda. I do not believe that the Minister of Manpower is really to blame in the sense that he instructed the department to maintain only sufficient statistical information to form a half truth, to maintain statistical information which for all practical policy-making purposes is useless to the government and the house. I do not believe that the Minister of Manpower contrived it that way. At least I prefer to think that he would not and did not. He does have constitutional responsibility as the minister responsible for that department. I tell him quite bluntly that if he has to knock some heads together in order to come up with valid statistical information he should do so without delay.
March 25, 1969

We have enough problems with some of the statistics fed to us by other ministers without having the Minister of Manpower, who heads a relatively new department and is alleged to have some professional competence in the field, getting into the bad habits of some of his colleagues. I hope that one of the important purposes this debate may serve will be to receive from the government authoritative information that the government is willing to stand by.
Does the government accept the figures put forward as to the seriousness of the summer employment situation? Does the government accept the figures put forward with regard to the recruiting taking place on campus for permanent jobs? What figures can the department put forward as to the number of students who can be placed this summer? How many graduates does the government project can be placed in permanent jobs? Has the department any statistical information as to the number of students who, without summer employment, will not be in a position to continue their education? Is there any attempt to give some priority to these more needy individuals in placing applicants for summer employment?
Based on the projected number of graduates for the next five years and the anticipated rate of economic growth in Canada, what does the government expect in terms of percentage of graduates who can be absorbed within Canada? Based on these projections, what changes, if any, are planned in the student aid programs? What consultations are being held between the federal government and the provinces? These are questions that require serious answers and I hope a spokesman for the government will obtain and provide these answers later today.
The outlook, Mr. Speaker, is one causing increasing concern. There is a serious failure of policy in a developing country like Canada when we are unable to utilize effectively students graduating from our universities, colleges and technical institutes. This is a serious symptom which indicates something is seriously wrong with our development policies and programs. We must be seriously concerned about the loss of talent. It is a serious situation when students whom we wish to encourage to remain in school to continue their education and training find it necessary to drop out for economic reasons. This represents a failure of policy and a great cost to Canada. It is completely unacceptable that we in this country at this stage of our economic,
Business of Supply
social and scientific development should turn out record numbers of students for whom there appears to be no adequate use in Canada. That, I suggest, is unacceptable.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the Leader of the Opposition for interrupting him but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has
unanimous consent of the house to resume his remarks.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I thank you and the house for this courtesy. Mr. Speaker, I will simply terminate my remarks by saying that this situation is unacceptable. So too is the failure of any policy that results in capable young Canadians having to interrupt or end their education because of economic circumstances.
I am sure the house and the country will listen with great interest to the views of the appropriate minister on this important subject. I trust the minister will inform the house as to the information available, as to the efforts the government is making to get the necessary information, and as to the steps the government is taking with regard to measures of consultation with the provinces. Unless the minister can indicate that plans are going forward and unless he can give some satisfactory explanation with regard to the failure to establish consultation, then having regard to the government's failure to take satisfactory and urgent measures to meet the problems I have outlined I would ask the house to vote in favour of the motion:
That this house regrets that the government has not provided for the development and retention of manpower resources in Canada and, in particular, of student manpower resources.
Certainly, Mr. Speaker, there seems to have been a most abject failure, and we await an explanation from the minister.


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whil-by):: Mr. Speaker, I am going to approach the subject raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) from a somewhat different tack. Before doing so I would like to remind the house that the problem of full utilization of our manpower resources is scarcely new, even to this session of the house. It has been raised a number of times by spokesmen for the New Democratic Party, most recently by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) who moved on March

[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
What, then, are the solutions or at least what is the program which would contribute to a solution? First of all, I should like to suggest something that might be done in the very near future. I refer to the establishment of what might be called a young Canadian service program or, to follow current government practice of describing by letters, we could call it the Y.C.S.P. Apart from the name, which of course has no real importance, what I and my party have in mind in respect of such a program is the mobilization for public service significant numbers of university students during the summer months for needed social, educational and other like kinds of work both in Canada and abroad. There are many kinds of work that could be performed in underdeveloped countries and in the poverty-ridden areas of our own country by the highly motivated and highly talented young people in the universities.
In this regard my party would favour that students volunteering for such a program should have their tuition paid by the federal government at whatever post-secondary institution they may be attending and, second, that the federal government would provide for such students a modest monthly living allowance both during the summer months when they are working either at home or abroad and during the school term. This would mean, of course, that the amount paid by the government would vary from university to university depending on the fees in the particular case and from province to province depending on the living standard. I emphasize that there are two important aspects of this. We suggest to the government that it is important to promote among our young people the kind of activity while they are still students which would involve a genuine public service both in respect of the Canadian public and the public in those countries which are undergoing economic development. This would be done not by escalated or exaggerated salaries but by modest ones. Canadian and American experience in this field shows there are thousands of young people who would readily make themselves available if the government would show some serious initiative.
What we need in order to deal with unemployment, whether student unemployment or unemployment in general, is a policy the long run effect of which is intended to remove the persisting 5 per cent or 6 per cent level of
29180-449 a
Business of Supply
unemployment. To say the same thing in different words, we need a program which is intended to maintain high levels of employment throughout the year.
One of the central requirements of such a long-run solution is to remove the dominant power in our economy possessed by the modern corporation. We must, in short, broaden the role of the government; we must expand the public sector. I am not suggesting we should make the public sector or the government sector all-pervasive or completely dominant. What I and my party suggest is that the government sector must be significantly expanded.
Let me say something briefly about the nature of the modern corporation and explicitly about some of the myths concerning private enterprise which are still believed by leading spokesmen of the other two parties. First of all, the modern corporation does not function in a classical laissez-faire economy at all. Every economist, whether in the western or communist world, now recognizes the oligopolistic nature of our economy. There is no significant price competition whatsoever. Second, the modern corporation generates from within itself its own capital. It is no longer dependent in the main on the money market to obtain capital.
It has been estimated that 70 per cent of all the investment capital in Canada comes directly from within the enterprises themselves. They do not have to go outside. What does this mean for an industry operating in, as I say, an oligopolistically oriented economy? This means in effect that industry in this kind of economy obtains its investment funds directly from the people who buy their products. This means, of course, that Canadians pay corporations in a sense what has been called by Professor Taylor of McGill University "development taxes". But it is important to note that Canadians in this respect have no say whatsoever concerning the level at which these taxes should be. That is to say, they have no effective say concerning what the prices should be because they are regulated by the companies themselves. Nor do they have anything to say concerning how the profits are to be used by the corporations. We have in effect, then a system of taxation without representation.
What are the corporate purposes and practices? The main purpose, of course, is to maximize their profits over a number of years. They no longer plan their profits in respect of one or two years but rather in respect of ten or 15 years. They have no

March 25, 1969
Business of Supply
real interest in overcoming regional economic disparity or high levels of unemployment and other things in which the public would like to see them take a general interest. To achieve their purpose they spend billions of dollars to encourage an economy almost completely based on private consumption for its economic viability and, of course, they spend billions to try to develop the idea through advertising that the infinite consumer is likely to be an infinitely happy man, which is psychologically damaging for people.
What 1 believe is most relevant to the debate this afternoon is that these corporations through all their contacts and power discourage public spending, government spending of any sort. Any increase in the government power is discouraged. This is done, of course, because it would follow that if more of our capital is influenced or guided by government decision-making the dominant role of the corporations in the economy necessarily would diminish. It is worth pointing out some of the areas in which they do not want any public say. They do not want anything to be said about pricing, about investment, about buying and, of course, about any increases in taxes. At the same time the corporations are very eager to have special tax holidays, quicker write-off policies and, of course, lucrative research and development contracts especially if they are in defence-oriented industry because they do not have to repay them.
What are some of the effects of this kind of economy? First, social goods as opposed to consumer goods receive almost no attention in terms of capital investment. This means we have fewer schools, hospitals, urban renewal projects and social security schemes. A second item which is more relevant to the debate this afternoon is the serious effect of the government's counter-cyclical policies. Right now we are cutting back on expenditures in every government department instead of increasing them as we should be with our high levels of unemployment. We are doing this in the public sector only because of the pervasive influence of the corporations.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I believe a very meaningful question to ask would be why we should be discriminating in favour of the private corporation. If there comes a time-not the present-when a cutting back in investment is required, what is necessary from a socially equitable point of view is to have a government that would make important decisions about priorities.

The government should have some say whether we need more gas stations at a particular time, more office buildings, investment that will produce a new multi-coloured television set, and so on. If we are going to cut back, the government should have the right, and indeed should assume the moral responsibility to cut back on what may be regarded at a particular time as unneeded additions and developments in the private sector. It follows from this that it should have the right and moral responsibility to say we will not cut back in certain important public sectors. Indeed, even if it is a time of inflation we may want to expand seriously certain public programs because there is a serious public need for them.
It is for this reason that the New Democratic Party recommends the kind of shift in governmental orientation that neither the Conservative nor the Liberal parties as they are currently constituted could possibly support. We want meaningful implementation of the Carter report. We do not believe, as is often suggested, that we can provide all kinds of programs and get the money out of the air in some mystical fashion. We say we could start making a meaningful shift in the investment of money. We could start shifting it in a serious way from certain private sectors into the public sector. This is not making money out of nothing. It means also that where there is a needed increase in taxation we should take seriously the proposals made by able and knowledgeable people such as those who produced the Carter report.
It also means that if we want to shift away from the branch plant kind of economy to encourage our own research and development and the employment of Canadian graduate students in Canada, we should take very seriously the recommendations of the Watkins report. This, again, is something that neither of the other two parties seems at all interested in doing. It also means that we should set up a prices review board which will deal in a meaningful way with the corporate power structure and will not allow corporations which are not at all responsive to market demands to, in effect, tax the Canadian people year after year by increasing prices at will.
Finally, the New Democratic Party is firmly convinced that it is necessary to start guiding the investment funds collected by our insurance companies. This means either indirect controls by stipulating in advance that a certain percentage of their funds must go into
March 25, 1969

housing or other socially desirable objectives or at certain times must not go anywhere it we are dealing with inflation, or if the insurance companies will not co-operate and cannot be dealt with in any way it may mean that the complete responsibility for insurance funds should be taken over by the government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I must draw his attention to the fact that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house agree that the hon. member should continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Edward Broadbent: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall conclude very quickly. I am suggesting that we need a totally new reorientation of our priorities to deal meaningfully with unemployment. We must shift from an overwhelmingly privately owned and controlled consumer-oriented economy toward one which is concerned with important public priorities. Only by obtaining this kind of leading influence over investment policies can we achieve a program of year-round, full employment which is really essential and is the most meaningful way of dealing with student unemployment which occurs in the summer.
Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That the motion be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma, and by adding immediately thereafter the following words:
"because of its reliance on the unplanned private sector and its failure to emphasize the role of the public sector in promoting the full utilization of all our manpower resources".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is therefore on the amendment. Is the house ready for the question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I
listened with attention to the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) in support of his motion and to the speech and subamendment of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. I welcome the interest in the manpower activities of the government, and especially this opportunity to outline some of the activities of the Department of Manpower and Immigration in this field.
Business of Supply
I have in my hand a report prepared in
1965	by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development on manpower policies and programs in Canada. In that year the O.E.C.D. conducted an intensive study of manpower policy and programs in Canada. The conclusions of that independent body were extremely complimentary to the role Canada had played in the development of manpower policies. Of course, since that report was prepared the new Department of Manpower and Immigration has been established, existing programs have been strengthened and expanded, and some new programs have been undertaken.
The motion of the Leader of the Opposition expresses non-confidence in the government because it has failed to provide for the development of manpower resources in general in Canada and has failed to provide for the development and retention especially of student manpower resources. I must say that I am somewhat surprised at the motion and the selection of this subject matter as a basis of seeking non-confidence in the government. It seems to me that this government and its immediate predecessor have been more heavily committed to the development and potential of Canada's manpower resources-
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


David Orlikow: This is just talk.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -than any previous
governments since confederation. The commitment is clear, pervasive, substantial and expensive. It is not a new dedication or a new commitment. It was outlined by the then Prime Minister, Mr. Pearson, in 1965 and
1966	and it has resulted in programs, in legislation and in expenditures that have been approved by parliament that make Canada one of the leading nations in the world in the development of our manpower resources. To suggest that we have been reluctant and hesitant, that we have been lethargic and indifferent in this field, is to fly in the face of facts in view of the very heavy expenditures that are being carried by the taxpayers of Canada in support of the substantial manpower programs.
It is inevitable that any modern government would take this attitude because we realize, as does this motion, that the development of the human and manpower resources of any country is closely linked not only to the satisfaction of the individual but to the growth of the national economy, the increase in productivity and, of course, the reduction

March 25, 1909
Business of Supply
in unemployment that is caused by lack of skills.
I am surprised at the condemnation inherent in the motion. I welcome the recognition in the motion of the importance of the development of human resources to Canada's future. I doubt that one could find in Canada today a sizeable group of people who would contest the theory that the development of manpower resources is one of the keys to national development. We acknowledge its importance and value, and we have presented programs. We welcome this opportunity to have the programs criticized and to have ideas brought forward on how these programs can be improved.
At the same time we should recognize that there is something the Leader of the Opposition failed to mention, at least to any extent, while he dealt almost exclusively with the student aspect of manpower resources, which is an important aspect but not the only one. The Leader of the Opposition spent almost his full time talking about the necessity of development in this field which is under provincial rather than federal jurisdiction. We are being constantly reminded in this house, and frequently elsewhere, that education is a provincial responsibility and that schools and universities are under provincial jurisdiction. We recognize this, which is something that the Leader of the Opposition failed to mention, and we do not take the view that the federal government has no interest in the results produced in the provinces, nor are we unwilling to help the provinces carry out responsibilities in this field.
With regard to the student aspect of manpower development, it might be a good idea to consider exactly what the federal government is doing and what the parliament of Canada has been asked to do from time to time. One of the most important ways in which the federal government contributes to the development of our manpower resources, particularly for youth, is through fiscal transfers that it makes to the provinces of behalf of their costs of post-secondary and university education. As hon. members realize, federal support of universities has been a continuing feature of Canadian policy in the post-war period. All of us recall the difficulties of the former method of assisting the provinces or the universities and how frequently the amounts provided were criticized.
In 1967 new legislation was introduced which broadened, vastly expanded and changed the nature of the federal contribution
[Mr. MacKachen.l
to post-secondary education. As hon, members know, that contribution now takes the form of a fiscal transfer to the provinces on a basis that is intended to recognize the escalating cost of post-secondary education and at the same time preserve the independence of the provinces in the field of education. Just last year the federal expenditure on this account was $400 million. This fiscal year it amounts to about half a billion dollars, and next fiscal year it may exceed $600 million. That seems to me to be a rather substantial provision made by the parliament of Canada for the development of manpower resources in the country, especially of the young people.
I wish to say a word also about the Canada student loan plan which is also part of the general program of development. This plan makes it possible for an increasing number of young Canadians to have access to postsecondary education. When the plan was first introduced in 1964 it was by far the largest single source of student aid in Canada. Since then provinces have added to the sources of student aid, but nevertheless the Canada student loan plan still provides a very substantial portion of the student aid available in Canada. In 1964-65, $27 million was authorized under the Canada student loan plan, and this figure has grown to $58 million in the last academic year. It is expected that $70 million will be authorized in 1968-69. In fact, to meet the rapidly growing demand for loans the federal government is asking parliament to increase the allocation of the amount which provinces may authorize under the plan.
The importance of the Canada student loan plan may be seen not only from the over-all funds authorized but also from the number of students it assisted. In 1964-65 loans were authorized to some 40,000 students, and during the present academic year the number of students assisted may reach 100,000 in Canada.
The cost of this program to the federal government consists mostly of interest paid on behalf of students and also of the payments made to the province of Quebec as an alternative to the student aid program. The federal cost this year will be about $10 million and may rise to $15 million in two years' time.
Federal-provincial co-operation has been excellent in this field and it has provided very effective job aid throughout Canada to students who want to go to university. So in the field of post-secondary education and in
March 25, 1969

the field of student aid we have very substantial programs to assist the development of Canada's youth.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The Leader of the Opposition spoke a good deal about the problem of student unemployment. Of course it is a problem which is evident. It arises from two sources. It arises from the post-war baby boom as a result of which students are now entering universities in large numbers. It arises also from the larger numbers of students who are going to universities in this day and age. It was serious last summer and it may be as serious, or more serious, this summer. We were aware of it last slimmer when we took special steps to meet it. As a matter of fact, the Canada manpower centres have been making special provision for student employment all along. They were engaged in special programs when they were known as national employment service offices.
Last year, when the number of students looking for summer employment exceeded the normal seasonal growth of job opportunities, the department moved quickly to co-ordinate and intensify all its activities on behalf of students. This was done by launching a jobs for students campaign. It was a modest start at a cost of $75,000, but it produced encouraging results. The campaign was designed to encourage Canadian businessmen, trade unions, government authorities, mass communications media, community organizations and householders to give all the assistance they could to help students find jobs.
It should be evident to hon. members that it is not within the capacity of the Department of Manpower and Immigration to create jobs. The work of the department is to gauge the number of jobs which exist in the labour market and to bring the greatest possible information to bear on the situation. The purpose of the advertising program last summer was to get students to use the facilities of the manpower centres and to induce employers to use those centres and take on additional students where possible. In an effort to assist, my department last summer hired 100 students to help the regular staff in the manpower centres in their effort to match students looking for work with available opportunities. I think they did a good job. It was a short campaign and it was over quickly. It enjoyed wide support. Provincial youth departments and agencies, chambers of commerce, service organizations, merchants and construction associations all aided in varying degrees.
Business of Supply
During the period of the campaign between July 25 and September 30, more than 13,000 student placements were made. We do not know how many would have been placed in the absence of our campaign, because this is information which it is impossible to obtain, but during the period of the campaign we did place the number I have mentioned and this has encouraged us to believe that a similar campaign this spring and summer will be of value. It is not easy to determine the number of students who will be looking for work this summer but our estimate at present is around 367,000, some 10,000 more than last year.
The Leader of the Opposition referred to our advertising campaign for summer student employment and said it was begun too late. Well, if I remember correctly, it was begun early in February, and surely if it started any earlier its effect would have been dissipated long before the summer season arrived. As a result of our experience we have tried to make this year's campaign larger and more effective. We have undertaken an extended program of national, local and regional publicity, using all media and aiming primarily at potential student employers. The campaign started some time ago and will continue during the summer. We have budgeted about $250,000 this year for this advertising program. I think that is a substantial sum to put out for such a definite and specific purpose. We are seeking to encourage potential employers to identify the summer jobs which they have available, or can create, for students, and make sure that these jobs are brought to the attention of our manpower centres so that we can refer students to them. In addition, we hope to employ some 335 students in the department across Canada to assist in this program.
The Canadian manpower centres are, thus, actively searching for job opportunities and making a special effort to urge as many employers as possible to find jobs for students. In addition, we are taking steps to ensure that students looking for work are registered with the manpower centres. In this way we hope to make sure that the centres are the focal points for both students and employers. Moreover, the departmental officers in each of the five regions have been appointed to act as regional co-ordinators in connection with summer student employment. All in all, this represents a large task force, especially when one considers that there are over 300 Canada manpower centres or offices from coast to coast.

March 25, 1969
Business of Supply
As I have already mentioned, the department itself will be hiring some 335 students to help organize and run the campaign. We have also been active in attempts to enlist the co-operation of other agencies which are concerned with this question. My officials have been meeting, for instance, with the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada which is urging its members to create local committees to help improve student employment possibilities. A number of these committees have been established in various parts of the country and we welcome the self-help efforts made by the students themselves. It is my hope that through working with these committees and other bodies more will be learned about student employment. Through surveys and the analysis of our own records we hope to find out more about the student experience on the labour market.
Statistics about placements are useful, but it is my view that students do not want just a job. They want work which is socially useful and challenging. I have discovered through my meetings with students that it is not just jobs they want but work which has some social meaning to it-tasks which are related, somehow, to the development of the country or the provision of some social service. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broad-bent) referred to this aspect of student employment when he suggested we might embark on a program to enlist students in socially useful activities. This is something we have under consideration as a means not only of providing jobs and incomes for students, but also the kind of work which has a socially meaningful content.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
For example, some time ago an hon. member referred to the fact that the department had authorized, as it has for some years, the bringing in of labour from the Caribbean under the agricultural program. It is true that we have authorized this seasonal movement of agricultural workers into Ontario. If the same number is reached as in former years there will be about 1,200 black workers from the Caribbean coming to work in the province of Ontario.
The question has been asked: Why do you not retain these jobs for students? Aside from the fact that these jobs are important to the economy of the Caribbean as well as important to the growers who want a segment of the labour force that is experienced, this summer about 160,000 persons will be required for the agricultural labour force in
[Mr. MacEachen.l
the province of Ontario. Thus there will be ample opportunity for students who want to take on this kind of work. In our manpower centres we are going to make it a point to give students first chance to take on these jobs in the agricultural areas of Ontario. We believe this will provide large numbers of students with the opportunity of adding to their income as well as taking part in this industry in the course of the summer months.
Aside from possibilities along these lines there is still a demand among the young people of this country for jobs that are socially meaningful. It is difficult for employers, both in government and in private organizations, to provide meaningful jobs on a short term basis during the summer months when such activities usually require supervision over a period of time. However, because it is difficult is no reason for not attempting to do so.


Mr. Hales:: Would the minister permit a question on bringing in help from other countries? Does he not think that Canadian students should be given the first opportunity to fill these positions? Rather than bringing in people from other countries for these jobs, could they not be made available to Canadian students?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have been trying to deal with that question. There are quite a number of interests involved here. As I recollect the situation there will be a requirement for about 160,000 seasonal workers in agriculture this summer in Ontario. The movement of workers from the Caribbean will likely reach about 1,200 workers. So the opportunities that can be made available to Canadian students will not be seriously reduced by workers from the Caribbean, and we must also bear in mind the importance of this movement to the governments of these countries.
In concluding this aspect of my remarks about summer employment for students I should like to say we are very concerned about the problem. We have undertaken a very intensive publicity and organizational campaign. We have encouraged other government departments to hire as many students as possible this summer, and we are urging the private sector of our economy to review their priorities and to make a special effort to create jobs for Canadian students. It may be a very long and hot summer in Canada.
I believe a successful solution to the unemployment problem as far as the students are concerned does not rest exclusively with the
March 25, 1969

Department of Manpower or the federal government but requires the co-operation of both the federal and provincial governments. In this regard I am delighted to see that the province of Ontario is undertaking a special campaign along these lines. 1 hope other provinces will do likewise and that private employers will co-operate so that we will be able to create the largest possible number of openings this summer. This will enable all young Canadians who want to work to do so before returning to their university careers in the fall.
I want to say a few words about the question of retrieval or retention. The Leader of the Opposition gave the impression that Canada was doing badly in regard to the brain drain. I should like to begin my comments on this subject by mentioning what must be evident to all of us, namely, that we are living in a world of great mobility. National boundaries are becoming, so far as people are concerned, less and less important. Young people in Canada who want a career in the United States, or who want a university education either in the United States or in some other country, cannot be kept here by force of law. They can be kept here, it seems to me, only as a result of freely deciding to remain as they calculate the attractions that the future in this country has for them.
This is not to say that the department or the government should not take an active interest in this field; we have been doing so, as I want to point out. Nevertheless, if Canada does lose people from time to time, as the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, it is also the beneficiary of persons coming to Canada from other countries. If I recollect correctly, last year Canada brought within its boundaries about 1,200 trained medical practitioners; at least, 1,200 persons came to Canada who will find a place in the medical profession either immediately or later.


Alfred Dryden Hales: How many are still here?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not have any figures showing how many have left. But more them 10,000, perhaps close to 12,000, refugees were brought to Canada from Czechoslovakia, a high proportion of whom were professionally skilled. While Canada was moved by humanitarian reasons, we certainly gained in the acquisition of skills and education by welcoming these people. It is not a one-way street in this regard. It so happens that Canada is losing on the one side and gaining on the other.
Business of Supply
I think Canada is improving on its performance in this respect. In the Department of Manpower and Immigration there is a special program in effect which has been described as "Operation Retrieval".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the minister but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I realize the minister has limited time but would he do me the honour of dealing with some of the questions I raised before he concludes his remarks?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I hope I have been demonstrating to the hon. gentleman that the policies of the government have already anticipated his amendment. All the programs I have been mentioning are really efforts in the public sector to develop manpower resources. I have also referred to the hon. gentleman's proposal having to do with a special corps of young people. Before I finish I hope to speak about other subjects. If the hon. member wishes to ask questions at the end of my remarks, 1 will do my best to answer them.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, would the minister care to comment on the central thrust of my argument, which is that we need to shift the balance of investment? We need to invest much more in the public, productive sector of our economy, and the shift must be away from the private sector.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Is the hon. member referring to the automobile industry?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If I had statistics with me here I am sure they would demonstrate to my hon. friend that this shift has been going on and undoubtedly will continue to do so. We are concerned not only about developing resources in Canada. We also want to retain in Canada the resources we have and we want to stem the drain of highly qualified workers to the United States in particular.
With this in mind we have, since 1966, taken over the organizing and full financing of a continuing program internationally known as "Operation Retrieval", the specific

March 25, 1969
Business of Supply
purpose of which is to help Canada to retain her educated young people. The operation has two objectives which are, first, to keep Canadians studying at universities abroad informed about economic developments at home and job opportunities open to them here and, second, to ensure that they are as actively considered for these openings as they would be if they were resident in Canada. In carrying out this program the department has worked closely with the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, the Public Service Commission, industry, and other interested organizations.
Prior to the program Canadians studying at foreign universities were not actively recruited for employment in Canada. Canadian business, universities and government showed little interest in them. But that has changed. As the Financial Post reported on March 16, 1968:
Because of the Department of Manpower's "Operation Retrieval", many of these students are likely to get job offers from Canadian employers.
In a nutshell, "Operation Retrieval" functions as an honest broker between Canadians studying abroad and employers in Canada who need highly trained manpower. It is a bridge which permits employers in Canada and Canadian scholars abroad to communicate with each other to their mutual benefit. For example, early in 1967, at a cost of about $60,000 it set the pattern for its subsequent annual operations by sending six teams made up of academics and other professionals to 35 universities in the United States, Britain and Europe to speak with some 900 Canadian students who attended the scheduled meetings. It distributed to students abroad some
7.000	copies of a directory of employers and job opportunities available in Canada and provided prospective employers with some
4.000	resumes listing the names and individual qualifications of Canadian scholars abroad who had asked "Operation Retrieval" to help them find jobs in Canada. As a result, Canada manpower centres made some 6,000 referrals to employers.
Since then the program has continued and expanded. In the 1967-68 academic year 742 Canadians studying abroad asked "Operation Retrieval" to distribute their resumes to 2,500 employers who were then participating in the program. During the current academic year the teams completed their visits to United States universities last fall. As a result some
1.000	students have asked the department to

distribute their resumes to some 2,700 employers currently involved in the scheme.
Canada does well and has recently been doing much better both in retraining Canadians at home and in attracting educated and skilled foreigners from other countries. Traditionally our brain influx from other countries has much more than made up for our brain drain to the United States. Recently we have also been doing much better with respect to the United States. Emigration from Canada to the United States fell from about 50,000 in 1962-63 to 35,000 in 1966-67. Immigration from the United States to Canada rose from
12.000	in 1963 to 19,000 in 1967 and to 20,000 in 1968. Our net deficit with the United States has thus fallen from about 39,000 in 1963 to about 16,000 in 1967. I am not suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that this result is entirely due to "Operation Retrieval". Nevertheless, I think hon. members will be pleased to know that our performance in this respect generally has been improving.


Donald MacInnis: You are admitting a lot of draft-dodgers.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I doubt very much that the source my hon. friend has alluded to is a major one. I have been talking for quite a long time, Mr. Speaker, and have devoted myself entirely to the student aspect. I have talked about post-secondary education aspects affecting students, approvals with respect to the student loan fund, the summer employment problem and "Operation Retrieval". I would not wish to conclude my remarks without referring to the development of our manpower resources in the adult labour force. I am sorry the Leader of the Opposition did not pay some attention to our adult labour force. I know our students are important-we all understand they are important-but the adult Canadian labour force is also important, especially since it is made up to some extent of persons who have been passed by in earlier educational opportunities that may have been available and who in their later life have had to pick up the threads again. They are taking up the threads again either by taking upgrading courses or educational training.


Georges-J. Valade: Will the minister permit a question? Before leaving the subject of student employment could he inform the house of the number of students in each province who will be seeking employment this summer? I believe he gave up a total figure of
360.000	students seeking employment all across Canada. Could we have this figure
March 25. 1969

broken down, province by province. Also, is there any provision under which needy students coming to the department for assistance will be given preference over students from wealthy families in seeking employment?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not have the statistics or the breakdown for our provinces, but I will try to obtain them. To reply to the hon. member's second question, C.M.C. does not conduct means tests to determine in any job placement whether a student comes from a needy or a wealthy family. We do not have instruments at our disposal. The suggestion has been made that in job referrals we ought to consider needy students first. It has been suggested that students coming from well to do or influential families find it easier to get jobs than those coming from poorer families. We have not considered in the department whether it would even be possible to take this factor into account.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Will the minister permit a question? He has just said that in his department there is no administrative machinery to conduct means tests and to determine whether students come from poor or wealthy families. Does the minister not agree that under the student loans program the administrative authority may determine whether a student is needy?
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, I agree this may be possible under the student loan program. This is one of the suggestions that has been made. A person, for example, with an obligation under a student loan might be given preference. We have this under consideration. It is a fact that it is some indication of need from a student point of view.
I want to say a few words about occupational training for adults. The federal manpower training program had in 1968-69 the best year in its history. In the fiscal year which is coming to a close the program enrolled some 430,000 adults, 301,000 of them on a full-time basis. Relating these enrolments to the population, the Canadian program, apart from the retraining program of Sweden, is the largest program of its kind in the world.
The program started from very modest beginnings only a few years ago. In 1961-62, under the federal Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act, the program enrolled only 26,000 unemployed persons. The numbers of unemployed receiving training
Business of Supply
have been growing steadily. In 1967-68, the first year of the occupational training for adults program, the enrolment of the unemployed rose to 196,000, and in the current fiscal year the program will serve some
246,000	unemployed workers. In addition, the program caters to many thousands of apprentices as well as employed workers taking fulltime training in industry or part-time training in the evening.
The increased effort of the federal government in the development of our skilled manpower in the last few years is dramatically expressed in financial terms. In 1961-62 the federal government spent a mere $18 million on all training programs combined, many of them catering to young people of school age. In the current year the federal government expects to spend $197 million, all of it for the benefit of adult workers. This is 11 times as much as eight years ago.
I wanted to make this point because I think we ought to maintain a certain balance in the development of our manpower programs. There has to be a balance between the young people and the adult members of the labour force. We believe that this additional expenditure not only indicates that the proper emphasis is being given to the adult training course but that the money is being more effectively spent and is yielding even greater benefits than ever before. We tried to gear our training to the unemployment situation this winter. In January of this current year there were about 30,000 unemployed persons in training. That is rather good from my point of view.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: May I ask the minister a question with regard to the retraining of unemployed? Are instructions or policy directives sent to the staff in the manpower offices regarding those who wish training for an occupation in which it is felt there are no job opportunities? Do they refuse to accept such applications?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We try to provide training for job opportunities. We do not see much point in spending a lot of money to train a person for a non-existing trade or occupation. We try to gear our training to job openings that are current or near-current.
The Leader of the Opposition made one or two comments. He referred to the manpower and immigration advisory council. I certainly think it was appropriate for him to mention the fact we have not yet appointed a general advisory council. Nor have we appointed the

March 25, 1969
Business of Supply
four subsidiary bodies or boards that operate in conjunction with the advisory council. I could have taken action on this series of appointments, but I wanted a full representation of all organizations on these boards. I am still waiting for one very important organization to make its nominations. I hope when that is done this council and advisory body will come into operation.
I think that all I have had to say, Mr. Speaker, has demonstrated rather clearly that the government of Canada has provided for the development of manpower resources in this country. Our program of manpower resources stands up well in comparison with that of any other country in the world. We have shown interest and attention to the problems of our youth and have provided aid to the students themselves. Their employment problems are real and significant. Upon consideration, the opposition house leader, acting for the absent Leader of the Opposition, might agree to withdraw the motion.


Gerald William Baldwin: The minister will need a much more convincing argument than he has given US' today.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breion-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate on the motion introduced by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). Before proceeding may I say how pleased I am to see the minister in the house, fully recovered from his illness. I wish him well in the future so far as his health is concerned. It is good to know that he is alive and well.
I have always admired the minister's facility with words. To use an old expression, he can charm a bird out of a tree. Unfortunately, Canada's critical unemployment situation requires more than honeyed words, and the minister's responsibility is to find jobs for Canadians, not for the birds. I was amused to hear him say a few moments ago it is not a federal responsibility but a joint responsibility. How he has changed! I can recall that when he sat in a certain section of this chamber he and his colleagues always insisted that unemployment was the responsibility of the federal government.
The minister has been very wordy. However, no matter how many words are employed to slough off responsibility or to cover up the Department of Manpower's obvious inability to cope with current unemployment problems, the hard and brutal fact remains that there are close to half a million Canadians out
[Mr. MacEachenJ
of work today. Much has been made by the government of the fact that this year's mid-February unemployment figure of 6 per cent is below last year's figure of 6.4 per cent for the same period. But this sort of thing will not impress the 473,000 Canadians who are unemployed. Nor will it impress many Canadians who wonder why this country should tolerate a high rate of unemployment in the midst of affluence and plenty.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
It would be interesting to hear further from the minister's own lips the reason that his new and modernized department has been so unsuccessful in coping with the problem of providing jobs for Canadians. When this department was set up we were assured that it would make Canada's labour force mobile, skilled, and flexible enough to overcome the old difficulties created by seasonal unemployment and regional recessions. So far the department and the minister have been indistinguishable from the old Department of Labour and the minister's predecessors in office.
It is good, Mr. Speaker, to see that the minister is alive and well. This house has seldom had the pleasure of seeing or hearing the minister since the last general election gave us a new Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and a reshuffled cabinet. In the old days scarcely a day went by but the minister was on his feet, spreading wisdom and reassurance on the troubled waters of the house. Indeed, he spoke on almost every conceivable subject and seldom felt confined by his own particular portfolio.
How things have changed! Today we hardly ever see him and almost never hear him. His name is absent from the press that once knew it so well. The air waves are silent in regard to him and his department, despite all that happened at the leadership convention of the Liberal party. Perhaps it is the new system of rotation of ministers that has clipped his wings. Or perhaps it is the new system of cabinet discipline that has been imposed by the iron hand of the Prime Minister. Some hon. members across the way laugh at that, but it is not unusual to hear certain individuals on the government side say, "Boy, he is the boss, and that is it. You must not step out of line or you may lose your portfolio." At the moment I am not looking at the Minister of Manpower and Immigration when I say that. Whatever the fact may be I hope that before we come to the end of this debate the minister will give us the benefit of his views. He has
March 25, 19G9

already spoken for a long time but, frankly, his speech was nothing more than a lot of words with some statistics. I hope he will give us the benefit of his views frankly and honestly, bereft of propaganda.
I believe that the most important thing this motion does is to focus attention not only on the government's failure to provide jobs for Canadians but on the obvious lack of co-ordination in the workings and policies of various governmental departments, and on the daily economic havoc being wrought by this lack of organization and purpose. I have in mind in particular the dramatic widening of the economic gulf between various regions in Canada. We have just been debating the setting up of a new department to deal with this very problem of regional disparity, but even while we have been doing so the problem has been allowed to grow unchecked to mamoth proportions. That is what I meant when I referred to the lack of co-ordination between departments and the lack of organization and purpose.
The unemployment figure with which we are all most familiar is 6 per cent. But we should remember that this figure is the national average for the whole country. The real picture escapes us until we break it down into its regional components. For instance, while the national unemployment figure stands at 6 per cent of the labour force, in the Atlantic region, an area that comprises four of Canada's ten provinces, it is an appalling high of 10.5 per cent, and I dare say it is away above that in the province of Newfoundland. The figure for the province of Quebec stands at 8.4 per cent. Yet in Ontario and on the prairies unemployment is moderate, standing at 3.9 per cent for each area. In British Columbia it is 6.6 per cent.
These figures give a more stark and shocking picture of what unemployment means to Canada than does the national one of 6 per cent. These figures indicate that to those who have more will be given, and from those who have not more will be taken away. This is the very essence of the grave national problem of regional disparity, a subject which was introduced at the recent federal-provincial conference by the Premier of Nova Scotia and which had not even been thought of prior to that by the federal government.
Until the Minister of Manpower can translate his theories into fact and provide the training and mobility for Canadian workers promised by the government of which he is a member, regional disparity will continue to
Business of Supply
sap our national strength. Regional unemployment, which is tangible proof of regional injustice and regional inequalities, is a cancer furtively eating away at the economic body of Canada. We cannot be an entirely healthy nation in an economic sense until we can do better than to have 66,000 out of 626,000, better than one-tenth, of the Atlantic labour force unemployed.
If such conditions were general it might be a different story. But while the Atlantic region, Quebec, and to a lesser extent British Columbia, are staggering along with a tremendous burden of unemployment, Ontario and the prairies are relatively well off in this regard. The disparity between regional unemployment rates is like a hurricane or a holocaust of fire that creates a tremendous suction, drawing everything into the centre and exaggerating an already bad situation. If this disparity continues, skilled workers and highly trained graduates from the Atlantic region and from Quebec will continue to be sucked into the central areas of greater opportunity at an ever-increasing rate and in ever-increasing numbers. This may be excused on the ground of the working of immutable laws of economics, but it can never be excused from the point of view of national development, national unity or national prosperity.
When we consider that the majority of our gravest problems are direct outgrowths of regional disparity we can see plainly the absolute necessity to develop a balanced economy and a balanced national life. Regional disparity is a curse in many ways. It is the mother of strained federal-provincial relations, of a whole series of financial problems, and contributes in no small way to our difficulties in relation to national unity and national progress. To achieve this balance ways must be found to check the flow of bodies, brains and brawn from the have-not to the have regions. Somehow we must make the far pastures of Ontario and the prairies appear less green. By this I do not mean that we should deceive anyone. I mean we must make it economically more attractive to stay in our own backyard. Certainly we can never demonstrate this with unemployment figures as they stand today. No amount of words such as we heard from the minister this afternoon, no amount of eyewash, can persuade anyone from the Atlantic region, where the unemployment rate is 10 per cent, that it is a better spot economically than Ontario where the rate is only 3.9 per cent.

March 25, 1969
Business of Supply
In this regard one of my particular concerns is for our student population, both those who will be graduating this year and those who hopefully will be returning to university in the fall. This group embraces many thousands who depend on the few dollars they can earn during the summer months to enable them to go back in the fall. At the rate we are going at present a great many students will not be returning in the fall because they will not have the money.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
This year's graduates are trained and ready to find permanent places in Canada's labour force. But by all indications from university placement officials, industry, and even the Department of Manpower the outlook for them is bleak this year. As far as I can perceive nothing has been done by the minister or his department to prepare adequately to meet this problem. They have shown no awareness that I can see that these young people, highly trained, highly skilled, enthusiastic and dynamic are one of the country's richest natural resources. If they cannot find a place in our national scheme of things they will look elsewhere. Who shall blame them? The gain of the United States or of Europe will be Canada's loss. Last but by no means least, we have students who depend upon summer employment in order to continue their studies. Literally many thousands depend upon summer employment to further their career. I am speaking now particularly of university students, but this also includes many at the secondary school level. I believe this area of employment for graduates and students should have priority within the department of manpower at this time. If nothing is done within a few short weeks the damage done as a result of student unemployment will be irreparable.
It is for the reasons on which I have touched in my remarks that I support this motion with fervour and conviction. I believe it can be truly said that this government has failed utterly to capitalize on our national manpower resources and has irresponsibly endangered the careers of countless young Canadians who would normally have every right to expect a smooth transition from the long years of learning to the laying of a career foundation.
This government has failed to discharge its responsibilities to the older generations of Canadian workers and most particularly to the people of Canada's "have-not" regions. The minister of manpower comes from, I

would suggest, the most depressed rural area, a county which was used for the purpose of a study by the commission which studied poverty in Canada. He, above anyone else, should know how serious and how terrible unemployment is in the Atlantic region. I hope he will take his responsibilities seriously and not change his song or theme from what it was a few short years ago when he said that unemployment was the responsibility of the federal government.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us today is broad in scope. Speakers from the other side of the house who have expressed their views so far have proceeded to make a series of criticisms in respect of things the government has failed to do. At the same time, they have outlined the problems. The problems have been defined by various speakers, yet in the course of the debate so far members opposite have produced very few suggestions in the way of solutions. I always thought the function of any opposition to be to demonstrate to the government and the people of Canada that it has better solutions, better ideas and better means to arrive at certain goals in our society.
The Leader of the Opposition, who drafted the motion, included in his motion a reference to students and concentrated his remarks on students for almost the entirety of his speech, as if the manpower of the country consisted of students alone. Where are the labourers, where are the semi-skilled, where are those who have a skill which is becoming obsolete; are they not important? Where are the migrants and immigrants and those who need rehabilitation and need mobility programs; are they not important? They have not been mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition,
Whatever suggestions the Leader of the Opposition has put forward can be indicated in two points. First, the department ought to cut across every federal department in order to co-ordinate and play a greater role whei ever there are cut-backs or changes in governmental policies which affect manpower and employment. In other words, he is telling the department to intervene every time another department wishes to reduce certam programs in an attempt to reduce government spending. If this is what the Leader of the Opposition means, how does he reconcile this with his concern about inflation and the speeches he has made concerning increasing governmental spending? Surely, there is a
March 25, 1969

contradiction in terms here. Secondly, he was critical in respect of the failure to create an advisory board according to the legislation which was introduced in 1967. Well, we certainly need advice. As the Minister has indicated, the consultations are now coming to a conclusion. Apart from these two points, however, there is nothing which has come from the benches across the way which has added to the knowledge, experience or the policies which exist at present and which are being carried out in this country.
It is interesting to note that after the speeches are made and the criticism is levelled, those who have made the speeches disappear from the house. This would not seem to indicate any interest on their part in knowing perhaps what the position might be of the government responsible for the present state of affairs. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) took an entirely different position. I wonder how realistic he is about the present shortage of employment opportunities in suggesting a shift in governmental orientation. Our Minister has already indicated that this shift is in existence. If he wants an acceleration whereby the government would intervene, carry out and direct more of the activities of private enterprise, then apparently so far the Canadian people have not indicated they share the same opinion and his views are not realistic in terms of providing a solution during the life of this parliament.
The other solution the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby put forward was the creation of a young Canadian service program. While this perhaps is something which has a future, the question which might be asked is, how many students could and would take advantage of a scheme of this particular type? Here again, the member of the New Democratic Party completes his statement about Manpower policies without making any mention of whether within Manpower policies there is a need for a program relating not only to students but also to the many other segments of the Canadian population which are immediately in very acute need of assistance because of increasing automation in our society.
The hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir) developed certain generalities. He has also disappeared immediately afterwards. He produced a certain number of well-known cliches on the subject. He spoke about the lack of co-ordination between departments which is something that is as old as the existence of any government. He spoke
Business of Supply
about unemployment statistics which we all know. He spoke about regional disparities which are also quite familiar to us and about housing on which there has been a comprehensive debates for the past ten days. But where are the alternatives, where are the proposals which would reflect the half hour of concern and criticism of the policies of the government as expressed by the Leader of the Opposition? It would seem that the opposition has no alternatives to propose. It would seem that the opposition is in a position to describe problems but is not in a position to improve upon existing policies. This seems to me to be a state of bankruptcy of ideas.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
If we look at the present and see what we have, I submit that we are a most fortunate country to have a manpower department. Not many countries of the western world have such a department. We are fortunate that we do have a policy and specific plans and programs such as the mobility program which is endeavouring to bring Canadians to jobs. We are fortunate in that we have programs such as O.T.A. which is endeavouring to keep people up to date with the changing industrial environment and enable people to develop necessary skills.
This is what we have at present. In my opinion, it reflects a great deal of foresight on the part of those who in past years took the initiative and produced the legislation we have on the statute books. This was not the result of the efforts of hon. members opposite. While we find comfort in the fact that we have worth while programs for the Canadian people in this respect, let us look to the future and see what can be expected then. At least those of us on this side of the house look to the future to see whether we can further improve the programs we have, whether we can perhaps one day arrive at a time when Canadians will not only be brought to jobs but when jobs will be brought to Canadians whether they are living near the sea coast or in the mountains of this country. This would be a highly desirable ultimate goal to achieve one day in order to maintain an even spread of the Canadian population from coast to coast. While it is not possible today, we all hope it will be possible in a few years.
We look forward to several things which will improve our ever-changing industrial requirements. We look forward, for instance, to the development of manpower resources which one day, perhaps before the turn of the

March 25, 1969
Business of Supply
century, may even be called the development of human resources, because this is what it is all about. "Manpower" is perhaps a rather narrow term. It refers to man as an economic and productive unit. But with the reduction' of the number of working hours in the week it is quite possible that the next generation in this house will not only be speaking about manpower resources but about Canadian human resources. This will be for the good, I submit.
We also look forward to better resolving some difficult areas in relation to manpower. For instance, there is the question of rehabilitation of those who have been injured at work, the whole question of the services to be made available to people who have to learn a new skill because of an accident at work. These men who are usually middle aged, who have a modest education or perhaps none at all, are at a stage in life when they must adjust to a new physical condition, a new environment and again become the breadwinner of the family. This is a question which probably affects several thousand Canadians from coast to coast.
I cite another example, Mr. Speaker. We look forward to the development of new techniques in the training of immigrant tradesmen, immigrant technicians and professionals in order that they may make a more rapid adjustment to Canadian methods so their abilities may be absorbed into our industrial environment at a faster pace without the loss of talent, without underemployment and so forth.
We look forward to amendments to the Adult Educational Training Act. Amendments may be necessary as we gain experience through the yearsi, as we realize certain weaknesses and can see that certain improvements can be introduced; for instance, with reference in particular to the three-year waiting period required to become eligible for training after having left school unless one has dependants to support. Other amendments may also be necessary.
We look forward to the role of Canada manpower centres in large urban communities. This is a role which perhaps can be expanded, made broader than it is at present, in which these manpower centres would reach out into the neighbourhood. A number of services could be generated from these centres. We have over 300 centres from coast to coast and their potential is substantial. They could be made the focal centre of the communities when it comes to searching for

jobs, obtaining guidance counselling and other services.
We look forward to new pilot projects. One was completed just recently in the city of Toronto for the training of labourers during the winter in order to make them more flexible and adaptable to the requirements of their industry. This was a very successful training scheme and it might set the pattern for future ones. We look forward to experimenting in the field of tradesmen training, particularly those who come from overseas and for whom there is a very great demand. These people have to adapt to provincial laws and requirements.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we also look forward to learning from those countries which have progressed even further than we have. We look forward to gaining from them experience and techniques which may be adapted to Canadian conditions. These are the things we would like to add to the context of this debate. We would like to hear proposals and suggestions as to how this program can be improved. Where are the ideas from members of the opposition? They have criticized. Let them not limit themselves to outlining the problems. That is the easiest approach. Let us hear from them what they would do if the responsibility were theirs.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) has challenged us on this side of the house to propose some concrete ideas and suggestions to the minister and the department. I intend to do just that. I do not regard it as a particularly difficult assignment inasmuch as the Department of Manpower and Immigration has been in operation now for a few years and in my opinion has made mistakes in the administration of the legislation passed by this house. I also believe there are serious flaws in the existing manpower legislation. I have in mind in particular the Occupational Training for Adults Act, to which I shall refer in some detail in a few minutes.
By way of introduction, I say that Canada is fortunate in not being one of those countries which faces a crisis in the sense that it has a serious problem of underutilization of manpower. There are some countries, even in the so-called western industrialized world, that have facing them imminent prospects of almost a civil insurrection because there exists in the ghettos of their bigger cities a large pool of unused, unemployed and underemployed manpower allowed to waste away
March 25, 1969

with each passing year. Canada does not have this kind of problem in those dimensions. That does not mean that we are being over critical or are in any way exaggerating when we say that the problem of rising unemployment in this country is becoming serious and that the minister must show more initiative in grappling with it.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
As other hon. members have pointed out, the rate of unemployment in this country has increased over the past several months and this is reflected in particular in terms of the projected unemployment rate for students during the coming summer months. It may be that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) got some satisfaction out of twitting the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) for showing a preoccupation in his speech with the particular aspect of unemployment facing students this summer. Whether or not it gave the minister any satisfaction, the fact remains that even last summer the problem manifested itself in that a large number of young people were very concerned. We understand that this summer the problem will be worse.
But in the interval between last summer and now, the minister gave no indication of any specific new ideas as to what to do to cope with the problem. I cannot accept the minister's suggestion, which he made about half an hour ago or so, that the idea advanced that certain students should be given assistance in job placement on the basis of priority according to need is not feasible because his department does not have the administrative machinery to do it. I suggest that that argument is very weak because my understanding is that there exists at the present time at the federal level administrative machinery for assessing student needs with respect to applications for student loans, and it has worked. Why cannot that machinery simply be made available to the Department of Manpower and Immigration to assist students in finding jobs this summer, the next summer or whenever the need arises? That is one specific suggestion which I put forward in response to the challenge from the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia).
The second suggestion concerns the matter of the educational training of adults. I think the government should admit now that it made a mistake at the time of the passage of the bill and ask this house to pass amending legislation to remove those clauses in the act which are a serious obstacle to all
Business of Supply
young people who, upon leaving high school and enrolling in different courses of manpower training, find they are not eligible for manpower training allowances. The transitional period of three years specified in the act is entirely too long and entirely unjustified. I can recall so well the words uttered in the house, at the time the act was passed, by my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). He said that this was a most unwarranted section which would cause much difficulty and unhappiness to many young people. This is also my experience as a member of parliament trying to deal with case problems brought to me by young people having difficulty in qualifying for manpower training allowances.
I have another suggestion which I should like to put forward, and I invite the hon. member for Davenport to help me in making representations to the minister and to other members of the cabinet to get rid of that obnoxious section in the act which provides for the occupational training of adults. This would be another small, concrete and tangible step toward helping to ease the problem of unemployment and of manpower training in this country.
I also think the minister is well aware of the fact that under the present provisions of the act a hardship is experienced by people enrolled in manpower training courses in that when their instructors go on holiday no matter when that may be, no matter what the financial circumstances of the trainee may be and no matter how many dependents he may have, the person in training has his allowance discontinued. It can happen at the most unexpected time and in the most inopportune circumstances. I believe some action should be taken by the minister to change this. This is a second section of the manpower training policy and of the legislation that should be changed in my opinion.
The third suggestion I should like to make is that, as may be expected, when some people choose the courses that are offered under manpower training which make them eligible for a training allowance, they find that the range of courses is limited or does not suit them. They may then enroll in courses that go beyond 40 or 44 weeks or that are of 52 weeks duration. They may find that it is better for them, in the long range, to enroll in a course that may be of two years duration at an institute of applied arts or an institute of technology, but the moment they enroll in a course that is of a longer duration than one year, which is effectively 44 weeks, they

March 25, 1969
Business of Supply
cease to be eligible for manpower training allowance. I suggest this is an outmoded restriction of provision in the act.
Mr. Speaker, before you rise I suggest that I will be able to conclude my comments on this motion in three minutes, unless some hon. members object.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I suggest this is an outmoded section in the existing act having to do with occupational training of adults and should be revised.
I also want to suggest to the minister that upon analysing some of the manpower training courses that are being offered, and watching them as they are operated and administered in the field, I find there is an unacceptably high ratio of administrative costs to the total cost of the program. It seems to me that the department would be well advised in helping people to learn jobs in a context that is meaningful, that is on the job. The department should give more emphasis and should promote greater utilization of manpower training funds for on the job or in the plant or on site training programs. There has not been too much success over the past two or three years in promoting this kind of training program.
I want to say also that I agreed with the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir) when he suggested that the present manpower and immigration policy did not seem to take adequately into account the regional discrepancies that exist in this country. The department should be prepared to show a greater regional bias in order to help in the process of reducing regional disparity.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
I am reminded, for example, of the fact that our Canadian immigration policy is administered under regulations which do not take any account of regional differences in demand for labour. Often, one finds the department applying these regulations in a strict way, even though in a particular region such as the prairies there may be a strong demand for labour. People from other countries may have made application to go to the region which is short of labour, but as far as the Department of Manpower and Immigration is concerned one would never know the situation in that particular region was different from that existing in central Canada, for example.

In conclusion may I say this: as I understand the motion proposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), the suggestion is that the government has failed to provide not only for the adequate development of manpower resources but also for their retention. If the Leader of the Opposition is referring to the so-called brain drain, I suggest that one reason for the existence of this phenomenon is this: the government has demonstrated in recent weeks that it has no coordinated policy in connection with science research.
It is not hard to understand why so many of our young graduates in science and in engineering find it frustrating to remain in this country when there are so many more opportunities available for them in the United States. Until the minister can persuade his colleagues to take a more co-ordinated view of science research policy many more young people will migrate to take up employment elsewhere, finding that Canada does not offer them sufficient opportunities in this regard.
It is not difficult to support the intention of the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition, or, for that matter, the amendment proposed by my hon. friend from Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). Like my hon. friend, I believe that if unemployment is on the increase it stems from the lack of an adequate rate of growth in the economy. The government must involve itself to take up the slack in areas where private enterprise is failing to sustain the desired rate of growth.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate have passed Bill C-155, an Act to provide compensation to farmers whose agricultural products are contaminated by pesticide residue, and to provide for appeals from compensation awards, with an amendment to which the concurrence of this house is desired;
Also, a message informing this house that the Senate have passed Bill C-157, an Act to regulate products used for the control of pests and the organic functions of plants and animals, with an amendment to which the concurrence of this house is desired.
It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
March 25, 1969


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Stanfield and the amendment thereto of Mr. Broadbent.
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on the medical manpower shortage in Canada today. There are two sources of supply for Canadian doctors; first, the Canadian medical schools, and secondly, immigration. Canadian medical schools have been graduating the same number of doctors yearly for about 20 years. There has been an increase in the population of Canada during that time of over four million, roughly 25 per cent. This fact alone means that the shortage of doctors has increased to the same degree.
Immigration registration statistics in Canada show that we were registering up to 600 doctors per year who were trained elsewhere than in Canada. Nearly 100 per cent of these doctors registered were from countries that were financially poorer than Canada. Some of them came from countries themselves desperately short of doctors, such as India and Pakistan where the average is one doctor for every 7,000 people. I wonder about the moral principle involved in taking doctors from countries where they are woefully short and where their earning capacity in one year is much less than the monthly salary here. Some of these countries are poor in resources of nearly all kinds, and I wonder whether this is a good way to extend foreign aid. India and Pakistan are scraping and saving and saving in order to educate one Doctor out of every 7,000 through medical school, which is the pitiful few that they can finance.
The Minister of Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) thought that we were fortunate in having the assistance of 1,200 immigrant doctors every year. I suppose, carrying that idea to its logical conclusion, that we should get all these doctors to emigrate by sending them the money, because they are trained a lot cheaper in India than in Canada. In that event there would be no need to keep
Business of Supply
increasing medical school registration to keep up with the demand for doctors.
I noticed that the minister conveniently omitted from his address any mention of how many of these immigrant doctors were licensed to practise. I observe the minister looking at me now and perhaps he can answer that question for me. He might have it at his fingertips, I do not know. As far as I can see the greatest number in any one year has been under 600, but if the minister has the answer I shall be very glad to hear it.
Again, I am given cause to wonder whether it is morally right to take doctors from underdeveloped countries. According to Dr. John Hinchey, one of our very brilliant surgeons and a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons, Montreal, in an address given to the committee on health of the Senate and House of Commons, we gain 400 to 600 doctors each year from foreign sources. However, the quality of what we gain does not match the quality of what we lose, and for obvious reasons. I think that is an answer to the minister. Dr. Hinchey said we lose, on average, 200 doctors a year to the United States simply because we will not provide in large measure the facilities for research. It is general knowledge that the United States spends 10 times per capita what we spend on research.
The minister may argue that it is not necessary to have a realistic financial commitment on the part of government to medical research in Canada because, as I have heard it argued, with the rapid transmission of information we benefit from new developments and discoveries in the United States. I think it is a little ridiculous to expect a Canadian surgeon to read a paper that describes heart transplants and artificial heart valves, and then to carry out an operation involving such techniques.
Over and over again, Mr. Justice Hall is quoted on medicare. He pointed out that there cannot be and that there must not be any question of conflict or priority between the needs of better education and good health. The costs involved in providing an enlightened program of medical care and supporting the educational needs of Canadians cannot be thought of as a burden. This money is an investment, and the yield is remarkably high. We must not fall down on the provision of medical care to the Canadian people.
It may not be well known that Canada lost one hundred million man days of labour through illness two years ago. This is the latest figure I have. This cost the economy

March 25. 1969
Business of Supply
over $1,630 million. How much would an adequate medical care program have saved our economy by making available medical assistance in the early stages of such illness? I have heard experts state perhaps one half.
A most significant fact is that only 8 per cent of personal incomes go to support education at all levels. If my memory serves me correctly the former minister of finance, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), promised that federal aid to higher education would be increased, and then he walked out on the scholarship program. Now, the government is backing up and cutting the health resources program. Dr. Hinchey said that there is an acute shortage of doctors in Canada at the present time. There are thirteen medical schools in Canada with three more being established. We should be spending $1,200 million each year on research and development in science, engineering, business industry and medicine. We now spend $71 million.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
It is a fact that many people are dying in Canada because of inadequate medical care. You can have all the money in the world but if you are bleeding to death from a stomach ulcer, it is of no avail. You must have a good doctor and proper hospital facilities.
I think we have proved beyond doubt that the minister's statement that the shortage of doctors is a myth is completely wrong. His statement that 1,200 immigrant doctors are coming into Canada every year may be misleading. My information is that only 600 or fewer enter the mainstream of practice, less than one half of those entering the country. It is generally well known that doctors from Great Britain, Ireland, Australia-


Charles L. Caccia: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for Davenport on a point of order.


Charles L. Caccia: Would the hon. member permit a question. Will he indicate what efforts are presently being made by the medical profession and medical societies to recognize the degrees of immigrant doctors.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I was about to say that it is generally well known that doctors from Great Britain, Ireland, New Zealand and the British West Indies are accepted as

being well trained. They have little trouble becoming licensed. God knows, we welcome them. Without them, our medical care program would be in complete chaos. I think that answers the hon. member's question.
The government was obviously interested in providing every citizen of our country with the very best medical care possible, to the tune of about $1 billion which was to be spent. Then they turned around and cut the very fund, the health resources fund, that was to provide resources under which required doctors would be trained. According to experts, the fund was cut when it was already 10 per cent deficient. That was penny wise and pound foolish. You cannot buy doctors or make them. You have to educate them. Does the government not know this or does it not care?
Not only did the government cut back on the health resources program but, in spite of our weak position with regard to doctors per capita of our population, it offers no direct leadership in stepping up the training of doctors. No financial assistance has been held out to help the medical schools operate during the summer semester. The government could increase the production of doctors by 50 per cent, at small additional cost. The buildings and equipment are there.
I ask the government, has it approached the provinces with the idea of implementing again the scheme that was carried out so well during the last war? According to the experts, the quality of doctors turned out under the scheme was not lowered at all. In the medical schools across Canada there are roughly 5,000 medical students. Of these, about 800 will be in their final year and working in hospitals if they can afford to do so. That means that about 4,000 students must find jobs, and students are having a difficult time finding employment. A great many of them will not find work. I ask the government, what is so difficult about applying manpower training concepts to these students and paying them for attending medical school during the summer semester. That would certainly be in the category of upgrading training. Interest bearing loans should be provided to students; they should be repayable after graduation and the payments should be deducted from income tax.
I should like to see more applications accepted from students of average ability, as opposed to applications from students scoring high marks. More stress, in my opinion, should be placed on dedication and less on
March 25, 1969

high marks. There should be more stress on character and responsibility, and less stress merely on high marks. It has never been proven to my satisfaction that in the practice of medicine the average student suffers in any way when his performance is compared with that of the better than average student. Admitting average calibre students would qualify many more students to enter the medical field.
The third point I wish to raise about the shortage of medical manpower has to do with the statement the minister made about the uneven distribution of doctors. For example, the Minister of Health and Welfare said that if you had a sore throat in Vancouver three specialists would be waiting for you. It is true that the proportion of specialists to general practitioners in this country has been increasing during the last few years. Thirty years ago the ratio was one specialist to every ten general practitioners. Today, the ratio is one specialist to every general practitioner. We must remember that in the medical field we are now doing highly specialized work not even thought of 20 years ago which needs highly trained doctors to carry it out. Has the minister even thought of consulting with his provincial counterparts? Has he thought of discussing this problem with the universities? Would a doctor be a better specialist if he put in five years as a general practitioner?
The government criticizes but co-operates little in working out our problems. Instead, it cuts back health resources programs which were passed by this house in a supposed effort to help cure the medical manpower shortage. I ask the government to get off its criticizing pedestal. It ought to help us solve some of our medical manpower problems and not help to create them.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, this motion which blames the government for being unable to develop and to retain manpower resources in Canada deals with one of the most important problems of our country and, more particularly, of Quebec.
This province holds a record that is not enviable in the field of unemployment. It has a manpower surplus while it would now need a maximum of development. Indeed, it is paradoxical to discuss the manpower problem when one knows, of course, that our new country owns natural wealth that is practically undeveloped.
Business of Supply
This is an unhappy situation. However, no really serious step is taken in' order to meet it.
We have been denouncing, for a very long time, a system that leads to such a state of things. If there are people who do understand the problem, it is we, of the Ralliement Creditiste, and like the sponsor of the motion, we regret that the situation is so deplorable.
The manpower centres which I know, those of Quebec and particularly those which serve my area, are almost useless except that they give employment to a few civil servants. This seems to be the only aim of these centres.
When one knows the sometimes detached way in which the manpower counselors welcome the workers in some areas, one might wonder whether they really care to provide with jobs the unemployed or, still, those who do not get any unemployment insurance benefits, which is even worse since they do not receive anything.
I do not blame the civil servants altogether, because it is not they who can create jobs. But I blame them for not reporting unemployment cases or for not putting pressure on senior officials in order to induce them to bring at least partial solutions to this problem.
This leads us to try and determine the cause of unemployment. Of course, it would take too much time to elaborate further on this subject but we can still point out some highlights, namely the employment of student manpower which is still of some significance.
If we consider the tremendous number of students who, as soon as the holidays start, would like to find work so as to make a little money and thus participate in the development of the country, then it is not just a matter of money but also a matter of participation.
It is obvious that no one has any intention of giving work just for the sake of giving work because many people receive money without providing any service or any work in return. We have now come to the point where work is often considered degrading. Work should be upgraded and we should find the best means to give some to everyone, and especially to the young, since the real problems which we face now and which we will have to face within a few years stem from there. We are dealing here with one of the most important problems in our history.
If we cannot instil into our young people the love of work, what are we coming to? If we cannot create a sound emulation as to

March 25, 1369
Business of Supply
work, enterprise and initiative, we are going the wrong way.
It is surely possible to achieve such aims but not the way it is being done at the present time. We do not help concerns to employ young people. Even in the case of those who hold degrees, whenever they enter the labour market, people are afraid to give them work claiming that they have no experience. If they have no experience, how do you want them to learn anything? Thus, people in the constituency of Champlain could have said on June 25 last: "He never was a member of parliament, he has no experience; so let us not elect him."
Therefore, there is something wrong. We are in a vicious circle. One cannot acquire experience if one cannot get work. One has to begin somewhere.
Even through artificial means of creating employment, we shall be able to develop our resources.
But the most serious aspect of it all is that our young people are not learning to love work. Unfortunately, the young are saying to themselves: Since we are not provided with work, with anything, it means that work in itself is not a good thing. We have created such a state of mind whereas we live in an era of progress, at a time where everybody is looking for comfort.
But in spite of the lack of work and income, young people want to make use of the advantages brought about by progress. It follows that they try, in all kinds of ways, more or less honest, to enjoy the same advantages in life.
That could explain, in part, the relaxed morals in our country, the growing number of crimes committed every where. Of course, when there is no work, there is no money. As money is essential to them, they manage to get some anyway.
And so, when we study the employment problem, and particularly that of the students, we touch upon a colossal problem, that of the new generation, that of the training of our youth which we would have wholesome so that our country can benefit from them in the future. We realize that it is high time to find the real causes, and to stop cataloguing opinions according to their source. Little does it matter where the solutions come from; we must pause and study them and, if needs be, forget partisanship to see them objectively, and adopt those that stand a chance of solving the serious problem which the student manpower confronts.


Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that while it was not possible for me to listen to all of the speeches this afternoon, I have appreciated those to which I have listened. I feel that a great deal of thought has been put into them, not only by members of my own party but all opposition parties. We all realize as members of this house that the subject of this motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) is one which worries not only we who sit here as elected members of this honourable house, but also all people of Canada.
Perhaps some hon. members have strayed slightly from the subject. As a matter of fact, this is something that I do very often myself. To bring the mood of the house back to what we are discussing, I will restate the motion as it stands:
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
That this house regrets the government has not provided for the development and retention of manpower resources in Canada and, in particular, of student manpower resources.
I had the opportunity of listening to the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon, and as a member of the government party I must say quite frankly that he made many good points. He spoke of many things that are worrisome to us as citizens of Canada. On the other hand, I must respectfully say to him that he did not offer any solutions.
All of us know that we as a country really have not provided for the development and retention of our manpower resources but, on the other hand, the solution is not as easy as the placing of this motion on the order paper. The Leader of the Opposition pointed out that there are approximately 250,000 students in Canadian universities, and I point out that this represents the investment of a fantastic amount of money, I know that the government of Ontario alone this year is spending over $1 billion of taxpayers' money on the education of children in primary and secondary schools, and this does not take into account universities.
Education is a fantastic expense. It is an investment not only in the present but in the future. One thing that has annoyed me is that in spite of this huge investment by the people of Canada in our young people, once these young people finish their education and get a certificate, many of them pack up and leave for what in their opinion are greener fields. May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that one third of all the doctors who graduated in
March 25, 1969

Canada last year did not practise for one single day in this country, but left immediately for the United States where they could secure better returns for their services. I do not think this is fair.
I am not going to pick solely on the medical profession. I am also talking about engineers, dentists, architects and lawyers, all the people in what we call the professional class. We have a fantastic investment in these people.
A young man or a young lady leaving high school today, and deciding to buy a shoe store, a dairy, a bakery, a grocery store, or whatever it may be, must have the necessary money or must borrow it from somebody else. If they borrow the money, it must be paid back. One of the great segments of our society is the agricultural industry. Many young farmers must buy their way into it. Perhaps they take over family farms. If they do not have the money themselves, they must get it from the Farm Credit Corporation, private mortgage companies or banks. They borrow money in order to buy a farm, cattle, equipment and all the things necessary for farming. And sooner or later, they have to pay back that money.
I ask where is there a segment of our population that gets things more easily in the financial sense than those people who go through primary school, as all of us did, and through secondary school, completely at the cost of the state, then go on to university? Many of us did not reach university but quite a number did. This year there will be 250,000 students attending university, and two thirds of the cost of university education will be borne by the state, whether it be the province of Ontario, Quebec, or any of the other provinces. A student's father pays the other one third of the cost if the student does not get a scholarship.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, governments over the years have not provided for the development and retention of manpower resources in Canada. I ask, does a student who gets free primary schooling, free high school schooling, and has two thirds of his university education paid for, have a responsibility to Canada? Has he a responsibility not only to his parents but to the other people in Canada who paid the taxes that paid for his education? I say he has. The young man or young lady who gets a qualifying certificate, be he or she a dentist, a lawyer, a doctor or an architect, has really got it made in what we
Business of Supply
call the western world. I say that many thousands of students who graduate from our universities have an obligation to pay back something to Canada.
Do we need these young men and women whom we have educated with our money? When I talk about "our money", I am not talking about the money of the average member of parliament who sits in this chamber. I am talking about our older citizens who have worked hard throughout their lives, who have raised their families and who are now living in retirement. Unfortunately, many of these people do not have the financial resources that we would wish them to have, yet they are still striving to pay their way and to help build up the society that we want in Canada.
I have pointed out that one third of the medical doctors who graduated from Canadian universities last year left this country. I do not want to take anything away from them. They worked hard in order to get their degrees, but they left this country without paying back in services or in taxes one nickel of the huge sum of money that we invested in them. Do we need these young doctors? Ask any member of this house who comes from a rural area. If there is an exception I am willing to apologize, but I do know that in the rural areas of Ontario there is a shocking lack of medical doctors.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Do we need dentists in Canada? I have been told, even by dentists themselves, that tomorrow morning the dental profession could place 5,000 new dentists in positions across Canada without hurting economically one single presently practising dentist. We would not be taking one nickel away from any other dentist. We need these people. Do they have an obligation to us? I say they do. Now, I shall come to the crux of the situation. We often talk about such things as democracy, freedom of speech and freedom of everything else here in Canada. Particularly, we discuss these things in the House of Commons. But unfortunately sometimes it is necessary to give up a little bit of freedom for the over-all good. If a young farmer is to buy a farm or a young businessman is to buy a dairy or a bakery, he must pay back the amount of money he borrrows in order to buy the business. So, I say that our students who graduate from our universities also have something to pay back to the taxpayers of Canada. I say they have an obligation to remain here to give us not only their services for which we are crying in rural Canada but

March 25, 1969
Business of Supply
also to pay back some of the tax money we have invested in them. If we were to ask the Minister of Finance or any treasurer of any province across Canada, we would be told that they, too, are crying for money.
Who earns the money in this country unless it is the professional men who have graduated from our universities? Is there any reason they should not try to pay back in the form of taxes some of the money the taxpayers and citizens have invested in them? One of the hon. members who spoke this afternoon mentioned the fact that perhaps something is owing, but he did not know what to do about it. He did not have any solution. I understand that if a young man in the armed forces of Canada today has passed what at the moment in Ontario we call grade 13, he can go to university at the expense of the Department of National Defence. However, there is one thing he must do before he can get this education. He must sign a paper stating that he will remain in the armed forces for a period of 5 years. Most sincerely, I ask this question. If the people in the armed forces who receive university training must sign a document stating they will remain in the same forces for a period of "X" number of years, why should we not ask those who are attending university to become doctors, dentists, architects, lawyers or whatever the profession may be to sign a paper stating they will remain in Canada for a certain period?
I know there will be some people who may be surprised that a Liberal member would say something like this. I want to say that I never have been more serious in my life. Not only do I feel that this is a good idea, I consider that in Canada it is an absolute necessity. For the past few months we have been talking about the surplus of fish on the east coast and the west coast. We have talked about the surplus of wheat in the West. Tonight, at the Chateau Laurier, those attending the agricultural congress are talking about the surplus of turkeys, the surplus of potatoes and the surplus of food generally wherever it may be. We fail to appreciate, however, that in the long run what we need in Canada is more people. Our neighbour to the south, whose population is ten times ours, probably grows about twice as much wheat and consumes about 80 per cent of it. Here, in Canada, where we have millions of bushels of wheat we consume only about 15 per cent of it and must export the remainder. Surely, we
[Mr. Whicher.l
must appreciate the fact that the way to overcome this problem is to have more people here in Canada.
There is no market in the world like a home market. This has been proven by our neighbour to the south. I am one of those who would advocate that we bring in many people from other parts of the world. But with all due respect to my friends who come from other continents, I say there is no citizen in Canada who is a better citizen than that person who has been born and bred right here and who has been educated in our way of life; yet we are letting many of them get away. We need these people. We need the doctors and the dentists much more than we need their taxes. After what I have said, there might be some among my friends in the opposition parties who might ask how I could vote against such a resolution as this which has been introduced sincerely I am sure by the Leader of the Opposition. My answer is that I do not believe that any solution has been given by the opposition. I am willing to listen. I know how serious a problem this is. I also know how serious a problem it is to the Minister concerned, and how serious it has been for previous ministers and governments. But what are we going to do about it? Are we willing to give away a little of our liberty?
Are we willing to take away a little liberty from our sons and daughters and say to them that if Canada educates them they have an obligation to remain here for a certain period, not only because of the tax dollars we have invested in them but also because their services are needed across this country? Members who come from Vancouver, Montreal or Toronto probably represent areas which do not need more doctors or dentists. However, in rural Canada people must travel many miles in order to obtain these services which others take for granted. This is the reason I say the government should sit down and consult with the provinces concerned in order to work out a plan to enable us to partake of the services of these people who have received the precious asset of education.
I have nothing else to add to this debate, Mr. Speaker. I believe it was the Leader of the Opposition who said some heads should be knocked together. Certainly, they should be. When we remember how sparsely populated this country is, we should realize that whether it is fifty years from now or 100 years from now, the people in countries like China which has a population of 750 million, Japan which has a population of about 100
March 25, 1969

million and India which has a population of about 450 million, will break out of their shirts and trousers to come here.
If we do not do something about the situation, this is what will happen. My suggestion is that we keep some of our boys and girls right here. If ever a country needed these people it is this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for Red Deer.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to commend the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher)-


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member, but I wonder whether I might have permission to direct a question to the hon. member who just finished speaking.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member's time has expired, unless there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask the hon. member a question. I believe I heard him correctly. I thought he said you had to be bom in Canada to be the best class of citizen in the country. Is that what the hon. member said?


Robert Muir: That
was Pickersgill.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I did not say that, Mr. Speaker. That sort of remark would come from the people on my left. I did not say that at all. I said that if I had my way I would open the doors and bring in a lot of people; that there were no better citizens than those born, bred and educated right here in Canada.


Eugene Whelan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the hon. member because there are in my own family, including my wife, as good citizens as I am or any other Canadian that I know.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: In that particular instance, I would say she would be a lot better, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order.
Business of Supply


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) for a very thought-provoking and worth-while contribution, much more so than some I have heard* him deliver in the past. I sometimes become concerned about the Department of Manpower and Immigration. I am less concerned, having listened to the hon. member, because I know that when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) realizes, as some of us have already, that perhaps the time has come for a new minister of manpower and immigration, he will also realize that he has a good resource of people from which to draw.
I suggest to the hon. member for Bruce that he should get the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Whelan) in a corner some time and teach him something about the problem we are trying to deal with tonight. I have to agree with him somewhat as I did not have the opportunity of being born in our great country, but whether we are talking about those bom here or those who have chosen to come here, Canada is a great nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Norman Thompson: The situation that exists today as far as opportunities-


Eugene Whelan: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hon. member for Essex (Mr. Whelan) on a point of order.


Eugene Whelan: I object to what the hon. member just said. In my own family I have as in-laws a Rumanian brother-in-law, a Hungarian sister-in-law and a Finnish sister-in-law, and my wife is of German descent. Nobody has to take me aside and teach me anything about immigrants. I know what kind of great Canadians these people are, and I know also that they are as great Canadians as those who were born in this country.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to get into an argument with the hon. member for Essex. He is a good friend of mine and I can understand that once in a while he has to blow off a little steam. But there is no real argument here.
I commend the motion before the house to the hon. member for Essex and the hon. member for Bruce, because I think it points out a problem that is very real in our country at this time. I remind the hon. member for

March 25, 1969
Business of Supply
Bruce that with regard to the problem of manpower which is pointed out in the motion before us-the hon. member is very much aware of the problem; his words have demonstrated this-it is the responsibility of the government to find an answer. This is part of the responsibility of being charged with the administration of government. We do not see these answers coming forth and for this reason some of us are extremely concerned. I am sure this concern is shared not only by those who sit in the opposition benches at the present time.
Canadian manpower development, in other words the development of Canada's human resources, is the most important single factor in the economic growth of this country and, above that, in the entire well being of our Canadian way of life. So, in this special debate today I believe we are dealing with the most vital problem that we face. The hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) has pointed out the problem as it relates to taking care of our sick people and the inadequate resource of properly trained medical people to do this work. But this is just one area of the need that exists. I draw this to the attention of the house once again.
I come back to the reply of the minister this afternoon to the remarks of my leader, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), when he said he was surprised the Leader of the Opposition should bring forward a motion on the subject of manpower resources and student manpower in particular. Perhaps he thinks a little differently now, having listened to what the hon. member for Bruce has said. Twice in the course of his speech the minister expressed his surprise at the action taken by the official opposition. He has had the audacity to suggest that perhaps the motion should be withdrawn. I fail to understand the thinking of the minister in this regard. That the minister should be surprised is a clear indication of what little importance he attaches to some of the problems raised by the Leader of the Opposition.
It is clear that the surprised minister does not regard this problem as being very current, and certainly not very urgent, or he would not have spoken as he did. The request to withdraw the motion is evidence of this. Twice in the course of his speech the minister by inference was critical of the Leader of the Opposition for dealing with the problems of student and graduate manpower resources rather than with the adult labour force. If the minister were following the affairs of the house with any regularity, he would know

that the motion brought forward some weeks ago on the first day allotted to the official opposition dealt with the lagging rate of growth and the problem of unemployment. Consequently, the minister will realize that had we tried to continue that debate today on the problems of the adult labour force it would quite probably have been contrary to the rules of the house.
Perhaps the minister, in commenting on how much the government was doing in providing job opportunities, was referring to the Prime Minister. I have not seen any other reports to justify the minister speaking as he did. I refer to a news report of not too long ago which pointed out that the personal staff of the Prime Minister has been increased by 77 to 288. The number of people employed in the Privy Council office, which serves the Prime Minister and the cabinet, is expected to increase by nearly one-third in this fiscal year, in spite of the widespread freeze on the civil service.
I come back to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. What was the context of those remarks? There are just two facts that need to be stated. First, some 88,000 students will be graduating from our colleges and universities this1 year. This graduation is just a few weeks hence. Although there is a 20 per cent increase over last year in the number of graduates, there is a drastic reduction in the number of jobs available to those graduates. In the long run, Canada simply cannot afford to lose them. Again, I refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Bruce. This fact relates to the ability of the Canadian economy to absorb those who will be graduating from universities and colleges within the next few weeks and seeking permanent careers. This is the crux of the first point made this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition.
The second fact concerns summer employment for students. There will be more than 360,000 students seeking work. This is quite apart from the number who will be graduating. To some of them, obtaining a job or failure to do so, will make the difference between continuing their education or interrupting it. Already across my desk-and I am sure this is true of every member of the house-there is beginning to flow a stream of letters from students and parents requesting help in this very serious situation. The minister seems to completely miss the point made by the Leader of the Opposition.
March 25, 1969

[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
The minister referred to the support given by the federal government to post secondary education. He spoke of the Canada student loan plan and of other similar programs. It is obvious from the way he spoke that he recognizes the problem, but recognizing it is just not enough. I agree with the minister that there have been many platitudinous remarks made without any evidence that the problem has been deal with. We have had enough talk. A good example of that is the minister's remarks regarding the size of the student loan project. I agree that the Canada student loan plan has been a worthwhile project and has proved its worth. But what have student loans to do with student employment? What students in ever increasing numbers require is a summer work opportunity for those who are continuing their education, and for those who have completed it the opportunity to find gainful employment where they can use the skills and the training which has been provided for them. Yes, 300 students are to be absorbed in the Department of Manpower and Immigration for summer work. That is good, but how many jobs are going to be found for students across the nation? As the minister indicated, 367,000 young people will be looking for jobs this summer. His description of his department's plan sounds good, but if the record of the department in regard to manpower in general is any example of its ability to deal with this problem, there is not much hope. I say that words are not enough, neither is concern by itself. There must be action and there must be relevant planning. This is what the government faces so far as its responsibility in concerned simply because it is the government.
The very point made this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition, and ignored by the minister, was that we in this country are turning out a record number of graduates from all kinds of post secondary educational institutions, and that we have no use for thousands of them in this country. This is a disgrace and this is the key problem that faces us. Presumably, the federal government will go on giving support to post secondary education by means of student loan programs and other plans, and year after year enrolments will increase as well as the size of the graduating classes. But where is the opportunity for careers for these young people? This is not just something to be theoretically projected into the future; it is now upon us. This is why the question that is posed today 29180-4505
Business of Supply
in this motion is of the utmost importance to the house.
With this year's graduating class 20 per cent higher than last year's and the number of jobs available this year perhaps 20 per cent fewer than last year, this is becoming a crisis situation which requires the priority attention of the national government. Twice this afternoon the minister emphasized the point that education was a provincial responsibility. I hope the minister is not attempting to convey the impression that the federal government does not have primary responsibility for the development of policies which will provide career opportunities for young Canadians leaving our colleges and universities, while at the same time it faces the responsibility of making sure that our economy is expanding in such a way that opportunities are made available to students who must work to pay part of the cost of their education.
I quite agree that with regard to summer employment the provinces have a role to play. This role should be shared by local governments as well. The minister made the point but I think the house is entitled to know whether the minister has made any effort to meet representatives of the provinces to discuss the problems of summer employment for students. After all, the minister has admitted that the problem was serious last summer and is likely to be worse this summer. I presume he has known that this would be the case. Under these circumstances, not to have initiated a meeting with the provinces to discuss this very serious problem indicates a regrettable apathy and lethargy on the part of the minister.
Even at this late date there are considerations which should be discussed between the federal government and the provinces, late as it may be. Under the present circumstances, with the prospect of scores of thousands of students being unable to find summer jobs, urgent consideration may have to be given to strengthening the present programs of student aid. This may be the only alternative to ending the educational careers of a large number of our young people who are hoping to complete their university education. The danger is even more serious by reason of the fact that this is the second year in a row that there has been a serious shortage of summer jobs for students. We, in the opposition, would like to know whether the minister has had any discussions whatever with the provinces about whether it would be necessary to

March 25, 1969
Business of Supply
strengthen or add to the student aid programs, and if not, whether he contemplates any such meetings.
The whole purpose of the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon was to find out how much importance the government attaches to this problem, and to find out whether the government is working on any policies, either alone or in conjunction with the provinces, that might help meet a problem that is extremely serious now and that is bound to become even more grave over the next three or four years. I regret more than I can say that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) and the government are seemingly completely unaware or unconcerned about the wastage of our manpower resources.
This afternoon the Leader of the Opposition asked whether any studies had been made by the government as to how many members of this year's graduating class are likely to be absorbed in the labour force. That question was not answered by the minister. If this is so, what policy conclusions have been drawn as the result of such studies? What are the projections over the next three to five years?
The Leader of the Opposition also asked the minister to what extent the Department of Manpower and Immigration is involved in such problems as the shortage of medical and para-medical personnel in Canada, a question which was so ably asked again tonight by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard)? He asked to what extent the Department of Manpower and Immigration is concerned about the loss of scientists to this country? Far from attempting to answer any of these questions, the minister this afternoon ignored them completely. This is why I am compelled to speak as I am speaking now.
Nobody is asking for miracles. What we are asking is for some evidence that there is some thinking and planning taking place in the department which is primarily responsible for the utilization and retention of our young manpower resources, particularly the growing graduating classes each spring. The evidence given this afternoon by the minister indicates that no such planning is taking place in his department. If there is, we have not heard about it.
It must be a bitter and disillusioning experience for many young Canadians-and I speak to my fellow members in this house because I am sure we are all in contact with this problem-to find that the first people to be betrayed in the just society are the young

people, many of whom gave it such support a few months ago. It appears as if the Prime Minister and his colleagues are telling their young supporters "Don't call us, we'll call you, at the next election". The government is in for a rude shock.
If this government and this country is willing to tolerate a situation in which more and more young people are being trained and educated and cannot find careers in Canada, this country is bound to have an increase in the incidence of conflict and violence. Perhaps more than any other minister, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and his department have the responsibility for developing the policies, providing the leadership, and showing a concern to make words like "involvement" and "participation" in the development of the Canadian society a reality.
We have an amendment to the motion. It is moved by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). I want to make a few remarks with regard to it. The amendment criticises the government because of its failure to emphasize the role of the public sector. A few days ago I returned from Great Britain. We have seen what has happened in a country where a socialist government adhering to the principles that are advocated by the New Democratic Party has failed because of its emphasis on the role of the public sector. As we were saying here tonight, we have a problem in Canada, but the problem that Great Britain has as a result of placing the major bulk of the responsibility on the public sector makes our problem almost insignificant. I emphasize that this is not the answer to the problem at all, and therefore this amendment is completely irrelevant to the need and to the problem which we face.


John Edward Broadbent: Would the hon. member permit a question?
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Robert Norman Thompson: My time is limited, Mr. Speaker, and I am trying to finish. The hon. member can ask his questions later, if he wishes.
A free enterprise economy in which all individuals have an opportunity to participate is more desirable than a state regimented economy. For this reason, the amendment is not in my opinion relevant to the real problem. They have had an opportunity in Britain to proceed on the lines suggested by this amendment and we can see the results of their doing so all too clearly.
March 25, 1969


An hon. Member:: What about Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands?


Robert Norman Thompson: We have been in all those countries as well, and if it were not for the private sector doing what it has done for those countries, they would not be there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Norman Thompson: Hon. members in that corner continually hold up Sweden as their example, yet 95 per cent of all industry in Sweden is in the private sector.


John Edward Broadbent: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Edward Broadbent: On a question of privilege, the hon. member implied I said that private enterprise should be abolished. In fact, I was suggesting that the mixture of public and private enterprise as it exists in Sweden would be highly desirable in Canada at this point.


An hon. Member:: Where is the point of order?
Another hon. Member: Where is the question of privilege?


Robert Norman Thompson: I do not see any question of privilege. The point I am emphasizing is that the development of Canada's human resources is the most important single factor in the economic growth of Canada.
In this connection I would refer the minister to a document with which I am sure he is familiar, the white paper on human resources produced by the Alberta government a year or so ago. This document recommends a new approach to human resource development.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Does the house give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Norman Thompson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, I have only a ferw remarks left to make. I simply say that the present fragmented approach being followed by the government is not good enough. There were four basic principles enunciated in this white paper and I would draw them to the minister's attention. The first is that there must be
Business of Supply
a new priority for human resource development. Second, there must be new emphasis placed on the individual in this development-not on the public sector but on the individual so as to give him a chance to use his initiative and his ability. The third point is that there must be a broader purpose and objective in connection with physical resource development. The fourth recommendation is that there must be new emphasis on the integration and co-ordination of both the human and the physical aspects of resource development.
If this were done there would appear to be some hope of meeting the problem which faces not only our students today, whether they are looking for summer work or beginning their careers, but the entire problem of effectively using our vital human resources. This is a great challenge and it is to be regretted that the minister this afternoon >
failed so miserably to respond to the opportunity provided and the initiative taken by the Leader of the Opposition in enunciating some of the programs which the government should be initiating to deal with these circumstances. In the absence of better assurance from the government, the only alternative left to us is to support this motion tonight expressing lack of confidence in the administration for its failure to meet this challenge.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we heard opposition parties blame the government and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) for not having provided students with summer jobs and not having developed manpower resources in Canada.
I can say, Mr. Speaker, that the minister knows the problems and that officials in the various Manpower Centres are more than ever aware of the work they have to do this year to find employment for the always increasing number of students. Their task is complicated by the fact that the economic situation is not improving at the same rate the number of students is increasing. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has put a motion of censure against the government, while the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) has amplified it by stating that the government relies on the private and unorganized sector.

March 25, 1969
Business of Supply
In my opinion, it would not have been possible to find a better way than this nonconfidence motion to waste the time of the house.
We know that the government and the minister are aware that there is much to do in the manpower field. They try by all possible means to improve conditions. They recognize that conditions are not perfect, but they are endeavouring to improve them.
We are the first to deplore those conditions and we wish that instead of always condemning the government hon. members opposite would sometimes make positive and specific suggestions and not merely put forward programs which would entail further expenditures.
It must also be recognized that when the government is compelled to raise taxes to find the necessary funds to carry out certain projects suggested by the hon. members opposite, the latter are the first to criticize and condemn it.
This is why members of the opposition should once in a while, put in good suggestions and realize that if they ever came to power, they would be facing the same problems.


John Edward Broadbent: Was the hon. member not in the house when I moved the amendment and, if so, did he not hear the arguments I put forward and the proposals I offered?


Gérard Loiselle: Yes, and I will deal later with some of the points made by the hon. member. I was asserting that some hon. members who continually criticize and push the government into undertaking more responsibilities in different fields are the first to protest when it is necessary for the administration to raise money by way of taxes to cover the additional expenditures incurred. As I say, I will answer some of the questions raised in the hon. member's speech later on.


John Edward Broadbent: Would the hon. member not agree that 1 tried to make it clear in my speech that we were not opposed to new taxation, that we were very much in favour of implementing certain sections of the Carter Report which would result in certain tax increases for some sections of the population? That was one part of the argument. We are in favour of a selective increase in taxes in certain areas.

[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
The other argument was that it does not necessarily involve an increase in expenditure but rather a shifting of emphasis from the private to the public sector.


Gérard Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to use up my time by giving a lengthy reply to a speech. The hon. member had his time this afternoon. However, in answer to what he said I should like to see whether the government does bring forward new ways of raising taxes in other fields. What then will be the stand of the hon. member's party in this house? We will have to wait and see.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to go on with my comments if the honourable members allow me to. I have been very good and I let them babble all afternoon against the government and the department. I should like to continue my speech and explain what the government is doing and what it intends to do in that field.
I said a moment ago that we did not think the situation was ideal; fortunately, we do not think either that it is hopeless. I could tell the honourable member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) who claimed just now that the government was not looking after the problem of employment for young people that the department is investigating every year on employment possibilities for university students, and so forth.
Now, the investigation conducted by the department for this year is not yet completed; however its shows that more jobs than in past years will be available to graduates in engineering, business and business administration and science. That is concrete evidence that the department, has taken steps in that direction and the facts are consistent with the publicity made by the department and the work performed by our officials, as I was saying a while ago.
From July 1968 to September 1968, the department engaged in an advertising campaign which-directly or indirectly it is hard to say-provided 13,000 jobs for students. This was achieved thanks to the work done by the officials of the Department of Manpower, within its 250 or 300 offices in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, last week, I travelled outside the province on departmental business. I spoke with the officials of our Manpower office in the locality where I happened to be
March 25, 1969

and they too assured me that they were stepping up more the publicity and were more active than last year. I was told that the Manpower office in that place was contacting private enterprises to secure summer employment for young people.
Another group of employees in our Manpower centers was visiting some areas and met the workers personally in order to hear about their ideas and their suggestions on manpower in the area or in the country at large. These officials set up a file for every individual in order to determine in which field they could give him a start.
Those are new methods used by the Department of Manpower to promote the use of manpower.
It has been mentioned this afternoon that the responsibility of the Manpower and Immigration Department is not to create jobs, but rather to see that the manpower is adapted to modern equipment and technology. And, it is exactly what is being done today, through a whole gamut of vocational training.
Mr. Speaker, in that field, the co-operation of private enterprise, of industry, as well as that of the members of Parliament is required. In their ridings, the members of Parliament must find' ways to promote employment in industries and, if necessary, to make suggestions to the department.
We are trying to establish new methods, but it is necessary, in some areas in particular, that the member of parliament who is concerned with the welfare of his people, and especially that of the students, let the department know if there are any possibilities of creating new jobs that the officials may have overlooked.
The member of parliament may, on his own initiative, meet the responsible people in the Manpower centres and co-operate with them, in order to find the most efficient way of securing jobs.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vietoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott) suggested this afternoon-another opportunity for spending more money-to grant additional travelling allowances to persons taking vocational training, so that they may be able to go and visit their families during the Easter holidays.
Mr. Speaker, this is definitely in contradiction with the present regulations made two years ago. He said that if the school is closed during the period where the government is paying an allowance to someone eligible, the
Business of Supply
latter will not get travelling expenses. However if, for some reason, the school must close during the period where allowances are being paid, a travelling indemnity will be paid. The minister will never be able at any time to take it upon himself to change the regulations in order to defray supplementary expenses.
In reply to the questions of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Schreyer), I shall say that all his suggestions would only involve additional expenses for the department. I realize that for a certain category of people, this could enable the person entitled to an allowance to attend a longer course at the government's expenses. However, when the hon. member mentioned this afternoon that the 52-week period of training provided under the terms of the Manpower Act was in fact reduced to 44 weeks, I believe he was including in his calculation the two summer months during which courses are suspended.
Mr. Speaker, I must say that the hon. member for Selkirk was wrong to make such a statement.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, when we say that a person eligible to courses paid by the Department of Manpower is entitled to a 52-week course, it is really 52 weeks, and not 44 weeks of courses and 8 weeks of holiday, with an allowance. A person accepted for a given course receives a living allowance only while attending courses.
We were asked the same thing during the Christmas and New Year period. In my own riding, some people attending courses paid by our manpower office asked for the same allowance during that period, claiming that the courses were suspended. We must make it clear that the legislation authorizes allowances for 52 weeks of courses, and not for 44 weeks of courses and 8 of holiday.
The hon. member mentioned also that the Department of Immigration was not looking after the less favoured areas. I have to tell him that he surely does not try to find out what is the true situation.
In fact, I could quote some figures which show that the government is looking after its business and attending to those things even before hon. members bring them to its attention.
I could mention that in 1961-62, through its training programs, the government paid $29 in Canadian money to every unemployed citizen of the Atlantic provinces; the average for

March 25, 1969
Business of Supply
every unemployed amounted to $44. I will not give figures for all those years, but only for 1968-69, in order to show that the government did something about that problem. In the Atlantic provinces, $560 per unemployed was paid out for training and retraining and $516 across Canada.
That is to say, Mr. Speaker, that in 1961, when a Conservative government was in power, $29 was paid out, whereas today, the Liberal government disburses $560 per unemployed.
In 1961-62,	$44 per unemployed was
allocated and this year $516 is contributed.
The hon. members we have heard today have said that the government does not bother with that section of the population. It does, but I could not find anyone in this house who could solve the unemployment problem overnight or say that the 360,000 students, presently enrolled in our universities and postgraduate institutions, could find employment overnight.
It would be too good to be true. If that were the case, we might not need the hon. members of the opposition, because the situation would be perfect. We would not have to listen to the condemnation of hon. members who, right or wrong, are always saying that the department is not concerned with that problem.
As concerns adult vocational training, Mr. Speaker, from a budget of $400 million for 1968-69, it is expected that about $197 million will be spent. It is fine to think of the students, but the adults must not be forgotten. $197 million will be spent for adults and students. Some of them will become part of the staff of our Manpower Centers. This year, it is expected that $100 million will be spent in grants for the construction of technical schools.
Mr. Speaker, if those expenditures do not represent for the government a preventive measure for future years, I wonder what it is. I think that the government is doing its best. We have this year a $400 million budget, and next year it will reach $500 million or $550 million. From one year to another, the government wants- to accelerate and improve its methods of training.
One hon. member was blaming the government this afternoon for giving its vocational training courses in subsidized technical schools. Mr. Speaker, all these courses are being taken, and I have witnessed it on several occasions. The hon. member who spoke

against this procedure was suggesting that those eligible for the courses should apply to industry.
How could a private industry accept to hire somebody who does not know his trade? Would the government be able to pay this private business to enable the students to continue their schooling there?
In technical schools, all courses given are excellent. I have visited such schools. Courses are being given by qualified people and it should not be allowed that those students who take these courses to learn a trade be hired by private industry, unless-


The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member in the middle of his interesting remarks, but his time has expired.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes I have left-


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Lotbiniere on a question of privilege.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take the time of the hon. member for Sainte-Marie, but I would like to point out to the house that since the beginning of the debate on the motion introduced by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), only one member of our party has been able to speak, while several members of the other parties had ample opportunity to be heard.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind that there are fourteen of us and that we would also like to take part in the debate, which we could do in a much more constructive and sensible manner that the member for Sainte-Marie.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The remarks of the hon. member will be taken into consideration.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, during the few minutes remaining to me, and though I must do without some notes I had prepared, I shall inform the minister of my views and sum up very briefly some remarks that I wanted to make.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, as time does not allow me to do so, I would not want to look fully into this very important matter of summer jobs for students. Obviously there exists a glaring contradiction between the minister's
March 25, 1969

statements and those of his parliamentary secretary as far as their stand and the statistics given are concerned.
However, I should like to refer to one of the arguments put forward and which in my opinion, is completely ludicrous. It reflects indeed the confusion that prevails not only within the Department of Manpower and Immigration, but also within the Liberal party, since the parliamentary secretary is, I think, empowered by the minister to speak on behalf of his department.
He told us, among other things, that the department and the minister were fully aware of every thing with regard to student manpower in Canada.
Then, if this is true, I wonder why the minister could not answer my question this afternoon, when I inquired about the number of students seeking employment next summer.
The minister made it quite clear that he did know and that he did not have the information at hand, which proves therefore that there is some conflict with regard to the information given and a certain lack of communication between the minister and his parliamentary secretary.
After having found fault with the opposition for not making any suggestions, the hon. member continued his speech and a few minutes later, he said that the suggestions of the opposition would prove costly for the government. And so, he blames the opposition for suggesting concrete solutions to do away with unemployment, but later he praises the minister for having increased from $80 million to $197 million the money earmarked for adult technical training. This proves once again that there is flagrant contradiction since, on the one hand, he blames the opposition for wanting to suggest solutions that will cost the government a lot of money while, on the other hand, lauding the minister later for having increased by $100 million the amounts earmarked for technical training.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
So. I am trying to understand that jumble of contradictions-


Gérard Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The parliamentary secretary to the Minister 29180-451
Business of Supply
of Manpower and Immigration on a point of order.


Gérard Loiselle: If I understand correctly, the member for Sainte-Marie blames me for asking the minister to spend a $100 million. I am afraid the hon. member did not understand me correctly. What I said a while ago was this: this year, the Department of Manpower will spend $197 million on vocational training and $100 million on the construction of technical schools.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Sainte-Marie.


Georges-J. Valade: I am sorry the member for Saint-Henri still does not understand. I shall explain later.
Mr. Speaker, I do not feel that I should dwell on the matter of student employment, of which my colleagues have spoken at length during this debate. Still, I shall touch upon the substance of the amendment which really deals with unemployment in a very general sense.
I am sorry to note, Mr. Speaker, that unemployment has now reached an extremely dangerous point for the Canadian economy, and especially that of the province of Quebec.
The government has not shown that it intends to do anything at all to alleviate this plague which affects the province of Quebec more particularly. According to today's newspapers, the port of Montreal may be forced to suspend its operations during this current season; this would surely means that thousands of dock workers, labourers and other employees would be unemployed.
For the past few weeks, here in this house, we have repeatedly asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) to tell us what steps he intended to take in order to avoid this economic disaster threatening the Canadian metropolis.
Considering the unemployment prevailing now in the province of Quebec, I dare say that their responsible statements made by some ministers are of bad omen for the economy of the province of Quebec.
I would now like to refer to the most irresponsible and harmful statement made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) I saw him a moment ago in the house and he was probably making apologies while trying to clear the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and the government of their failure to take action about unemployment in Canada and to put

March 25, 1969
Division
the blame for this catastrophic situation on the separatist movement in Quebec.
The member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) said: If the rates of unemployment is now so high in Quebec, it is due to the Quebec separatists. If I ever wished to deny a statement, this is it.
I reject the minister's statement because it endangers the atmosphere of security and. of confidence which the industrialists necessarily look for when they try to establish in this province industries that can provide the unemployed with work.
Mr. Speaker,-unfortunately, I see that time is running out and that I must hurry. I must draw to the attention of the government that they did not take into account some of their responsibilities.
In the field of secondary industry, which is the basis of Canadian economy, this government has been totally powerless and inefficient. We are still awaiting an early announcement of a legislation to stimulate the development of secondary industry in Canada, which is threatened by a host of finished products from abroad.
In fact, our market is now invaded by finished products, imported at prices lower than those found on the Canadian market but the government has presented no legislation that could protect our manufacturers.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I realize that my time is up and I hope I will have the opportunity to get back to this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: It being 9:45 o'clock p.m. pursuant to section 9 of Standing Order 58 it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of the said proceeding.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.	
The question is now on the main motion. Call	
in the members. Is it	the wish of the house
that the roll be called now?


Some hon. Members:: : Agreed.
The house divided	on the main motion
(Mr. Stanfield) which following division:	was negatived on the
YEAS	
Messrs:	
Aiken	Hales
Alexander	Harding
Alkenbrack	Harkness
Baldwin	Horner
Beaudoin	Knowles (Norfolk-
Bell	Haldimand)
Benjamin	Knowles (Winnipeg
Bigg	North Centre)
Broadbent	Korchinski
Burton	Lambert (Edmonton
Carter	West)
Coates	Laprise
Code	La Salle
Comeau	Latulippe
Dinsdale	Lewis
Dionne	Lundrigan
Douglas (Nanaimo-	MacDonald (Egmont)
Cowichan-The Islands)	MacEwan
Downey	Maclnnis
Dumont	Maclnnis (Mrs.)
Fairweather	MacDean
Flemming	Macquarrie
Forrestall	MacRae
Fortin	McCleave
Gauthier	McCutcheon
Gilbert	McIntosh
Godin	McKinley
Grills	Marshall
Gundlock	Matte
Monte ith	Rynard
Moore	Schreyer
Muir (Cape B re ton -	Schumacher
The Sydneys)	Scott
Nesbitt	Simpson
Noble	Skoberg
Nowlan	Southam
Orlikow	Stewart (Marquette)
Paproski	Tetrault
Peddle	Thomas (Moncton)
Peters	Thompson
Ricard	Thomson
Ritchie	Valade
Rodrigue	Woolliams
Rondeau	Yewchuk-83.
 NAYS Messrs:
Allmand	Hymmen
Badanai	Isabelle
Barrett	Jamieson
Bechard	Jerome
Blair	Lachance
Blouin	(Vancouver South)
Boulanger	Laing
Breau	Lang
Brown	Langlois
Buchanan	Laniel
Caccia	Leblanc (Laurier)
Cadieux (Labelle)	LeBlanc (Rimouski)
Cafik	Lefebvre
Cantin	Legault
Chappell	Lessard (LaSalle)
Clermont	Lind
Cobbe	Loiselle
Comtois	Macdonald (Rosedale)
Corbin	MacEachen
Cote (Richelieu)	MacGuigan
Crossman	Mackasey
Cullen	Mcllraith
Cyr	McNulty
Danson	Mahoney
Davis	Marceau
Deachman	Marchand (Langelier)
Deakon	Marchand (Kamloops-
De Ban6	Cariboo)
Douglas (Assiniboia)	Morison
Drury	Munro
Dube	Murphy
Duquet	Noel
Emard	Olson
Forest	Ouellet
Francis	Penner
Gendron	Pepin
Gervais	Perrault
Gibson	Pilon
Gillespie	Portelance
Givens	Pringle
Goode	Reid
Goyer	Richard
Gray	Richardson
Groos	Roberts
Guay (St. Boniface)	Rochon
Guilbault	Roy (Timmins)
Haidasz	Roy (Laval)
Hellyer	Serre
Hogarth	Smerchanski
Honey	Smith (Northumberland-
Hopkins	Miramichi)
Howard (Okanagan	Smith (Saint-Jean)
Boundary)	Stafford
29180-45U

March 25. 1969
Division
Stanbury
Stewart (Cochrane)
St. Pierre Sulatycky Sullivan
Thomas (Maisonneuve)
Tolmie
Trudel
Turner (London East)
Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)
Wahn
Walker
Watson
Whelan
Whicher
Whiting
Yanakis-119.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Pursuant to Standing Order 2 (1) this house stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At 10.16 the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
March 25, 1969



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
The Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group was held from March 20-24, 1968, in Washington and New Orleans.
During the month preceding these meetings, the Canadian delegation held several briefing sessions. Our Inter-Parliamentary Relations Branch and the Department of External Affairs organized the briefing of our delegates and the preparation of background papers on the various agenda topics. Officials from the Departments of External Affairs, Finance, Trade and Commerce, National Defence, External Aid, and Energy, Mines and Resources participated in the briefings. We were also fortunate in having the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Trade and Commerce devote an afternoon to discussing items on the Agenda with members of our delegation.
The Canadian delegation, led by the Honourable Alan A. Macnaughton, P.C., Q.C., arrived in Washington on March 20th at 2.30 P.M., aboard a Canadian Forces Yukon. Mr. Speaker Sydney J. Smith of the Senate, a participant in all previous meetings of the Group, was unable to attend due to illness. Mr. Speaker Lamoureux was also unable to take part as the House of Commons was in session. Their places were taken by two former Speakers, Honourable Alan A. Macnaughton, P.C., Q.C., of the Senate and the Honourable Marcel Lambert, P.C., M.P., of the Commons. The delegation comprised, in addition, the following parliamentarians: from the Senate, Hon. Donald Cameron (Alberta), Hon. L. P. Gelinas (Quebec), Hon. D. A. Lang (Ontario), Hon. H. A. Willis (Ontario), Hon. M. Grattan O'Leary (Ontario), and, from the House of Commons: Mr. James Byrne (British Columbia), Mr. Ovide Laflamme (Quebec), Mr. A. J. P. Cameron (Ontario), Mr. Herb Gray (Ontario), Mr. G. Roy McWilliam (New Brunswick), Mr. H. A. Olson (Alberta), Mr. Gaston Clermont (Quebec), Mr. J. R. Com-tois (Quebec), Hon. Alvin Hamilton, P.C. (Saskatchewan), Mr. Wallace Nesbitt (Ontario), Mr. Robert Coates (Nova Scotia), Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Prince Edward Island), Mr. Heward Grafftey (Quebec), Mr. Roger Regimbal (Quebec), Mr. Andrew Brewin (Ontario), Mr. David Lewis (Ontario), Mr. C.-A.
Gauthier (Quebec) and Mr. Howard Johnston (British Columbia).
The United States delegation was led jointly by Senator George D. Aiken (Vermont) and Congressman Cornelius E. Gallagher (New Jersey). Other delegates from the United States Congress were: Senators Allen J. EU-ender (Louisiana), Michael J. Mansfield (Montana), Russell B. Long (Louisiana), William B. Spong Jr. (Virginia), Quentin Burdick (North Dakota), Bourke B. Hickenlooper (Iowa), John Sherman Cooper (Kentucky), Len B. Jordan (Idaho), Hirman L. Fong (Hawaii), Robert P. Griffen (Michigan); and from the House of Representatives: Mrs. Edna F. Kelly (New York), and Congressmen William T. Murphy (Illinois), Harold T. Johnson (California), Fernand J. St. Germain (Rhode Island), John M. Slack (West Virginia), James Kee (West Virginia), Mark Andrews (North Dakota), Robert T. Stafford (Vermont), Vernon W. Thomson (Wisconsin), John J. Duncan (Tennessee), and William S. Broomfield (Michigan).
Representative Thomas E. Morgan (Pennsylvania), Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, served as an official observer.
Agenda and Proceedings
The Eleventh Meeting was formally opened in the Old Supreme Court Chamber of the U.S. Capitol with a Welcome to the delegates from Secretary of State Dean Rusk. Following the opening plenary session the delegates divided themselves into two working committees-one on Trade and Economic Matters and the other on Defence and Security Matters. Each Committee met three times.
Committee I
The Committee on Trade and Economic Matters met under the joint chairmanship of Senator Aiken and Senator Macnaughton. Representing the United States Congress were Senators Mansfield, Jordan, Ellender and Burdick and Representatives Andrews, Kelly, St. Germain, Thomson, Johnson, Duncan and Kee. Representing Canada were Senators Gelinas, Lang and Willis, and from the House of Commons, Hon. Alvin Hamilton,
[Stage Direction]
March 25. 1969
Hon. Marcel Lambert and Messrs. Byrne, La-flamme, Gray, Olson, Clermont, Comtois, Grafftey, Regimbal, Lewis and Gauthier.
The Committee considered the following items on its Agenda:
1)	Canada-United States balance of payments.
2)	Post Kennedy round developments.
3)	Foreign Investment and related Government policies.
4)	Resource development matters (with particular reference to oil and gas).
5)	Automative agreement.
6)	Aid to developing countries.
7)	Trade and Economic relations with Communist countries.
8)	International Grains Agreement.
ELEVENTH MEETING CANADA-UNITED STATES INTERPARLIAMENTARY GROUP REPORT OF COMMITTEE I:

[Stage Direction]
1.	Canada-United States Balance of Payments A United States delegate opened the discussion by stating the interdependence of Canada and the United States on trade and monetary matters. He pointed out that agreement had been reached earlier this month exempting Canada from new U.S. restrictions on investment abroad designed to ease the U.S. balance of payments problem, and expressed the hope that the cooperation between the two countries on monetary problems would continue and be effective. A Canadian delegate replied that Canada had a $1.3 billion deficit with the United States and welcomed the U.S. government's action, also expressing the hope that this type of cooperation would continue.
There was considerable discussion about labor-management problems in the two countries. A Canadian delegate expressed the view that the biggest worry for each country is over the possibility of inflationary wage settlements. Members of the U.S. delegation stressed that labor costs in both countries are rising faster than productivity. Canadian delegates pointed out that the lower productivity rate in Canada-due in part to the narrower market base-would create more serious difficulties as the two countries move closer to freer trade relationships. They referred to the recently announced intention of Canadian ministers to inaugurate measures
of voluntary restraint and indicated that these would receive full support by the Canadian public. There was discussion by members of both delegations over the indirect impact on Canada of certain U.S. trade and monetary restrictions, such as the interest equalization tax. Canadian delegates expressed appreciation of the special measures adopted by the United States to mitigate the effects of these policies on the Canadian economy, but pointed out that in return Canada has had to adopt certain restraints which may affect its ability to respond flexibly to future international pressures. They stressed that the United States should therefore consider very carefully before it acts how such measures would affect Canada. It was also pointed out by another Canadian delegate that Canada finances a substantial portion of its deficit with the United States through its trade surplus with the rest of the world and not entirely with inflows of U.S. capital. The consensus of both delegations appeared to be that because of the inter-relationship of Canadian-U.S. economic affairs there should continue to be close consultation and cooperation on all matters affecting both countries' balance of payment positions.
2.	Post-Kennedy Round Developments
Members of both delegations devoted considerable attention to foreign trade problems, giving particular attention to agricultural trade problems. Several Canadian delegates discussed the impact on Canada of the decline in U.S. farm prices, emphasizing the need for working out arrangements which will protect Canadian farmers from repercussions due to U.S. price declines. It was also pointed out that the U.S. Public Law 480 program has had an impact on Canadian export markets.
A United States delegate stated that it was not dear at this point what direction U.S. trade policy will take now that the Kennedy Round has been concluded but that trade liberalization remains the basic U.S. policy. A comprehensive study of trade policy is now under way in the Executive Branch, he said, and this study will cover exploration of possible special trade arrangements with Canada, such as a North Atlantic Free Trade Area or a Canada-U.S. Customs union. There was considerable discussion by members of both delegations over possible rise of protectionist sentiment in the United States. Members of the Canadian delegation expressed their hope that the free trade movement would continue
March 25, 1969
[Stage Direction]
uninterrupted and expressed fears that passage of protectionist type measures could have a severe adverse effect on this trend. Several U.S. delegates expressed the opinion that protectionist measures are not likely to become law, pointing out that the President has stated publicly that he will veto such bills.
A U.S. delegate said that American agriculture is in a very depressed state and that farmers are quite concerned about trade agreements which seem to be working to their disadvantage. There was general agreement that, contrary to previous hopes, the Kennedy Round had not resulted in freer access to European markets for U.S. and Canadian farmers.
A member of the Canadian delegation in discussing the outlook for wheat pointed out that there will be great pressure on world wheat supplies in the next few years and that the United States and Canada have a responsibility to work together to try to stabilize wheat prices, since the United States and Canada are the only producers with adequate storage facilities. Talks for this purpose are going on between the two countries now, he stated. A U.S. delegate pointed out that the United States had an unsatisfactory, inefficient arrangement for selling wheat abroad which was neither governmental nor private. To make the system work better, he said, the government should either get more in or more out of the picture. There was also discussion of a number of common agricultural problems, such as those affecting the dairy and beef industries.
A member of the Canadian delegation pointed out that the Canadian government has stated that it would take retaliatory action if the United States imposed border taxes or imposed similar measures and expressed the hope that nothing would develop along these lines. In reply, a U.S. delegate said he could not conceive any such action coming to pass. There was general agreement that movement in this direction would have a very harmful effect on both countries.
3.	Foreign Investment and Related Government Policies
A United States delegate opened the discussion by stating that it is understandable there should be concern in Canada over U.S. investments. He suggested that discussion on the recent report of the Canadian Task Force on Foreign Ownership and the Structure of Canadian Industry might prove helpful to
both countries in clarifying the issues and problems involved. He added that he also appreciated the concern felt by many Canadians over the issue of the extra territorial application of U.S. laws so far as Canadian subsidiaries of U.S. firms are concerned. The basic law governing trade with Communist countries is not likely to be changed as long as the Vietnam war 'continues.
The most serious aspect of the foreign investment problem for Canada is the extraterritorial application of U.S. laws to U.S. subsidiaries in Canada, a Canadian delegate stated. The measures taken to ameliorate the U.S. balance of payments problem have shown that the U.S. can take steps to remedy its own situation which have unintentional repercussions on Canada. The U.S. should not be surprised if Canada should take steps to remedy Canadian situations which may have repercussions in the U.S.
A U.S. delegate pointed out that large U.S. corporations these days are in effect international or multinational. He said that they often are better received abroad than U.S. Government policies propounded by U.S. diplomats. There followed some general discussion of the growth of large international corporations which it was agreed creates serious problems of control for governments.
Several Canadian delegates indicated that they are not opposed to U.S. investment in Canada and cited beneficial results in specific cases. Canadians accept the need for and value foreign investments.
4.	Resource Development
A Canadian delegate referred to the agreement reached in 1959 that Canada would continue to import oil, chiefly Venezuelan, but would expect a roughly equivalent export market in the Northwest United States. This situation of parity has not yet been reached but progress is satisfactory. In view of the presently developing exports of Alaskan oil into the Northwest, Canada will hope for expanded markets in the Northeast. He expressed confidence in the competitive machinery for price determination on natural gas but suggested that the two governments should formulate guidelines on this point within which the Federal Power Commission and the National Energy Board could operate.
Members of both delegations discussed new approaches for distribution of natural gas in the Northeast part of the United States. There was also some discussion of new methods
[Stage Direction]
March 25. 1969
being explored in both countries for expanding power production.
5.	Automotive Agreement
A United States delegate opened the discussion by describing the benefits that have accrued to both countries as a result of the automotive agreement.
A Canadian spokesman also stressed the benefits to both countries. It has enlarged the market for U.S. producers and thus protected thousands of U.S. job-holders. If there had not been such an agreement, Canada would probably have had to move to higher tariffs, quotas and other devices which would have had bad effects in the U.S.A. He suggested that during the review which is now under way in accordance with the terms of the agreement, some of his U.S. colleagues might be tempted to suggest that the safeguards for Canadian production incorporated in the agreement are now unnecessary or should at any rate be modified. He gave three reasons why they are still necessary: (a) U.S. purchasing agents are still not adjusted to taking full advantage of Canadian production; (b) there is still a 20-30 % productivity-gap in Canada's disfavor; (c) Canadian producers still have not adjusted completely to different U.S. procedures for inspection, etc.
The U.S. spokesman replied that he was not aware of serious pressure for removal or modification of these safeguards, although it is under consideration whether modification would be desirable.
There followed a discussion of motor vehicle and highway safety standards. A Canadian delegate pointed out that since motor vehicle design is centered in the U.S., Canada is dependent upon U.S. standards in this field. He said that the 1966 Act is a good beginning but that there is still a long way to go. A U.S. delegate replied that the 1966 Act is only the first step. There will have to be a twopronged attack on motor vehicle safety and on highway safety as well. The second is a complicated issue involving more than one level of government and including problems both of high design and law enforcement. He expressed confidence that progress is being made in all approaches.
6.	Aid to Developing Countries
A Canadian delegate opened the discussion by saying that in Canada there is a review of the external aid machinery to determine whether Canadian aid is going where it will do the most good. Secretary McNamara's
speech in Montreal two years ago wisely stressed the connection between external aid and defense in the broad sense. In Canada there is concern that the global level of aid has gone down at the same time as the GNF in the donor countries has gone up. Since 1960 Canada has stressed soft loans rather than grants and has coordinated its aid with other countries and through the World Bank. The Canadian aid target for 1970 is 1% of the gross national income. At present the aid level is .6%.
In the discussion of the U.S. foreign aid program, it was agreed by the U.S. delegates that the President's aid request for next year would meet considerable opposition in Congress due in part to the heavy costs of the Vietnam war. Though one U.S. delegate feared that the entire aid bill might be rejected, the consensus was that the authorization would be passed at a substantially reduced level.
A Canadian delegate introduced the idea that the time has come to adopt a "multilateral pool" approach to aid. It was suggested that under the bilateral system the donors reap ill-will rather than good and that in a multilateral system it would be possible to blur the distinction between donor and donee since all would contribute something and aid would become in a sense anonymous. The group displayed considerable interest in this idea. U.S. delegates pointed out that much of the opposition to further aid efforts now expressed in the U.S. arises from sensitivity at the seeming ingratitude of the recipients. They agreed that the multilateral approach, probably through agencies of the United Nations, would be helped in this regard. A Canadian delegate described the successful implementation of the World Food Program by the FAO and suggested that a tough international administrator can often take a stronger stand against local peculation or incompetence than is possible for national officials. He suggested that the U.S. and Canada could cooperate in pressing for a multilaterally organized program of international aid.
7.	Trade and Economic Relations with Communist Countries
Opening the discussion on trade and economic relations' with Communist countries, a U.S. delegate stated that Canada and the U.S. pursue different policies. Canada favors increasing trade with all countries but the United States takes a very selective approach to trading with the Communist world. The
March 25, 1969
[Stage Direction]
President has proposed legislation to remove certain restrictions on trade with Communist countries but no positive action by Congress can be expected in this direction as long as the war in Vietnam continues. He said that he appreciated Canadian concern over the impact of U.S. trade restrictions on Canadian subsidiaries of U.S. firms. Another U.S. delegate said that the attitude of Congress on this issue only reflects the thinking of their constituents.
A Canadian delegate said that the Battle Act did not bother Canadians so much as the Cuban control regulations. He was unable to understand why the U.S. should control the actions of long-time Canadian residents.
There was considerable discussion about trade with Communist China. A U.S. delegate said he had not heard of any U.S. protests over Canadian wheat sales to China and pointed out that U.S. wheat exports increased after Canada began selling to China. A Canadian delegate said that they had found their traders very effective in their relationships with the Chinese. Another referred to the effect of subsidized U.S. flour exports in making inroads on traditional Canadian markets expressing the hope that the grains agreement will result in solving this problem.
Members of the Canadian delegation stressed that trade with the Communist world was in the political interests of both the U.S. and Canada. Some members of the U.S. delegation expressed their agreement with this view, stating that one of the most effective means to combat Communism is to encourage growth of consumer demand in the Communist world and a general expansion of trade between East and West. It was said by one U.S. delegate that our trade policy toward China since the Communists gained control had been very ill-advised. As to getting restrictions on trade with Communist countries removed, U.S. delegates agreed that although the President had requested Congress to Act, there was little chance that the Congress would move in this direction so long as the Vietnam war goes on.
A U.S. delegate cited the 50-50 restriction on shipping grain as a factor limiting any wheat sales to the Soviet Union, and said that the longshoremen's unions are very powerful in preventing easing of East-West trade restrictions.
Several Canadian delegates referred to the extra-territorial effect of U.S. trade restrictions on Canadian firms seeking to expand
commercial markets with Communist countries. Canadian managers of many subsidiaries of U.S. concerns are reluctant to risk running afoul of U.S. trade regulations. Canadians, they said, believe that commercial decisions should not be influenced by the political policies of the country of the parent. U.S. delegates agreed that U.S. policy should not control actions of Canadian firms.
There was general agreement among members of both delegations that expansion of East-West trade worked to the political and economic advantage of both countries, but that the Vietnam war was a severely limiting factor at present.
8.	International Grains Agreement
A Canadian delegate opened the discussion by saying that the principal question as Canada sees it is what action will be taken by the United States before July 1 when the new price range for wheat under the IGA comes into effect. Present prices in the U.S. are about 220 below the new floor price and Canada is interested to know how the U.S. will approach the problem of getting its prices up to the agreed level.
A U.S. delegate replied that the Senate hearing on the IGA begin next week. There seemed to be general agreement among the U.S. delegates that farm opinion in the U.S. is in favour of the IGA and that it will consequently be ratified. The view was, however, expressed by one U.S. delegate that during the past 18 months world wheat marketing had not been working as far as the U.S. was concerned. He thought that the importance of the IGA had perhaps been exaggerated.
Another U.S. delegate asked whether an increase of 22(S per bushel in the wheat price would be likely to lead to larger production in other countries such as France and the Argentine. Canadian delegates pointed out that this did not happen some years ago when wheat prices were considerably higher than they are now. In their view, if the United States and Canada stand together it is unlikely to happen at the present time.
Committee II
The Committee on Defense and Security was co-chaired by Congressman Gallagher and Mr. Wallace Nesbitt, M.P. Representing the United States Congress were Senators Hickenlooper, Cooper, Long, Griffin, Fong and Spong and Representatives Broomfield,
[Stage Direction]
March 25, 1969
Murphy, Slack, Stafford and Morgan. Representing Canada were Senators Cameron and O'Leary and from the House of Commons, Messrs. Cameron, McWilliam, Coates, Mac-quarrie, Brewin and Johnston.
The Committee considered the following items on its Agenda:
1)	State of the NATO Alliance (with particular reference to the Harmel study)
2)	Co-operation for continental defense
3)	Policies toward Communist China
4)	Vietnam
5)	Non-proliferation Treaty
ELEVENTH MEETING CANADA-UNITED STATES INTERPARLIAMENTARY GROUP REPORT OF COMMITTEE II: DEFENSE AND SECURITY MATTERS
The U.S. Chairman opened the first session of the Committee on Defense and Security Matters by emphasizing that 1968 was a year for stock-taking and reassessment. He noted the current and forthcoming changes in political leadership in both countries, the urgent public demands by the population for reexamination of policies and the worldwide phonomenon of challenge to the past. He also noted that in 1968 it was necessary to consider the fact that the NATO treaty allowed for reassessment of its existence after 20 years and that the NORAD treaty between the U.S. and Canada was expiring on May 12, 1968. He then suggested that the Committee give its first attention to NATO, to an examination of the changing Soviet threat, the consequences of this changing threat to NATO itself, the demands for a reduction in troop levels, the effects of the non-proliferation treaty and the recommendations of the Harmel Report.
The majority of Canadian delegates supported the view that a new approach to the NATO Alliance was required and had been recommended by, among other things, the Harmel Report which called for positive action of NATO in the economic and political fields in addition to its traditional military role. It was pointed out that the Harmel Report emphasized that one of NATO'S major roles was to coordinate plans for promoting a detente and the question was asked as to whether or not NATO as it exists today can be used for such a purpose.
A Canadian delegate pointed out that although the official Canadian Government
position on NATO had not changed, NATO had become an alliance leading to considerable moral questioning on the part of the Canadian people.
The U.S. delegation noted the increased Soviet military threat in the Mediterranean; particularly that the Soviet Union had increased the number of submarines in that area and was looking to NATO's defense in southern Europe as the soft part of the world. Italy particularly was reported to be very fearful of the possibility of a Soviet threat. The Soviet submarine fleet had developed greatly increased strength on a worldwide basis and was now able to extend its operations to long distances from its European home base. The Soviets are developing ship-borne surface-to-surface missiles and these could be a threat to surface ships of the U.S., U.K. and Canada.
The Soviet Union was beginning to use naval bases in the United Arab Republic and Syria, and there was a real possibility that it might be able to use bases in Algeria. Soviet technological developments enabled Soviet submarines to transit the exit from the Black Sea without technically violating the Soviet-Turkish agreement concerning the use of the Straits.
There was an interesting review of the apparent Soviet desire to control Middle Eastern oil resources if not for its own use then to deny it to the prime purchasers in Western Europe. One member of the U.S. delegation felt that while the Harmel report's recommendations for a detente were helpful, the new ingredient of an increased Soviet threat in the Mediterranean was so important that it could not be ignored.
Some concern was expressed by the Canadian delegation as to the consequences of control by the Soviet Union over the Middle East oil resources. An agreement seemed to have been reached that such control would create a very significant threat to the economies of Western Europe.
Another member of the U.S. delegation emphasized that the nature of the Soviet threat must also be evaluated in terms of the failure of the Soviet Union to give any indication of a willingness to seek a mutual troop reduction in central Europe despite proposals on this matter. In this connection, members of the U.S. delegation indicated that an assessment of possible U.S. troop reductions was currently in progress and would be discussed during the next few weeks.
March 25, 1969
[Stage Direction]
One U.S. delegate noted that as tar as U.S. troops in' Europe are concerned, the recent development of large transport aircraft may make it possible for the U.S. to withdraw some of these troops from Europe and airlift them very rapidly to that continent should they be needed.
A Canadian delegate expressed deep concern about the attitude of the West German Government at this time. It seemed to be moving towards an attitude with respect to NATO similar to that of France.
One member of the U.S. delegation emphasized that when NATO was established, it had not been envisaged that the U.S. would supply the bulk of the ground forces but rather that the U.S. would provide strategic air and naval power with the European countries supplying the bulk of the ground troops. This has not worked out in practice.
It was emphasized that NATO was part of the total defense against the worldwide Soviet threat and the U.S. is required to maintain' its strength not only in NATO but elsewhere. The NATO countries have been interested in arms reduction to bring about a detente and in weaning away some of the eastern European countries from central Communist domination. This was all to the good and NATO should be used to lessen global tensions. The U.S. interest in this was not only the interest in lessening global tension but to free U.S. military forces to accept responsibility elsewhere.
The U.S. delegation emphasized that while more could be done by NATO in the political field, the NATO countries should not be lulled into an unwarranted sense of security.
A member of the Canadian delegation mentioned that because of the nuclear stalemate existing in the world today the Soviet Union had shifted its approach and had concentrated on political and economic strategy. It was felt that if NATO remained exclusively military it would not be in a position to respond to much political or economic activity from the Soviet Union.
In closing this discussion, one member of the U.S. delegation said that a reduction of U.S. troop strength in Europe, which would be useful to the U.S. in carrying its worldwide responsibilities, might also be a meaningful gesture in the direction of a detente.
The U.S. Chairman opened the second session by suggesting a discussion of the North American Air Defense Agreement (NORAD). He recalled that the agreement expires on
May 12, 1968 and that it was desirable that there be an evaluation of the threat and the weapons available to meet that threat.
A Canadian delegate said that the Government of Canada made clear its intention to renew the Agreement but also made clear that it does not wish to participate in the ABM system.
A Canadian delegate mentioned that he was not opposed in principle to an anti-bomber defense system but questioned whether or not an active anti-bomber defense is warranted in terms of its financial cost. Quoting a recent speech by Secretary of Defense McNamara which mentioned that anti-bomber defense alone could not significantly reduce destruction if an attack occurred, it was mentioned that if such were the case Canada did not think that it could afford the continuation of such an anti-bomber defense system.
It was also pointed out by a Canadian delegate that the major defense of the American Continent was not any of the purely defense measures that are taken but rather the tremendous offensive power of the U.S. and that therefore an anti-bomber defense system might be quite obsolete in fact.
The members of the U.S. and Canadian delegations reiterated the view that the bomber threat from the Soviet Union continues to be an active threat against the North American continent and that a defense against this threat is as vital as defense against more sophisticated weaponry. Indeed, the U.S. had learned the lesson that a defense against more conventional weapons, in this case the manned bomber, was as important as a defense against more advanced threats.
In this discussion, the members of the U.S. delegation repeatedly emphasized that the U.S. would want Canada to exercise complete sovereignty over its territory; and that it would not wish in any way to impose on that sovereignty if Canada should choose to deny the use of its territory to the joint defense of the continent.
One Canadian delegate mentioned that the East Coast of Canada had no defense system to protect it against Soviet submarines and suggested that the NORAD Agreement might be modified to encompass not only air defense systems but also measures against sea and underwater threats. It was pointed out that although there have been in the recent past seven penetrations into Canadian controlled air space from Soviet bombers there was also
[Stage Direction]
March 25, 1969
evidence that Soviet submarines were positioned around the coast of Canada, perhaps even in the Hudson Bay. This, in the opinion of the Canadian delegate was a much greater threat to Canada than bombers.
In the field of anti-submarine warfare, a member of the U.S. delegation emphasized, U.S.-Canadian cooperation was also essential. There needed to be a true joint effort in the anti-submarine warfare field particularly in light of the increasing Soviet submarine threat.
The members of the U.S. delegation then reviewed the air and space threat to the North American continent as they saw it. They were convinced, andi informed by the U.S. military establishment, that the Soviet bomber threat would continue to exist at least into the mid-70's. In addition to this, the Soviet Union would always have an effective ICBM threat. While members of the U.S. delegation had serious reservations about an ABM system, particularly because of its high cost they recognized that the U.S. had to maintain its research and development in this field as well as in offensive weaponry and considered that the deployment of the so-called thin ABM system was primarily designed to continue effective U.S. development of this weapon. Otherwise, the Soviet Union would have an opportunity to be far ahead of the U.S. in this field. In this connection, the members of the U.S. delegation emphasized that the Soviet Union had refused on repeated occasions to discuss the U.S. proposed mutual limitation on the further development of ABM/ICBM systems.
In his opening statement a Canadian delegate mentioned that sooner or later the West will have to normalize its relations with mainland China. Who will initiate this move and when was the main question. It was suggested that Canada, because it already has a toe in China because of its commercial relations, could be helpful to the Western world in taking the initiative. The Canadian delegation was unanimous in recommending that formal recognition of mainland China should be arrived at as soon as practicable. Although some members of the Canadian delegation mentioned that Communist China should also be admitted to the United Nations, the majority thought that admission to the United Nations of Peking at this time would be highly disruptive.
A member of the U.S. delegation indicated that hearings on the subject of the future U.S.
role in Asia are now in progress and offered to make the record of these hearings available to the Canadian delegation. While the U.S. does not recognize Communist China and has no present intentions to do so, there have been a continuing series of diplomatic contacts between the two countries first at Geneva and most recently in Warsaw. The U.S. has used this channel to indicate to the Communist Chinese that it does not contemplate any military action against them and does not intend to intervene in their internal affairs. The U.S. has attempted to further these contacts by establishing relations in the cultural and journalistic fields but these have so far not met with any positive Communist Chinese response.
The members of the U.S. delegation held that the issue of seating Communist China was presently inappropriate, and untimely, particularly since the efforts to seat Communist China at the United Nations were losing support from other quarters including from some of the African nations. It was also necessary to explore what the effects of recognition would be on China's more immediate neighbors such as India and Burma.
It was emphasized several times that there was no visible indication on the part of China of a desire to establish relations With the U.S. and indeed Communist China had made numerous demands before it would be willing to enter the United Nations. Finally, it was emphasized that in the minds of the American people, any future steps toward recognition of Communist China were intimately coupled with the events in Vietnam and there was not likely to be any change until the problems of Vietnam were settled.
There was also some discussion of a possible Canadian recognition of Communist China and of the effects that such a step would have in the United States.
During the discussion on Communist China, one of the members of the Canadian delegation suggested that the Committee seek the knowledge and experience of one of the members of the Canadian delegation who was not present at the time at the meeting. Later in opening a discussion on the Vietnam question the Co-chairman from the American delegation mentioned that the crux of the matter regarding Vietnam was that there existed a number of alternatives or courses of action that could be taken by the United
March 25, 1969
[Stage Direction]
States Government, namely withdrawal of forces, a continuation of the present effort, or further escalation. The Co-chairman called in the Canadian expert to relate his experiences with China and try to combine this discussion with the Vietnam problem. The Canadian delegate mentioned that he was first in touch with the Chinese authorities in 1960 in connection with the cash sale of wheat which was finally ratified in January 1961. He mentioned that Chinese authorities at the time were eager to move out of their self-isolationism and expand commercial relations with other parts of the world. This was viewed by the Canadian delegate as an opportunity for the American Government to come in with the Canadian Government on the grain sales to Communist China. The Canadian delegate at the time visited with President Kennedy who was impressed by the proposal but later said that the American Government would be aggreeable to give China all the grain they wanted if they only asked for it. This was felt unacceptable by the Chinese authorities and the deal never came through.
The Canadian delegate stressed the considerable difference in China between the "politicians" and the "trade people." The politicians were idealists, believing that the nature of a whole generation) could be changed by political action and measures. They were considered very dogmatic whereas the trade people were much more practical and down to earth in their beliefs and dealings.
During a visit to Peking, the Canadian delegate was called in by the Prime Minister, Chou En-Lai, who exposed what were the three main points in Communist China's foreign policy. The first and most important one was the recovery of all territories that China possessed before 1900, namely, territories now held by Korea, Taiwan, and the Soviet Union.
Another objective in their foreign policy was to modify the relationship existing between the major powers and the countries on which they exerted their influence. This applied to both the Soviet Union and the United States of America. The third objective of Peking's foreign policy was to take over the lead in the world Communist movement. Chou En-Lai felt that they were best suited to take that lead because he believed that no white man could understand what it is to be a colored man.
On the Taiwan question Chou En-Lai was reported to have said that the crucial problem was that Taiwan was inhabited by 10 million original Taiwanese in addition to 2 million or so refugees from mainland China. Chou En-Lai accepted the principle of self-determination and mentioned that these 10 million original Taiwanese should eventually have the opportunity to express their views on the question.
The Canadian representative mentioned that mainland China at the moment is getting ready for a big confrontation with the Soviet Union. It was not contemplating any confrontation with the United States at this time but feared it and was willing to fight if need be. It was a significant fact, the Canadian delegate said, that the majority of young Chinese children learned as their second language the English language and also that Chinese have never attacked the Americans, but rather the ruling class of America which they considered imperialistic. The Canadian delegate mentioned that the main difference between Communist China and the great powers stems from the fact that China traditionally has considered itself the greatest culture and the centre of the world and that it resents deeply the cultural superiority of the other great powers.
The Canadian delegate also mentioned and in this also concurred with Americans and other Canadian delegates who spoke earlier, that the cultural revolution had been a failure and that the managerial class seemed to be progressively taking over from the politicians.
The discussion then turned to Vietnam and the U.S. delegation inquired of the Canadian delegate who had related his experience in China whether he had any views that might be helpful to the U.S. in arriving at a termination of the struggle in Vietnam. The Canadian delegate responded by indicating that he thought that the U.S. must establish a dialogue with Communist China and that if China thought that it could obtain what it desired in Taiwan even if this was many years away, it might then put pressure on Hanoi by reducing military supplies to that government and thereby helping to end the war in Vietnam.
One of the Canadian delegates asked the U.S. side to define the current U.S. objectives in Vietnam. A U.S. delegate indicated that it was the objective of the U.S. to find a way of terminating the conflict but we have found no
[Stage Direction]
March 25, 1969
set way of accomplishing this aim. In response to a suggestion as to the possibility of a Korean-type settlement, the U.S. delegate indicated that a Korean-type settlement was entirely acceptable.
U.S. policy was then reviewed and a U.S. delegate pointed out that the policy of the U.S. in Vietnam to resist the aggression from the north had not changed.
A Canadian delegate asked why the U.S. could not accept the suggestion of U.N. Secretary General U Thant that the bombing be terminated and assume that the U.N. Secretary General was correct in his report that discussions would follow within two weeks thereafter. The U.S. delegate reviewed the results of previous bombing pauses and the frustration which these had meant for U.S. efforts to obtain a peaceful solution. In all cases, North Vietnam had taken advantage of the bombing pauses to resupply its own people and the long bombing pause in early 1966 had failed to lead to any meaningful discussions in spite of the fact that all possible intermediaries had been urged to seek a solution. One U.S. delegate pointed out that peace was difficult to obtain with the Communist world. Even in Korea there was no negotiated peace 15 years after the war had ended. Every proposal which had been made had been flatly rejected. One member of the U.S. delegation wanted to clarify that in spite of the dissent and debate currently in progress ini the U.S. and particularly in the U.S. Congress, not a single U.S. Presidential candidate was advocating unilateral U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam. This U.S. delegate recapitulated the positions of the two Democratic candidates for the Presidency who are opposed to President Johnson's Vietnam policy and showed that the positions of Senators Kennedy and McCarthy did not involve a unilateral withdrawal but only a reduction in the conflict and a call for greater activity by the South Vietnamese farces. It was pointed out that the major thrust of the Administration's policy in Vietnam was also a reduction in the conflict and a phasing out of the war. So far Hanoi has not responded to this desire.
One U.S. delegate clarified the cause of the frustration of the American people and pointed out that millions of people were involved both' with the soldiers in. Vietnam and the potential draftees but in spite of these frustrations, it seemed clear to the members of the U.S. delegation that there has to be a meaningful response from North Vietnam
before the bombing could simply be stopped. The U.S., it was pointed out, cannot take the initiative if the other side does not respond. The suggestion that Canada could act as an intermediary if through her contacts she was able to bring about discussions with the North Vietnamese was again reiterated. One member of the U.S. delegation also informed the Committee of the plan suggested by a number of Members of the U.S. Congress for a phased de-escalation of the bombing provided there were verifiable reciprocal responses on the part of the North Vietnamese.
In conclusion, it was recognized that there were no easy, ready solutions to be offered, that it would be necessary to explore every avenue of a possible termination to the conflict and that there was recognition of the desirability, as suggested by one member of the Canadian delegation, of reaching and communicating directly with the Communist Chinese government in Peking.
There was a consensus in. the Committee on the part of the U.S. delegation that the U.S. has certainly the will to end the war in Vietnam. So far we have not summoned a way.
The majority of the Canadian delegates indicated great sympathy with the difficulties of the U.S. in Vietnam and indicated that if Canada could be helpful in any way it would be glad to do so.
Visit to the United States Senate
The following is an excerpt from the Congressional Record of the Senate of the United States of America, March 21, 1968.

Mr. Aiken:: Mr. President, today the Senate is signally. favored with a visit from our neighbours to the north-the best neighbours any country could possibly have.
Certainly our long record of an unfortified frontier, our cooperation with Canada in rendering assistance to less fortunate peoples, and the freedom with which we travel each other's country, should be an example in democracy which all nations could well observe and emulate.
While I am not going to call upon each one of them to make a speech to the U.S. Senate, I am going to read the names of our distinguished guests from the Canadian Parliament
March 25, 1969

so that they will appear in our Congressional Record.
Before escorting them into the Chamber, 1 assured them that they would be able to see at least three or four Senators. I am very proud to say that they have seen 81 out of 100, which is something of a record and most appropriate to tie in with their visit.
(Here Senator Aiken read into the Record
the names of the Canadian delegation.)
Senators will note that I have read the names of several Canadian political parties. They have more than we do. They also have more candidates for Prime Minister of Canada than we have for President of the United States. I believe they have 14 candidates for Prime Minister, and we have four or five candidates for President. So they are ahead of us there.
Mr. President, we are very proud to have our Canadian friends visit us here today. They are attending the 11th meeting of the Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group. We are discussing problems which, in most cases, turn out to be of mutual concern. Our visitors will be in Washington today and tomorrow, and I hope that every Senator will have the opportunity to meet them.


Mr.   Mansfield@: Mr. President, will the Senator yield?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I yield to the Senator from Montana.


Mr.   Mansfield@: Mr. President, on behalf of the distinguished minority leader, the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Dirksen), and myself, I wish to say, on behalf of the Senate, that we join in the welcome which the distinguished senior Senator from Vermont has just extended to our Canadian colleagues of the House of Commons and the Senate. It is good to have such neighbors among us. We learn more from them, I am sure, than they learn from us. We always find their advice and counsel is valuable. We know that we can expect that in a hard and fast manner and on a bedrock basis. We feel we are the recipients of a basically sound and enduring friendship.
So, Mr. President, on behalf of the senior Senator from Vermont, the distinguished minority leader, myself, and all the Senate, and as a mark of respect and affection on the part of our colleagues, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess for 5 minutes for the purpose of having Members of the Senate greet our Canadian colleagues. (Applause, Senators rising.)
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
Thereupon, at (2 o'clock and 31 minutes p.m.) the Senate took a recess.
Ladies Program
While their husbands participated in the meetings, the wives of the Canadian delegates were escorted on a sight-seeing tour by their American counterparts. After a tour of the Capitol, the ladies visited Mount Vernon before lunch at the Old Club Restaurant. During the afternoon they visited Old Alexandria, including such interesting spots as the Old Apothecary Shop, Ramsay House, Gadsby's Tavern and Christ Church.
On Friday morning the ladies toured the White House and visited Arlington National Cemetery and the Grave of President Kennedy before joining their husbands at Andrews Air Force Base for the flight to New Orleans.
Social Program
The Canadian Delegation were met by their United States colleagues and the Canadian Ambassador at Andrews Air Force Base on arrival in Washington. In the evening a reception was given by the Canadian Ambassador and Mrs. A. E. Ritchie, after which American delegates hosted small dinner parties for their Canadian colleagues at some of the choice eating places in Washington.
On Thursday a luncheon was given at the Capitol by the United States Co-Chairmen, Senator Aiken and Congressman Gallagher. That evening a reception and dinner was given by the United States Delegation at the museum of History and Technology of the Smithsonian Institution. AH those present were able to tour the Museum and take advantage of the opportunity to see these renowned exhibits and collections of Americana.
On Friday afternoon both delegations departed for New Orleans. That evening the delegations were guests at a reception given by the Canadian Consul General in New Orleans and his wife, Dr. and Mrs. R. G. MacNeill. After this reception the delegations split into two groups for dinner at two of New Orleans' most famed restaurants

Antoine's and Arnaud's.
The following day the delegations were conducted on an interesting and informative guided tour of the Michoud Facility of the

March 25, 1969
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. That evening the United States Delegation hosted a dinner at the Plimsoll Club in the International Trade Mart.
On Sunday a tour was provided of the many historic and interesting places in New Orleans and vicinity. In the late afternoon both delegations returned to Washington where the Canadian Delegation boarded a
Canadian Forces Yukon for the return flight to Ottawa.
Alan A. Macnaughton, P.C., Q.C.,
Senate.
Marcel Lambert, P.C., M.P.,
House of Commons.
Ottawa,
September 16, 1968.

Wednesday, March 26, 1969