1972-05-05

PRIVILEGE


Hon. lames Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a matter of personal privilege. Yesterday when I was not in the House-


Mr. Diefenbaker:: When you were behind the curtain.


James Armstrong Richardson: -the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), as reported in Hansard on page 1891, said that a statement I made was false. Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to confirm to the House that both of the answers I gave on Wednesday were accurate in every respect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Armstrong Richardson: The use of the maple leaf symbol on our cheque forms was, of course, a decision of the government of Canada. A secondary objective was to achieve greater security and in that respect, as I clearly stated, my department was advised by the RCMP.
I do not wish to take the time of the House, Mr. Speaker, to restate exactly what I said on Wednesday but I would, Sir, be proud to do so in exactly the same words which I used. If the statements I made were not true I would not have made them in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I point to page 1860 of Hansard where the statement made by the hon. gentleman to which I alluded is found. It is very clear. I read from page 1860:
In the explanation that was sent out along with some of the pay cheques it was stated that these changes were introduced to make fraudulent misuse of government cheques increasingly difficult. Did the disappearance of the coat of arms comply with the reasons for the removal thereof? A little later on it is stated that the new design was prompted by a continuing concern for improved security. I ask the minister, has the removal of the coat of arms in any way added to the security of the cheques?
Your Honour said:
Order please. That obviously is debate. If the minister can reply briefly he will be allowed to do so, but I do not think we should become involved in a debate on this matter.
Then the minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, security was a second objective of the change in the cheques, and it was done on the recommendation of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Then I said:
The mounted police made that recommendation? Is that as true as the statement made by the Prime Minister concerning the RCMP when he had to make a retreat?


Mr. Trudeau:: That is nothing but a red herring.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister interrupts and applauds that smart statement on the part of the minister. He applauded it.


Mr. Hees:: He certainly did.


John George Diefenbaker: He applauded it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister has risen on a question of privilege and according to tradition the right hon. gentleman is allowed to comment on the question of privilege raised by the Minister of Supply and Services. We should not, however, become involved in debate on the matter.


John George Diefenbaker: I mentioned a moment ago that the Prime Minister went into ecstasies that the answer was so smart and put the responsibility on the shoulders of the RCMP. Every newspaper in Canada that I have read pointed out that this is what the minister said and meant. There is no question about it. Having made that statement, the minister suddenly decided he had got himself into difficulties. He rushed out to the television cameras to explain the unexplainable and pretended he had not said it.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt that much can be gained by continuing this matter. I do not want to prevent the minister from commenting further-would the minister kindly resume his seat. I suggest we could become involved in a long debate in trying to determine exactly what the minister said and how that statement might be interpreted. I doubt very much that anything can be gained by pursuing the matter further by way of question of privilege. We have obviously entered upon a debate which could be prolonged, and I do not think that would be of much assistance in the conduct of the affairs of the House.


James Armstrong Richardson: I agree with you, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot go further with the debate. I simply ask you, Sir, to rule on the one matter that is before the House this morning, the question of privilege concerning the statement

May 5, 1972
Local Initiatives Program
made by the right hon. member that a statement I had made in the House was false. The record clearly shows that it was not false.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I respectfully suggest to the minister that this can hardly be a question of privilege. The matter of what has been said or the interpretation of statements made by members in the House cannot be raised by way of a question of privilege. We regularly, from day to day in debate, hear hon. members claiming that statements made by other hon. members are incorrect. How far we can go in saying that such statements are incorrect is difficult to determine. But no hon. member can accuse another hon. member of uttering a deliberate falsehood. I did not understand that the right hon. gentleman had made such a statement. He said that the statement made was false. The minister has given his explanation and I would have to rule that the matter at that point becomes debate. I suggest that I ought not to be called upon to make a ruling on the question of privilege. If I were called on, I would have to say that, according to well established practice, this is debate and the matter is not a question of privilege.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Charles Turner (London East, for Mr. Lessard, LaSalle) moved: that the second report of the Standing
Committee on Transport and Communications, presented to the House on Wednesday, May 3, 1972, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have a very short statement to read concerning the Local Initiatives Program, a program which has clearly demonstrated its effectiveness in reaching pockets of unemployment in geographic areas and among groups of the population not touched by more traditional programs. In addition, because of the community initiative and government response implicit in the concept of the Local Initiatives Program, many of the projects have not only created jobs but provided important and beneficial services to the community as a whole. It is anticipated, therefore, that it would be beneficial to extend certain projects beyond May 31, based on criteria that emphasize these beneficial services to the community rather than solely their effect on unemployment.

I am, therefore, pleased to announce that the government has decided to make available an additional $30 million for this program.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: This will allow for the extension to September 30 of those successful projects which have not only proved themselves worth while in terms of job creation but have provided a needed local service or contributed significantly to the quality of life in the community. The most worth-while and effective projects will be selected during the next few days and project co-ordinators will be advised.
While by definition all projects approved were good and worth while, some 1,200 have demonstrated that they have made a particular contribution and it is these that will be selected on the basis of visits by the program monitors.
The criteria which the department will be applying in selecting or rejecting projects are basically these: First, projects providing an essential community service which would disappear if the project terminated, such as daycare centres, help to senior citizens and the like. Second, projects reaching unemployed in particularly difficult geographical areas and which have demonstrated an ability to help return to the active labour force those who have not been able to find work for a long time, including older workers and members of native populations. Third, projects which have a reasonable expectation that they may achieve an alternative source of funds in the near future or because they have developed some revenue producing ability.
Likely to be excluded are those that have completed the purpose for which they were established or those that were fully seasonal in nature, as well as most construction projects.
Excluded from this group will be those projects to which I referred in the House on May 1. They are mainly projects of a construction nature which were provided with an extension of time until June 16 to ensure their completion.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, for a good number of Canadians, at least the people involved in 1,200 projects, Santa Claus is going to come twice this year. In that regard and on behalf of our party I have to say that we are quite happy for those people who will be reselected for a continuation of the LIP program. The minister stated on page 2: "While by definition all projects approved were good and worth while, some 1,200 have demonstrated that they have made a particular contribution." I am sure he does not mean to indicate that the remaining projects have not demonstrated a particular contribution. In terms of the people who will receive a second incentive from the government in the way of a renewed LIP grant, we welcome the statement. Nevertheless, we have to make certain observations.
The minister indicated in his statement that the project co-ordinators will be selecting the various projects. He also indicated that a good number will be rejected and a very small number will be accepted for further grants. Last October, seven months ago, the government decided out of panic as a result of the release of the unemploy-
May 5, 1972

ment statistics that some program had to be introduced. They were finally convinced we were going to be in for a serious winter unemployment problem. All the directors of the various departments were issued orders by the government to dust out their drawers, bring their programs forward and the government would throw in some money. What they threw together was the LIP program.
Of all the people who applied, and mainly from the communities which were the most structured in terms of formal organizations, a very small number were selected for approval. They were selected by the government's appointees. Today the minister is admitting that these same project co-ordinators have set themselves up as some great omnipotent body and they have decided that of the projects which were selected a few have made a particular contribution and they will be refunded. What has happened to all the projects which were rejected between October and the deadline for accepting projects in January? All those Canadians, thousands of them, community leaders, church leaders, Lions clubs, community councils, municipalities, who submitted projects have automatically been eliminated from any further consideration by the government. This is unfair. Certainly the projects which were submitted in October, November, December and January and were rejected should be given some consideration. Those people were encouraged and activated. Their informal leaders were given some hope. The government rejected them in January and they have rejected them automatically again. This is a very serious matter. I say there are thousands of Canadians across this country today who are frustrated by the haphazard way in which the government has gone about project selection, and again we are seeing a continuance of it.
The government today is admitting once again that it has been able to make a significant impression on unemployment. They applied a band-aid in October with their Local Initiatives Program. We welcomed that because we realized there was a need for some sort of short-term program. Today we are getting another band-aid applied to the band-aid they applied in October. This is exactly what it is. There is no indication of any long-term program which can be built on and which will result in the recurrence of employment opportunities in another year. The government has a responsibility to the Canadian people to come through with much more than this type of short-term, ad hoc program. Certainly, on the eve of Monday, May 8, we are looking forward to the unveiling of a much more comprehensive government program which will take care of unemployment in a significant way. This action is not going to resolve the problem. It will result in a tremendous amount of bad feeling among Canadians across this country who have been automatically eliminated from the program as a result of the restrictiveness announced by the minister today.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, it is obviously impossible not to welcome even the little that the minister has announced. But I wish to say to the hon. gentleman and to the government that it is difficult to think of anything less that could have been done.
Local Initiatives Program
I understand that there are about 3,800 private programs approved under LIP and about 1,800 municipal programs, making a total of 5,600. Apparently the government has already decided that only about 1,200 of them are to be extended to September 30.
The original Local Initiatives Program as an answer to the unemployment problem was obviously ridiculous, obviously nothing. The present answer to the unemployment problem this summer is even less than that: 1,200 projects will probably provide less than 10,000 jobs at a time when there are well over 600,000 unemployed and the University of Toronto Institute, to which I referred yesterday, has forecast unemployment rates of over 6 per cent, seasonally adjusted, throughout this year and 1972. Therefore I want to make it very clear that while my colleagues and I are glad that at least 10,000 more Canadians will be able to have three or four months' work with pay, we cannot help but condemn the government for its lack of imagination in dealing with a problem so pervasive throughout the country.
If the Local Initiatives Program was of hardly any help at all in solving unemployment, it was imaginative and it still is imaginative to the extent that it has enabled local people to decide on their own programs and to participate in a meaningful way in doing something for the community in which they live. But many communities have been left out. Many applications have been refused. Many municipalities have not had what they believe they should have had; many of the provinces have not had what they believe they should have had.
Instead of extending the entire program for a few months to give the government time to think of a permanent program of this kind to involve young people and others in an ongoing way in providing not only work for themselves but service to the communities in which they live, the government has come down with what is typical of this government-and I say this with regret-something more about which they can boast on the election hustings either this summer or whenever the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) decides to call an election. Therefore I suggest to the minister that this is totally unacceptable as a solution, even in the narrow range of LIP. There are about 4,000 or more projects now under way that will have to be dumped on May 31. The criteria proposed by the minister in his statement are, to me, almost incomprehensible. I do not know what he is talking about in any one of the three criteria. I do not know what they mean in the language he has used, and to the extent that they have meaning it seems to me that they are the wrong criteria on which to base the program.
The people involved in LIP have co-ordinated themselves into a committee and there was a meeting in Toronto last night. Some of these people visited Ottawa today and met with members of parliament. They have pleaded that their programs be extended and that the program be made a permanent part of government action involving local people. I think it is shameful that the minister has not been able to announce more than this minuscule of a program.

May 5, 1972
Local Initiatives Program


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to learn this morning of the decision taken regarding local initiative programs.
It will be remembered that I rose many a time in the House to urge that as many projects as possible be accepted, and also to ask the President of the Treasury Board and the Prime Minister to grant extra amounts to the minister in charge of the local initiatives program. We were repeatedly told that we should not entertain too much hope in this regard. This morning, I see that we are in May, that all nature is abloom again and that even in this field we have the pleasure of hearing that it has at last been decided to do something.
I should just like to say that this program, in my opinion, has increased the purchasing power of Canadians while achieving-as I hope-in most cases implementation of work Canadians had long hoped for but were unable to carry out for lack of the necessary funds.
I would however urge the hon. minister, if his health is now restored, as I hope, to follow more closely the decisions made and the future selection of programs already submitted but not approved, giving special consideration to projects submitted by highly responsible agencies concerned with bringing about improvement of public services in their community, such as community halls and public works to assist villages and municipalities in effectively controlling pollution.
I remember one specific project, submitted by a slaughtering co-operative, whose sewers flow into a river, thereby contributing to the pollution of the water. This project was especially intended for works likely to stop the direct flow of sewage into the river. The St-Anselme municipal authorities were strongly in favour of this project, if I may be permitted to give you the name of the interested people.
I hope that, following the experience of the recent months and in view of the popular response, the minister will be in a better position to give this program an appropriate direction. I also hope that it will be continued so that these organizations will now be able to provide those long awaited services for the people.
On concluding my remarks, I would like to say that I am in favour of this decision and that I am quite satisfied about it. I shall be more so when the projects are finalized and if they are the answer to the hopes and wishes I have just mentioned. I shall then express my satisfaction. Such is my way of co-operating when good decisions are being taken and when the country is administered and afforded possibilities which are expected by all.



TRANSPORT


Mr. lohn L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I have a matter of extreme urgency which concerns thousands of railway and other employees in Canada. I therefore move, under Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding):
That in the opinion of this House, the government should give immediate consideration to the introduction of necessary amendments to the Railway Act or other acts so that the Canadian Transport Commission can make decisions based on public interest or on any other adequate reason, specifically to prevent the movement of coal from the east Kootenays to the Pacific coast via United States rail routes which will result in major economic loss to Canada, involving the loss of thousands of Canadian jobs.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-RESIGNATION OF CERTAIN OFFICIALS-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek leave of the House to move a motion concerning a matter which is obviously urgent and of national interest.
This urgent and pressing matter arises from the resignations of more than eight directors of the Opportunities for Youth program, which is so much more serious since they all resigned as one man.
What makes it even more urgent is that they all acted in reaction to one thing, namely, political interference.
In the interest of the public which has a right to know through its elected representatives how are spent-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is aware, I am sure, of the provisions of the Standing Orders. He cannot present any argument in support of his motion. In fact, following a very brief explanation, he must merely state the motion that he wants put to the House, after which the Chair will determine whether or not there is unanimous consent.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I was coming to that.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That the House ask the Secretary of State to report on the reasons which motivated the resignation of those federal
May 5, 1972

employees and on the veracity of the charges made by them with regard to political interference in the approval of those projects.


Mr. Speaker:: Under Standing Order 43, that motion requires unanimous consent of the House. Is the House unanimous?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is not unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT. 1949 AMENDMENT OF TERM 17 OF TERMS OF UNION OF NEWFOUNDLAND WITH CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government Notices of Motions:
May 3,1972-The Minister of Transport:
That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty the Queen in the following words:
To the Queen's most Excellent Majesty:
Most Gracious Sovereign:
We Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, humbly approach Your Majesty praying that You may graciously be pleased to cause a measure to be laid before the Parliament of the United Kingdom to be expressed as follows:
An Act to amend the British North America Act, 1949
Whereas Canada has requested, and consented to, the enactment of the following provisions, and the Senate and House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled have submitted an Address to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty may graciously be pleased to cause a measure to be laid before the Parliament of the United Kingdom for that purpose:
Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada amended
1. Term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada set out in the Schedule to the British North America Act, 1949 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"17. (1) In lieu of section ninety-three of the British North America Act, 1867, the following Term shall apply in respect of the Province of Newfoundland:
In and for the Province of Newfoundland the Legislature shall have exclusive authority to make laws in relation to education, but the Legislature will not have authority to make laws prejudicially affecting any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools, common (amalgamated) schools, or denominational colleges, that any class or classes of persons had by law in Newfoundland at the date of Union, or any like right or privilege with respect to such schools or colleges that any other class or classes of persons have had by law in Newfoundland after the date of Union as members of a religious denomination or one of a group of religious denominations that, by or under the Schools Act of Newfoundland, is or at any time has been recognized as being organized for educational purposes, and out of public funds of the
British North America Act Province of Newfoundland provided for education,
(a)	all such schools shall receive their share of such funds in accordance with scales determined on a non-discriminatory basis from time to time by the Legislature for all schools then being conducted under authority of the Legislature; and
(b) all such colleges shall receive their share of any grant from time to time voted for all colleges then being conducted under authority of the Legislature, such grant being distributed on a non-discriminatory basis.
(2) In this Term, "Schools Act of Newfoundland" means The Schools Act, 1969, being the Act No. 68 of 1969 (Statutes of Newfoundland), as amended from time to time, or any Act substituted therefor as amended from time to time." Coming into 2. For greater certainty, the provisions of Term force of 50 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with amendment Canada set out in the Schedule to the British North America Act, 1949, in so far as those provisions relate to the approval and coming into force of the said Terms, do not apply to or in respect of the amendment set out in section 1 of this Act.
Short title 3. This Act may be cited as the British North and citation America Act. 1972; and the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965. and this Act may be cited together as the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1972.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Section 2 of Standing Order 21 this notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the House.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the announced resignation of Dr. William Craig, head of the federal directorate on the nonmedical use of drugs, can he indicate whether the government intends to continue to support this program and whether the government is reconsidering the allocation of sufficient funds to carry out this necessary work?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The answer to the first question, is yes, Mr. Speaker. On the matter of funds, I have not discussed this with the Minister of National Health and Welfare in recent days and I would have to refer to him for an answer.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister indicate whether we can expect a statement on motions either from the Prime Minister or the Minister of National Health and Welfare clarifying the whole situation, and in particular the future of any programs designed to combat drug abuse?

May 5, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the minister will always be pleased to answer questions addressed to him on subjects within the jurisdiction of his department. I know he was prepared to do so yesterday but I believe he did not have any questions on this subject. I am sure he is prepared to do so in any event.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is reported in one of the morning newspapers to have stated to some journalists that there were other measures to deal with foreign ownership and foreign investment which the government would eventually bring in. May I ask him what measures he had in mind?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the question might be asked directly. The hon. member knows the rule about referring to statements made by a minister outside the House. Having said that, we can assume that the question has been asked directly.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I was asking the minister whether he would tell the House what other measures in respect of foreign ownership and foreign investment the government is contemplating, if it is contemplating any, and when we may expect such measures to be announced?
Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, I was not really adding anything to what was said by the Minister of National Revenue when he made his announcement. Yesterday, for example, when the Leader of the Opposition asked me whether we were contemplating moves having to do with participation in Canadian industry I said there was, among the five factors to be used in deciding on takeovers under the bill which has been introduced, one called "participation". When a takeover is being studied by my department the degree of participation by Canadians in that particular instance would be a consideration taken into account in determining whether the takeover was an allowable one or not.


David Lewis: From that I gather the minister was not saying anything to the press.



UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON MEETING OF MINISTER AND HEADS OF AUTOMOBILE COMPANIES

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whether he has met with the heads of the automobile firms regarding DISC and the problems deriving from it, which heads of which firms he has met and when we may expect a statement from him on that subject?


Hon. Iean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I did meet with all four of the main automobile manufacturers in Canada and the information that was gathered is presently being assembled and will be the main part of my contribution to the budget debate.


George Harris Hees: There is a real clear-cut answer!


David Lewis: I hope the information now being examined is more reliable than the information the minister had earlier.



MONITORING UNIT TO EXERCISE SURVEILLANCE OVER FOREIGN TAKEOVERS UNTIL BILL BECOMES LAW

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister this question: Would he inform the House whether he has set up or is contemplating setting up a monitoring unit of some sort to have some surveillance over foreign takeovers that might take place during the interim period until the bill which was introduced yesterday becomes law?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister said the other day, the law will not be retroactive, but I expect that people who intend to proceed to important takeovers in the meantime or in the interim period will keep me informed.


David Lewis: I have a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether he has given thought concerning how he will act and what will happen in the case of takeover negotiations that have been completed when the law comes into force but completion has not yet been formalized? Will the law apply to such situations, or what exactly will he do with that kind of situation?


Mr. Speaker:: I would think the hon. member is asking for a legal interpretation. At least, that is my interpretation of the hon. member's question. The hon. member for Halifax-Dartmouth East on a supplementary.



FOREIGN OWNERSHIP-SUGGESTED DEFERMENT OF TRANSFER OF CANADIAN SHIPS TO FOREIGN REGISTRY UNTIL REVIEW POSSIBLE WHEN BILL BECOMES LAW

Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I wonder whether in one very specific area, particularly in light of the concern expressed by Leonard McLaughlin, President of the Seafarers International Union in a telegram to the minister, he would give some consideration to deferring the transfer of Canadian ships to foreign registry until such time as there is a process or procedure within his new legislation for reviewing the laws in respect of Canada's flagships, particularly in the tugboat industry on the east coast. Will he give some consideration to that?
May 5, 1972


Jean-Luc Pepin: If I understand the question well, the idea would be to start implementing the future bill in anticipation of what it would include and that is not our intention.



UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM-PROVISION OF INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY HEADS OF AUTOMOBILE COMPANIES

Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact there will be no possibility of the minister making any statement in the budget debate until Thursday or Friday of next week, how can he possibly justify keeping from the House and country important information about the extent to which automobile companies in the United States are using DISC?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Leader of the Opposition will agree with me, I am sure, that this is argument, not a question.



DIFFERENTIAL IN CAR PRICES IN FAVOUR OF UNITED


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whether he discussed with the heads of the automobile companies, when he met them the fact that Canadian automobiles produced in Canada are now being sold for substantially less in the United States than in Canada and what they propose to do about it?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to be difficult. It is just that it is a very complicated matter. On the subject of the use of DISC, for example, the four companies are in a different situation-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I suggest it would be appropriate for the minister to make a statement on motions on this subject with full disclosure.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we might return to this subject in a moment. Obviously there are a number of supplemen-taries. I will recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North for a further supplementary, then the hon. member for Lotbiniere and then return to supplementaries on this subject.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, it might be helpful-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I have no further supplementary. I would like the minister to answer the question I asked.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Jean-Luc Pepin: The question asked concerns the differential between the price of automobiles in Canada and the United States at the present time and how one accounts for that. This is exactly what I intend to present to the House next week. I will be indicating what the difference is, what the justifications are, and will be expressing a view on how justified the justification is.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Obviously a number of supplementaries are sought. I think they should be allowed in a short while, but in fairness the Chair will go to a representative of the party to my extreme left.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR INQUIRY INTO RESIGNATION OF CERTAIN OFFICIALS- VERIFICATION OF LIST OF PROJECTS

André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the resignation of eight officials of the Opportunities for Youth program and their allegations of political interference, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Is it the intention of the Prime Minister to check this information for correctness so as to reassure parliament and the people as to the integrity of this program?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think I can reassure the people, Mr. Speaker. If there was any political interference, I think that the programs would not be spread as they are over all parts of the country.
As to the minister's attitude, I can also answer for it. It consists precisely in preventing any political interference from people who intended to use this program as a vehicle for their own ideologies.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
The Prime Minister's comments are quite reassuring. Nevertheless, could he tell us whether it is true that four lists of projects were submitted, that is one to the Quebec premier, another to the members, another to the Prime Minister's office and one to the RCMP before those projects were approved? Is it true?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the minister has always recognized that all the parties concerned were consulted. I suppose that it could mean the Quebec government and in some security matters the RCMP. But I do not agree that there were lists as suggested by the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will now recognize members with supplementaries on the previous subject. I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North has a further supplementary.
1936

May 5, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry THE CANADIAN ECONOMY



DIFFERENTIAL IN CAR PRICES IN FAVOUR OF UNITED STATES PURCHASERS

David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce this question. When he makes that famous speech during the budget debate, will he indicate to the House why the assurance given for many years by the President of the Treasury Board that the difference in prices between Canadian and United States autos would disappear in time has not been realized?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Lachine on a supplementary.



UNEMPLOYMENT-ALLEGED ATTITUDE OF GOVERNMENT IN PAST AS CAUSE

Mr. Raymond Rock (Lachine):: Mr. Speaker, this is a supplementary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of his statement which appeared in today's Gazette entitled "Ownership Bill to Get Tougher as Times Better"-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member ask the question directly. It is preferable to do it in this way rather than use an article or statement made outside the House.


Raymond Rock: I have to quote his words before asking the question, if I may be permitted to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: That is irregular, but other questions have also been irregular on occasion.


Raymond Rock: In view of his statement in the Gazette, is the minister admitting that the government's past anti-attitude toward foreign investment caused much of the unemployment today?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I do not really think this is an actual quotation. It is a fabricated quote from things I said.


George Harris Hees: Misquoted again!


Jean-Luc Pepin: My position on this from the beginning has been very clear. The governments decision was a wise and prudent one. I have emphasized that. I have also emphasized that we were exercising the normal qualities of politicians when we made that decision. We were conscious of the views of the provinces. We were aware of the views of industry in Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker is on his feet.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have to try to make some progress. The Chair will recognize one or two further supplementaries on this subject and return to the

matter later if there is time. Obviously we should not get involved in debate. If there is more and more debate there will be less and less questioning and answering. The hon. member for Lachine.


Raymond Rock: Was the governments anti-foreign attitude part of the plan to fight inflation by causing unemployment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That of course is debate.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce which he may be able to cover in his five-hour speech next week. In view of the fact the federal government has announced another $8 million grant to the Michelin Tire Corporation, is the minister in a position to inform the House whether or not the date has been set for the three-year period in which that corporation is to have duty-free access to the tire market in Canada?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance I would not like to invade his area of jurisdiction. He will answer the question on the next occasion.


John Edward Broadbent: In view of the fact that the tire industry elsewhere in Canada outside the province of Nova Scotia is at present operating below capacity, have the minister and his officials considered the impact on unemployment elsewhere in Canada caused by making this grant?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I well understand what the hon. member is talking about. There are in this area developments that are shaping up, which everybody hopes will come to a conclusion that will be meaningful to the Canadian economy.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may ask one last supplementary on this subject and then we will go to another subject.


John Edward Broadbent: Is the minister aware of the fact that at least three presidents or vice-presidents of tire corporations in the province of Ontario have indicated complete disagreement with the statement he has just made?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. member for Prince Albert.
May 5, 1972



POSSIBLE DECLARATION OF TISDALE-ARMLEY REGION, SASKATCHEWAN, AS DISASTER AREA-PROVISION OF COMPENSATION FOR LOSSES

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. It is in connection with previous questions I have asked regarding the large region in the Tisdale-Armley area of Saskatchewan that has been inundated as a consequence of floods. Has the government of Saskatchewan declared the region in question to be a disaster area, and has it made any request yet to the government of Canada to make a contribution to meet the very heavy losses that are being suffered and will be suffered in harvesting in these areas?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think a request has been made to the federal government to participate in the assistance program although there was one carried out last winter of up to $2,000 per farmer or $20 per acre. In addition, I understand that the claims for crop insurance are now being processed and we have reason to believe that the indemnity in most cases will be paid in full.


John George Diefenbaker: In addition to crop insurance payments that will be made with respect to crops that were not harvested last fall or were not threshed, what about the tremendous losses these people have suffered in a 50,000-acre area for which there is no compensation under crop insurance? What is going to be done about them? Is the government of Canada going to give any assistance to these people, or can it do so before being requested by the government of Saskatchewan?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be a departure from the normal policy of waiting for the province to make a request if we were to attempt to set up a direct assistance program circumventing the provincial government. As I said the other day, there is a precedent in regard to losses other than crop losses. If the Saskatchewan government feels it is beyond its capacity to cope with the matter it can make an application to the federal government.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if the Saskatchewan government does what one expects it will, namely, make a request for assistance, and considering the investigation that has already been made by officials of the federal Department of Agriculture, will the government of Canada give consideration to making payments to these farmers who will not be covered by crop insurance and the like?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the federal government always gives consideration to requests that come from the provinces in this respect, but I can give no undertaking beyond that because we have not seen the nature of the damage or the kind of the program the province would wish to use.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we have reached the moment when the Chair should try to give effect to the undertaking it made yesterday to recognize some of the
25104-63*
Inquiries of the Ministry
backbenchers, some of the frontbenchers in the back rows. I will begin with the hon. member for Lisgar.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Finance is not in the House I will direct my question to the Minister of State. In view of the fact the government has announced that a specific group will be set up to evaluate agricultural taxation policy as it pertains to the new tax changes, will this body be receiving submissions from interested groups across Canada, and when and how will the taxation changes that come about be made public?


Hon. P. M. Mahoney (Minister of State):: Mr. Speaker, the particular group to which the hon. member is alluding is an interdepartmental committee consisting of officials from the Department of Agriculture, Department of Finance and Department of National Revenue. Persons wishing to communicate views or opinions to them may do so through myself, the Minister of Finance, or any of the other ministers concerned. As to the method by which the tax changes, if any, recommended by that committee come into effect, that of course is a matter for parliament to deal with at the time.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. It arises out of a question directed to him a few days ago when he was asked about the prices of fertilizer in Manitoba and Saskatchewan in relation to the prices in states south of the border and the possibility of a combine or cartel operating in this field. The minister replied that if there was something more than rumour he would look into it. I called his attention to some evidence. Is he giving it consideration, and is he prepared to look into the excessive prices charged for fertilizer in those two provinces?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member attempted to provide some evidence. However, it was not very useful because, so far as I can recall, it was simply some comments that had been made in a paper. If we could have some invoices and other things like that of a substantive nature it would be helpful.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, will the minister give an undertaking that if I do provide him with invoices he will conduct an investigation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's supplementary is obviously hypothetical.

May 5, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry



MANPOWER


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Since the American Congress is now considering Bill S-1488 which, if passed, will affect at least 8,500 southeastern Quebec workers, may I ask the minister whether he is aware of this bill and if officials from his department will be sent for an on-the-spot study on the impact of this bill on Canadian workers in southeastern Quebec?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I must be honest and say that I am not fully familiar with the bill which obviously originated in the other place, but I will look at it today and report back to the hon. member on Monday.


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


Mr. McKinley:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question-


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member for Huron. Perhaps we might return to him in a moment, but first the hon. member for Bellechasse has a supplementary.

The hon. member for Bellechasse on a supplementary.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
In view of the importance of the matter, may I ask the Minister of Labour, once he has made inquiries, to make a statement to the House so that interested parties may be told as soon as possible.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I shall take up that matter with the Minister of Labour.



AGRICULTURE


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. I understand that the Ontario Sugar Beet Marketing Board and representatives of farm organizations will be meeting with the Standing Committee on Agriculture next Tuesday. They did not

have a chance to see the minister the last time they were in Ottawa, so I wonder whether he would make himself available for that meeting to hear their representations or is he going to meet with them separately next week?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to meet with them as soon as possible. I cannot be at the committee meeting on Tuesday, but certainly I would hope to find a mutually convenient opportunity very soon.



VETERAN'S AFFAIRS


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. As we approach the commemoration of the battle of the Atlantic this coming weekend, would the minister give some consideration to accepting responsibility, as a gift on the part of the Canadian people, for the lighting of the national memorial in Point Pleasant Park, Halifax?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Veierans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we will give consideration to that proposal.


Mr. Bell:: Get a few more ships, too, for the navy.



MANPOWER


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration regarding his statement earlier today. Who will make the decisions as to which LIP projects will be extended, and can the minister assure the House that the local people involved will be consulted regarding the projects?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Let's not get into that.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the 5,000-odd programs that are already in existence, many of which will be phased out at the end of May, have been visited by representatives of the department and evaluated to the extent of 92 per cent. A committee, which is independent of the minister for obvious reasons, has evaluated the projects submitted from the very beginning and it is expected that this committee, based on its studies, will select the 1,200 particular projects. The concept is not the effect it will have on unemployment-that would be very simple as the criteria would be merely that the project should be labour-intensive-but rather the effect that the programs have on the quality of life in many parts of this country, particularly those projects, for instance, that render direct assistance to senior citizens-
May 5, 1972


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for St. John's East on a supplementary.



LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES ON EXTENSION

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. In view of the fact that a number of provinces have had to supplement LIP programs in order to ensure their completion or by providing additional services, may I ask the minister if there has been any consultation with the provinces on the existing program or on the program which he announced today?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, there has been no consultation with the provinces on the concept of providing additional funds. A week or so ago, I mentioned that I would be extending certain projects at the request of many of the provinces and many municipalities, projects that began late because of climatic or other reasons, until at least the middle of June. These programs to which I have referred are temporary in nature, and the provinces are aware of them. If there are any particular projects that the provinces would refuse permission to extend on constitutional grounds, then I would have to respect the views of the provinces.



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Having in mind the 29 to 31 per cent rate of unemployment in Cape Breton and the action of AECL in not advertising a position and hiring a man without experience from Scotland, will the minister take steps to correct the situation and assure the House that the government's first concern is for the Canadian unemployed?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I would have to make a further inquiry into this. I would have to acknowledge an hereditary bias toward hiring people from Scotland, but not over people from Nova Scotia.


Donald MacInnis: Question. When the minister makes the inquiry I can assure him that he will get the exact answer I have mentioned here. Will the minister assure the House that he will take steps to ensure that this position will be reopened and made available to the many Canadians who are qualified?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, not knowing the exact details and AECL of course being autonomous in terms of administration I would not like to upset that particular custom.
Inquiries of the Ministry TRANSPORT



PROPOSED LINKING OF KOOTENAY AND ELK RAILWAY TO U.S. LINE-REQUEST FOR ACTION TO PREVENT MOVEMENT OF COAL TO U.S. PORTS

John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the statement made in the judgment handed down by Mr. Justice Hall in the case of the Kootenay and Elk Railway Company and the Burlington-Northern versus the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to the effect that: the whole scheme would appear to be a classic case of a foreign conglomerate in concert with related Canadian companies so manipulating the enterprise that the export of Canadian jobs would be the result-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are running short of time and the hon. member will have noticed that a number of his colleagues to his right and in front are anxious to ask questions. The hon. member should not make a speech.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I had to preface my question so that you would understand what it was. May I ask the Minister of National Revenue if any action is being taken to review that decision in order to stop the movement of that coal and other resources to possible U.S. coast ports?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had a chance to review the court decision in question. I will be happy to do so and see if it raises any implications for matters under the jurisdiction of the Department of National Revenue.



PROPOSED LINKING OF KOOTENAY AND ELK RAILWAY TO U.S. LINE-SUGGESTED SURVEY TO DETERMINE LOSS TO ECONOMY IF CONSTRUCTED

['Mr. Speaker, the report for the moment is just that, a news report. We hope the optimistic tone of the report will be confirmed by events.']
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: I have a supplementary for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Mr. Speaker. In view of the serious threat to Canadian jobs and to the economy in general if the Kootenay and Elk Railway is built to syphon off a large portion of the coal for haulage by United States railways, will the minister have his department conduct an immediate survey to indicate the loss to the economy which would result if such a line were built?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will see what I can do.



Mr. Murray McBride (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is on a subject of vital international importance and I would direct it to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Author, author!

May 5, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Murray Arndell McBride: In view of news reports today that the U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. have reached agreement on strategic arms limitation after the prolonged SALT talks, will the minister be in a position to report any agreement reached in this House at an early date?


Mr. Paul St. Pierre (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the report for the moment is just that, a news report. We hope the optimistic tone of the report will be confirmed by events.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and repeats a question I put some time ago that was taken notice of by his parliamentary secretary. In light of current reports from the textile trade and needle industry that because of the increased demand for woollen fabrics the cost of this commodity will increase by 20 per cent this year, will the minister consider revising his policy and provide a wool subsidy to encourage the production of wool in Canada rather than having it imported to meet this increased demand?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, a wool deficiency payment, of course, does not make any contribution to that at all, but we are very concerned about the sheep producers in Canada setting up better marketing structures so they can benefit from a very substantial and satisfactory lamb market.



SUGGESTED RECALL OF TRADE COMMISSIONERS TO DISCUSS LOSS OF EXPORT MARKETS

Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the serious decline in Canadian exports, in March to Britain, Japan, West Germany, Norway, Italy, Venezuela, Belgium, Luxembourg-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member knows that this kind of question is irregular. Hon. members cannot ask questions which attempt to convey information to the House. The question should be asked without all these details.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I listed the countries to give an indication of the very basis of my question. In view of this decline in exports, has the minister given any thought to recalling our trade commissioners presently in those countries to Ottawa in order to discuss our sagging exports of newsprint, aluminium, copper and automobiles and hopefully find ways of correcting our lost trading position?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I will send the hon. member a copy of the speech I will make this weekend on the subject of exports. On the subject of recalling trade commissioners, may I remind my hon. friend that this was done a number of weeks ago. We brought them back from Europe and other parts of the world, and we will bring them back from the United States in September. So what he suggests has already been done.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: But will the government produce results?



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board who seems congenial today and quiet. It deals with an eligibility list that was set up in December, 1971, for forthcoming vacancies in the public service in Cape Breton. Since these eligibility lists are usually good for one year, as we all know, and since I have been informed that this list will be void after June 15, 1972, and positions will be filled from a previous list calling for bilingualism, would the minister be good enough to advise me what reply can be given to the many applicants who have already qualified in the last competition which required only unilingualism on the part of applicants?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the particular circumstances of this case. I will inquire and provide an answer to the hon. member.



GENTILLY AND DOUGLAS POINT POWER PLANTS-CLOSURE AS RESULT OF SHORTAGE OF HEAVY WATER-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO INCREASE SUPPLY

['Orders of the day.']
Mr. Rod Thomson (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of reports that the Gentilly and Douglas Point atomic energy plants will be closed down because of the shortage of heavy water, will the minister say how long these plants will be closed and what he is doing to acquire more adequate supplies of heavy water?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would confirm that this was announced some weeks ago. The Gentilly, Rolphton and also the Douglas Point plants will be successively closed down for the purpose of bringing into operation the third reactor at Pickering. I might say that it is now coming on stream and operating as well as the other two,
May 5, 1972

which are operating better than any nuclear reactor in operation anywhere in the world.
The answer with regard to heavy water supply is that Atomic Energy of Canada has been active in the purchase of supplies abroad. We have noted that capacity is going up in the Port Hawkesbury plant. We hope to get the Glace Bay plant into operation as soon as possible. We must recognize that there will be a hiatus for a year or more until we have full domestic production. We hope, however, to get the closed plants back into operation as soon as possible. In part, the close-down-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if the minister would like to revert to motions to complete the statement.



Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue with respect to the bill he introduced the other day. Has he had any formal statements from the respective premiers throughout the country as to their attitude toward it? If so, will he be making a statement in this regard?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, so far I am only aware of the comments they have made to the press. No formal, written statement has reached me. Perhaps some statements are on the way to the Prime Minister. Certainly we intend to seek the views of the provincial premiers in due course about the policy that we have announced.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am pleased to note, from the latter part of the minister's answer, that the government will be seeking the attitudes of the premiers in this regard. Can the minister advise us when these meetings will take place? Will he make an announcement in that regard to the House?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, dates have not yet been set for such meetings. I would be happy to convey this information to the House in some appropriate fashion once these dates have been worked out.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Does he expect to be in a position this month, or soon, to make a statement with regard to a government decision to increase veterans pensions and allowances in order to restore their purchasing power to former levels?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Woolliams:: Don't you know an election is coming up, Angus?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, we are hearing quite a number of representations from various veterans organizations. Historically, it has been our habit to review these matters and make adjustments every two years. This policy would ordinarily have the effect of an adjustment being made in 1973.


An hon. Member:: Is not 1972 a good year?


Arthur Laing: However, there are a number of pressing-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Considerations?


Arthur Laing: -matters that have been brought forward by a number of groups, and we have told them that we will discuss these with them. We are going to refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs so they can be heard.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question either to the President of the Treasury Board or to the Minister of Supply and Services. My question arises out of a contract that was signed in December, 1971, between Treasury Board and public servants in the translation group. Since the retroactive pay increases that were arrived at in that agreement were supposed to reach the employees within 90 days, and since many of them have not received these payments, and many of those received have been in error, what steps are to be taken to correct this situation?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of issues involved, I think. One is the policy with relation to payment within 90 days, and the other is the correction of errors. I should like any information the hon. member has about errors because I have not heard anything. In relation to payment within 90 days, may I say that now that we have been pressing for a rather more rapid conclusion of collective bargaining agreements following or, indeed, in some cases preceding termination of contracts, the problem of retroactive pay and consequent adjustments to be made within 90 days will, hopefully, become a lot easier to deal with.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Angus MacLean: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could ask the government House leader if he will make a statement, either now or before the House rises today, about the business for Monday afternoon, Tuesday and Wednesday of next week.

May 5, 1972
Adult Occupational Training Act Mr. MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will be in touch with the House leaders on the other side of the House later.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: that Bill C-195, to amend the Adult Occupational Training Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, may I say at the outset that Bill C-195 by no stretch of the imagination can be represented as a major overhaul of the legislation adopted in 1967 upon which the Department of Manpower is founded. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, it has become obvious from discussions with the provinces and other interested groups involved with the labour movement, with employers' groups, and so on, that certain sections of the original act are badly in need of amending. Therefore, the perennial problem that faced me as minister, when I assumed responsibility for this portfolio, was deciding whether I should completely revamp the existing legislation or, possibly with the co-operation of the House, bring in one or two amendments affecting certain sections of the act and therefore make the act much more meaningful.
Although I will limit my remarks as much as possible to the bill before us and not talk about the general subject matter of manpower, something I intend to do next week when the opportunity presents itself in the budget debate, may I at this time pay tribute to the former deputy minister, Mr. Couillard who has left the department he has been with since 1967, and who was responsible for building up and making effective the Department of Manpower.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, it is not too often that public servants are recognized for their contribution to Canadian society. Mr. Couillard was a better than average assistant deputy minister. The new deputy minister is a former commissioner-in-chief of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, thus establishing a link and coordination in anticipation of a tighter and closer relationship between the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the Department of Manpower in future years.
What Bill C-195 is intended to do, Mr. Speaker, is remove what has become known in Manpower circles as the three year rule. As members who were present in 1967 and participated in the debate of the day know, the three year rule had a very logical purpose. It was, of course, designed to direct priority attention in programs at the

disposal of the Department of Manpower to the older worker and for other logical reasons as well as age. Because of the fact that an older man or woman was limited to one skill that had become redundant, it was felt by incorporating the three year rule that priority in training would be given to a mature worker who may not have had an opportunity to receive an adequate education or proper training as a young man. It has, of course, achieved that objective.
The statistics which will be available at the committee stage will indicate that the priority of programs administered by the Department of Manpower, in co-operation with the provinces or by the provinces in co-operation with the Department of Manpower, whichever way you want to put it, have worked in this direction. A review of the unemployed, of which we are all very conscious, has indicated certain basic characteristics emerging. All too frequently, the unemployed in particular parts of this country are people without training and below average education. Unfortunately, younger people who have dropped out of school and have never had an opportunity of fulfilling that particular criteria have very great difficulty in proving that they have amassed the required three year attachment to the work force.
It is proposed in this amendment to the Adult Occupational Training Act that the three year rule be eliminated. We do not want to exclude, as the act now unintentionally does, younger workers and women who may wish to return to the work force, but who need upgrading, training and assistance, not only through courses, but in the form of financial aid while taking these courses. I know certain members opposite have a particular interest in this subject.
I want to bring to the attention of the House that in recent months, since I have become Minister of Manpower, although I have been limited in my activities, the provinces have been consulted to perhaps a greater degree than ever before. I happen to have a concept of what the Department of Manpower should be doing. I would like to get into this next week, as I mentioned. The provinces have been unanimous in their request that this particular feature of the existing act be dropped because of the unintentional discrimination it causes against the younger worker and women coming into the work force.
I hope for speedy passage of this bill, not only because of the discrimination it is causing at the moment and the frustration which it is causing many young people, but frankly because of the strong representations that have been made to the department by my provincial counterparts across Canada. There will and must be certain criteria as to age. We have suggested in the bill that, after the elimination of the three year concept, to become eligible the trainee must be at least one year older than the school leaving age within the province. That is for very obvious reasons. It is not only for maturity, but we do not want to unintentionally encourage young people from completing the basic education that is available in their particular province. As those who have read the bill know, it is proposed that the trainee must be one year older than the school leaving age in his or her province. He must also have been out of the regular school system for one year
May 5, 1972

before coming eligible for training. Again, this is for the same reason.
We certainly do not intend to reverse our priorities completely and forget about the older workers. Many still have the problem of the lack of basic education, or having reached the advanced age of 48, 49 or 50 finding that their skill, which in previous years permitted them to work in security until the age of retirement, has suddenly become obsolete or redundant and they find themselves a statistic among the unemployed. I think the change will do much to remove the unintentional discrimination that has been directed toward women in the work force. The three year work rule made it extremely difficult for the department to help upgrade a widow or a woman who, for one reason or another, must return to work to support her children, a chronically ill husband or someone else in her family by providing such simple courses as shorthand, typing, dictation and other work of this nature. It is this type of case of which members are aware, and on which they have made representations at one time or another.
We have suggested in the bill a little more flexibility in the training allowance that will be provided to certain categories of Canadians. We are now trying to bring into manpower training a single individual with absolutely nc financial responsibilities, usually a youngster who is living at home and has little or no financial obligation due to the fact he is living at home and has understanding parents. I approve of the suggestion of the department that we provide a little more flexibility, which in some cases will mean less in the way of a training allowance, so that we can provide more in the way of a training allowance to other cases, depending on the particular circumstances of the individual and his or her family.
There are other changes proposed in the bill, changes which are, I believe, in the final analysis, of equal importance. In time they may become more important. I draw the attention of hon. members to the impediment in the existing legislation which makes it impossible to provide on-the-job training as a permanent feature of the act. Hon. members know that during the winter months when we were faced with unusually high unemployment the provinces extended the fullest co-operation after a series of meetings held perhaps too late in the season. Anyway, they were held. Many rules, regulations and acts were bypassed or dispensed with by the provinces; things were permitted, because of the needs of the situation, which otherwise might not have been permitted.
One of the areas concerned was on-the-job training. The original sum of money provided for this program, $20 million, was immediately seized upon by employers. Many people were provided with work training on the job at a pace which is pleasantly surprising. Consequently, the sum of money available was increased to $50 million, all of which has been allocated. This does not necessarily mean that it will all be spent, but it is all intended to be spent. If there is any pick-up it will probably be because some employers are unable to live up to their commitments-they may have been over anxious, thinking in terms of hiring 10 or 12 people when their capacity for training can accommodate only six or seven. In general,
Adult Occupational Training Act though, it can be accepted by the House that all of the $50 million allocated to this program has been absorbed.
It has always been my intention and my belief, even when I was Minister of Labour and fairly close to the same people, that more emphasis must be placed in future on on-the-job training.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The question of what would be best for the working force of the country is a subject which has been debated in this House in a fairly non-partisan way on many occasions. It has been very upsetting to all of us, no matter where we sit, to find large blocks of workers being laid off as an almost daily occurrence, and their skills made obsolete because they have been replaced by machines. It is obvious that many of these people, with their basic skills and sense of responsibility, could be trained on the job to man the new machines which so often pose a problem for all concerned in this technological age when what were formerly labour-intensive industries are becoming capital intensive. The act did not permit the department to enter into proper on-the-job training programs; the amendments proposed would make this possible in the future. They will also make it possible for the department to enter into contracts with groups of employers.
I will cite one example of what I have in mind; it has particular application to the Halifax, Saint John, Montreal, Toronto and Hamilton areas. The waterfronts are becoming automated at an increasingly rapid pace with the advent of containerization. The employers in their wisdom, particularly in the three ports of Montreal, Trois Rivieres and Quebec, have, with the co-operation of the unions, initiated a program designed to convert the unskilled longshoreman to the type of individual who can master the automated equipment which is now being installed on the waterfront, such as special trucks, overhead cranes and the other complicated gear needed to handle containers. Longshoremen are acquiring new skills and this has been possible through an enlightened approach on the part of management and labour. This bill, if the amendments are agreed to, will permit the department to enter into contracts with groups of employers rather than with a single employer. The characteristic organization of the waterfront is such that employers are grouped together into associations and their employees are common to them in the same way as construction workers are common, in a pool, to the construction industry. The proposed change would go a long way to accelerating training in industry.
The other change, which is a minor one, is intended to simplify financial arrangements with the provinces. As most hon. members know, the Department of Manpower is a delicate department in the sense that it is sometimes difficult to define the borderline between its responsibilities and the jurisdiction of the provinces. It is a tribute to the officials, both at the federal level and in the provinces, that the department has been able to get along for five months with so little friction developing between the governments. It is obvious, though, that there must be moie consultation with the provinces and that increased priority must be given in future to the thrust the provinces
1944

May 5, 1972
Adult Occupational Training Act themselves are developing and to the purposes the provinces themselves have in mind. After all, Canada is a huge country and, to take one example, mobility within the Atlantic provinces is just as great a proposition as mobility within, say, Denmark or some of the smaller European countries which have adopted sophisticated manpower programs.
In conclusion, I wish to assure the House that I intend to make a much fuller statement on manpower next week when the opportunity is provided to me. I shall deal particularly with the realtionship between manpower, the Unemployment Insurance Commission and labour. As I say, I intend to speak at greater length next week on the new views I have formed as to the way manpower should be going in the next five years in the light of, I hope, an emerging industrial policy for this country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In what debate?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: In the budget debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are we going to hear from all of you?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: You are going to hear from this person. I do not take up too much time in the House, and I hope I may have an opportunity during the debate I mentioned. If not, the estimates are not completed and we can go into the estimates a little more intensively than I have. To set a good example, perhaps, I have stuck very closely to the bill before us. I recommend to the House the amendments contained therein. At the same time, I emphasize that this should not be misconstrued as a major overhaul of a piece of legislation which needs a thorough revision in the near future.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Would the minister reply to a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has, recognized the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate. If there is unanimous consent and the minister is prepared to receive a question, the hon. member may ask one. Is there such consent?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question. There has been some concern about the role of the farmer's wife, housewives on farms. Do they qualify for manpower training allowance under this act?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I will answer that in my usual direct fashion by saying that when we get to the committee stage the whole question of women in the work force will, I am sure, be thoroughly discussed. Certainly, I know the hon. lady in the hon. member's party will want to ask some basic questions about the definition of one year training and whether or not work done in the home by the farmer's wife, for example, could be defined accordingly by regulation. I shall be prepared to answer this in depth when we get to committee stage.


John Howard Lundrigan: I have one observation to make about the in-industry program concerning what I think will be the most serious response that the minister will receive from the provinces. Even though the minister might say that this is something of a motherhood bill and will receive, I anticipate, the approval of members of the House, it will generate a lot of response from the various provinces and there is one aspect that has to be considered when talking about inindustry training. Something that has bothered our party, and which ought to bother every member of the House, has been the continual emphasis in government programs during the last several years on the designation of special areas, from the regional economic expansion programs to this bill itself. The rural parts of the nation, the more unstructured parts as far as industry is concerned, have been unable to take advantage of government programs.
We had an example of this today in the minister's announcement of the extension of the local initiatives program. The Opportunities for Youth program is another example. These programs have a tendency to discriminate against those people far removed from the centre of industrial activity, those who are isolated in terms of rural communities, those who are-I hesitate to say out of touch, but those who are not as tuned in to government communications systems as others and therefore are not able to find a way of taking advantage of government programs.
One of the most serious gaps that I see in the in-industry training program is the lack of opportunity for those in the unstructured, unsophisticated communities of Canada to take advantage of the program. How can you expect those in the small towns of northern Ontario, where you have a high unemployment rate, to find their way into government on-the-job training programs? The same can be said of those in the Gaspe peninsula or along the north shore of Quebec, small towns where in the wintertime there are pockets of 50 per cent unemployment, or in Nova Scotia, a large part of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, the province I represent, the northern parts of the prairie provinces and many areas in inland British Columbia, areas where there is high unemployment. Areas of highest unemployment also have the least sophisticated business communities. Many businesses are very small operations employing half a dozen people. But that is the economic fibre of rural Canada.
Therefore, the minister must take great care to see that the benefits of this program do not flow only to those living in two or three regions of Canada which have very sophisticated and structured business operations. I think of Toronto and Montreal as examples. These areas have the capacity to take full advantage of the program, and so they should. Let them milk every nickel they can from the programs. But other communities in Canada, not just the rural communities comprising a handful of people, many middle sized towns and cities, will be unable to take advantage of the program.
The minister must ensure a fair amount of flexibility in deciding what constitutes on-the-job training. There must be detailed consultation with the provinces so that those provinces without the highly sophisticated business structures are nevertheless able to receive a per capita response under the program. I just draw that to the minis-
Adult Occupational Training Act ter's attention, reluctant as I am to agree to give him the power that he will have if the bill is approved to enter into an agreement with any group or employer. Rather than continue along these lines, I will use the next seven, eight or nine minutes to make three or four suggestions of a more general nature. Perhaps they can be incorporated into government programs of one sort or another.
The minister has already admitted that he regrets it has taken so long for the three year labour force requirement to be eliminated from this legislation. He has also admitted in committee that he agrees there is a limitation in manpower legislation which permits only 52 weeks of training under manpower training programs. I am aware of many examples of people reaching the end of their 52 week period, wanting another two, three or four weeks to complete their training programs, but their training period has been terminated. This has resulted in a panic situation. If my colleague the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) were here, he could give a graphic illustration of two cases of this kind which occurred in the past few years. Thanks to the co-operation of members of the department who are experts in this field, and perhaps I should not refer to the fact that I can see them before me, the problem has been resolved. I do not know whether other members have met with this same success in their areas.
These restrictions are incompatible with any educational foundation or manpower training scheme. There is no way you can expect to bring people into programs, expose them to 52 weeks of training and then bring down the guillotine. We must make sure this restriction is eliminated, and I appeal to the minister to have his officials begin immediately drafting legislation that will amend this stipulation or requirement. I have become aware of cases this year which are pitiful examples of how this regulation wreaks hardship on people. It is much like the previous three year requirement which resulted in people not being able to take basic training programs, even though the result of not doing so was being laid off from previous jobs.
I have not thought out my second recommendation clearly enough to make it specific, but there should be some group or body in the minister's department which has the power to hear appeals. Perhaps the minister will want to think about this, and I pass it along as a suggestion. I do not think specific regulations in respect of manpower training programs should be used as the final determination regarding a person receiving manpower training. In any field of education, manpower training or resource development, there must be a fair measure of flexibility. A Canadian constituent should have the right to challenge the decision of a manpower group or office as far as receiving training is concerned. He should have the right to challenge the decision in respect of allowances.
Today, the minister introduced a measure of flexibility when he said that people who live at home with their parents can, under this bill, receive a small allowance of $20 per week. I think I am right in saying that. Up to now, such a person could not receive an allowance. Such a person should not only receive an allowance but should be
1946

May 5, 1972
Adult Occupational Training Act in a position to appeal a decision of the department. In many cases where a young person lives at home, he may need more than a person living away because of the financial circumstances of that family. Somewhere along the line there must be a way of setting up an appeal procedure so that a person can suggest, on the basis of certain facts, that he should receive thus and so in order to assist him to get into a training program.
Another example is the case of an individual who might not be able to get into a training program because he has not got the basic requirements, not having reached a certain educational level. That person may have a tremendous potential as a mechanic, as some kind of operator or in a specific skill. He is a natural, the type of flower born to blush unseen, but may never have had the opportunity to get a basic education. He should have the right to point out to the department that he has this potential. I am sure the minister has seen many of these people who have a tremendous potential or inherent capability which has never been developed through schooling, on-the-job training or anything like that. This type of person should not be restricted through a narrow interpretation of any manpower training program regulation. He should be able to appeal any such decision.
My third point involves the need for the minister to take a very close look at the integration, or lack of it, of the type of training received through manpower programs and the economic need. We have completed a graphic comparison between various training programs and the number of people in them as they correlate with unemployment. The minister understands what I am saying. There is a plus or positive correlation between the number of people in training programs on the one hand, and the level of unemployment on the other. During the winter months when unemployment reaches about 600,000 people, we have about 70,000 to 85,000 people in training programs. Perhaps the number reaches 100,000 at times. During the summer period, when the level of unemployment is substantially reduced, and I am not talking about seasonally adjusted but actual numbers, the number in training programs might drop to 25,000 or 30,000.1 suggest there is a tendency for the government to offset the impact on employment statistics by engaging people in training programs. I do not think that is good enough. I have heard the minister say, and he has been quoted in this vein, that he does not believe a person should be put into a training program just to take him off the unemployment list.
I know of many people who have taken training programs year after year when there was no chance in the world that once they had completed the program they would find themselves in an occupation, trade or profession. This is a waste of money and a waste of time for the individual. I have heard people say, and this is a standing joke, that three years ago they took this program, last year they took a different program, they are taking a LIP program this summer and next winter they intend to take some kind of skill training program. This becomes a farce, and the people involved recognize it as such and laugh. They recognize it is a shifting of impact, and that it does not train the human resource muscle to fit our economy. The minister must look more closely at this aspect

and set up some kind of procedure to assist relevancy in respect of training programs and the needs of the country.
My final point, and I am glad to be able to make this before we adjourn because I know the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir) wants to elaborate on this, is that there is a significant number of Canadians who cannot take advantage of these programs or provincial educational programs because they have not reached the necessary level of education. They cannot get into universities, trade schools or upgrading schools, and they cannot take advantage of any type of training program because they have not reached a certain level of educational capability. This is usually the result of background circumstances and it bothers me to a great extent.
There are a great number of Canadians, mostly poor, many in rural areas, and particularly in Atlantic regions, who could become part of the labour force with proper training. There has to be some way to help these Canadians better themselves through training programs and I suggest they are not being reached today by our present manpower training programs.
I will conclude with that remark, as I know my colleague will want to elaborate on that point later on this afternoon.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I did not have the pleasure of knowing the former deputy minister of the Department of Manpower and Immigration, but I am familiar with the present deputy minister. He has had quite an introduction into the area of unemployment and manpower training through his close association with the Unemployment Insurance Commission, and thus has the necessary background that will assist him in breaking new ground in this department. Having experience with the type of situation which existed respecting the number of applications made to the Unemployment Insurance Commission will stand him in good stead in the work that he and his minister will be doing in introducing this new program.
Looking at this bill to amend the Adult Occupational Training Act we realize we could spend a lot of time on the various amendments that it proposes, and could go into the background of the problems that have arisen. We have seen some of them personally, and others have been brought to our attention. But this being a Friday, it is really not the day to do that. There is also the fact that some amendments proposed in the bill are ones with which we agree, particularly the one reducing the time period from three years to one year, which was recommended years ago by our party when the original statute was introduced.
Our main area of concern does not lie with how the amendments will be applied, but rather with the question
May 5, 1972

of whether too much is being left to be done by regulation. All of us appreciate the fact that manpower and unemployment are closely interrelated. I believe the minister himself will agree that there must be a close working relationship between the Unemployment Insurance Commission and those people who apply through the UIC for manpower training. This is necessary if we are to bring about any meaningful improvement to the over-all structure.
The responsibility for co-ordinating these two departments will probably rest with the present minister, who is answerable for the Unemployment Insurance Commission. This will give him an opportunity to consolidate unemployment insurance efforts with manpower upgrading. This was probably the reason behind the switch which was made not too long ago, in which the present Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Mackasey) retained responsibility for the Unemployment Insurance Commission. I am sure all of us appreciate the fact that when people do go to Unemployment Insurance Commission offices invariably they have to apply for manpower training. Invariably, they have to apply to obtain some information regarding the adult upgrading program. If they can do all this in one fell swoop, the effect can only be beneficial for the country and will result in a better co-ordinated program.
Further, Mr. Speaker, all of us agree that being trained is not the entire answer, particularly if the government is completely insensitive to the provision of job opportunities. The previous speaker mentioned this aspect of the matter. This is really where the government must be involved. It must be involved to the extent that there will be a program development associated with the type of job opportunities that are and should be available in Canada.
When speaking on this question I can refer to the "Eighth Annual Review of the Economic Council of Canada" which states:
Manpower policy is conceived of in Canada largely as a policy affecting the supply side of the labour market. In Sweden, however, "manpower policy" is far more comprehensive in scope in that it controls many expenditure programs affecting the level and location of employment and thus operates on the demand side of the market too.
Again dealing with the type of policy that is being used and the type of board that has been developed in Sweden, the review points out:
For example, the Swedish Labour Market Board (which includes government, employer, and union members, and operates autonomously as a statutory body) plays a prominent role in industrial location policy and administers an investment fund on the basis of contracyclical government policy.
If we are sincere in our talk about adult occupational training, we should determine that we must give some authority to the Department of Manpower and Immigration with respect to making the decisions as to where industries should locate in Canada. Does it make sense to have a department spend millions and millions of dollars trying to upgrade and retrain people if, after their retraining, those people have to be sent from one end of the country to another to fill job opportunities there? I suggest the government has a responsibility to involve this department in industry location decisions, because really manpower is the basis of the success of any country.
Adult Occupational Training Act
No doubt all of us have heard complaints about people who have taken manpower upgrading courses simply to have something to do. It is difficult for any manpower officer to question the intent of an individual who applies for an upgrading course, but it is true that people who have applied for such courses have told less than the truth to the manpower officer concerned. At the same time, there are many thousands of other people without employment who could benefit from such upgrading courses. This is one area on which we must express our concern.
A few moments ago, I mentioned the situation that pertains in Sweden, and now I turn to clause 6 of the bill with which one of my colleagues will be dealing at greater length. It specifically excludes people who are represented by recognized trade organizations and trade unions. Surely, it is a two way street. If workers are going to be employed by groups of employers, then the same principle should apply. Reference to this is found on page 3, after the third section. Possibly the minister will look at this very closely to see why the organizations themselves do not become involved in the type of discussion referred to on that page.
The Economic Council of Canada review contains the statement that manpower policy is largely a policy affecting the supply side of labour, and refers to the fact that we must spend some time in determining what we hope to achieve. Training on the job is an added benefit that the minister has included in the bill. I am sure it is something that he, his department and his deputy minister have studied. They will realize that we have poured millions of dollars into it, and more people should have benefited.
At page 104, dealing with manpower policy, there is this statement in the Economic Council of Canada's eighth annual review:
In striking contrast to several other countries, less than 5 per cent of total Canadian federal adult occupational training expenditures (excluding apprenticeship) is directed to training-in-industry. In the United States, about 80 per cent of federal training expenditures go to programs involving training and "work experience" in industry. In Britain, moreover, the Industrial Training Act of 1964 provides for a redistribution of funds among firms within a number of industries for training to be undertaken by industry itself.
The heavy-in fact, almost exclusive-emphasis on institutional training in Canada is difficult to understand when experts generally agree that, for many occupations and for many individuals, training-in-industry appears to be preferable.
The charts on the following page of the report show that of the total amount spent on training in Canada, only 3.9 per cent was for training in industry, while in the United States 76.8 per cent was spent in this area. The same thing applies to other countries like Sweden which spend a considerable amount of their resources on training-inindustry rather than the type of training we have provided. The occupational upgrading that is provided is invariably in a classroom setting, and once the individual leaves there everything he touches is foreign to him to the extent that many times he is not of much use to an employer. This is an area about which all of us are concerned as, no doubt, is the minister. I am sure he will be looking at the situation and, hopefully, will be trying to divert more

May 5, 1972
Adult Occupational Training Act money to training on the job or in industry as the case may be.
For comparison purposes, Mr. Speaker, and referring to the cost of relocating people who have been trained or those who are making application for job opportunities, I would point out that in 1965-66 the national employment service placed 960,995 people in jobs at a cost of $22.95 per placement. In 1970-71, Manpower placed only 722,832 people in jobs at a cost of $232.70 per placement. This did not include the money spent on manpower training. This is exactly what I am getting at, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased that the minister has included on-the-job training in the legislation, but the contrast between what was spent in 1965-66 and what is spent now per job placement illustrates the increase in spending in an effort to cope with the problem. I heartily agree with the minister when he says that he is pleased to see this point covered in his bill, and it is one area that we in this party support since it will bring about a saving to the Canadian taxpayer.
What one is questioning really is whether the best value is being received for the tax dollar or whether we are just keeping people off the labour force survey by putting them into some kind of occupation training or upgrading course. I am sure many members realize that this has happened because some people are not interested in training to upgrade themselves but just want to have something to do at a certain time of the year.
The previous speaker mentioned the 52 week maximum period. I am sure all of us know cases where trainees have not completed their courses because the final term of the course could not be completed within the 52 week period. I was pleased to learn that the former minister, as stated in a letter to me dated January 20, 1972, was willing to vary this requirement. The last paragraph of that letter reads:
I have advised officials of the manpower division that I am prepared to authorize extensions of training for individuals who have been ill during their training period or who have been unable to achieve normal progress in their training program. These extensions would only be authorized following consultation between the Canada Manpower Centre and the training authorities.
There are some, however, Mr. Speaker, who are still unable to complete the course and there is no use denying that the amount of money spent on them has gone forever, as are the benefits they could have provided to society. In this area, I believe the minister could give more discretionary power to the local manpower officials. They are on the spot and know whether a particular applicant really wishes to pass the course or is just trying to pass the time. This aspect has bothered many people across the country, including some who have tried to complete their training within the 52 week period which is provided in the present act and which remains in the act.
I have a few comments on the amendments before us, Mr. Speaker, and no doubt we will get into some of these matters in depth when the amendments reach committee. Section 4(1) of the present act provides:
Where an adult who has not attended school on a regular basis for at least 12 months informs a manpower officer-
Section 4(1) of Bill C-195 reads:
Where an adult who, at any time since attaining the regular leaving age in the province in which he resides has not attended

school on a regular basis for any period of at least 12 months informs a manpower officer-
It seems strange indeed that the stipulation "any period" should be included with that 12 month period. That makes me wonder if we are not trying to hit something with a baseball bat that does not exist, at least as far as abuses are concerned. Perhaps we can go into this in committee.
May I congratulate the minister and the department for making changes in another area about which we were concerned. The waiting period has now been redefined and is to be one year instead of three years. We are glad, because we were concerned about the matter. The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) asked the minister earlier if wives of farmers are to be included in those eligible for training, and the minister replied that this will be considered in committee. What bothers me consistently about programs such as the one we are considering is this: much depends on the regulations and, invariably, when considering certain legislation or amendments, as we are now doing, we are asked to pass that legislation without knowing exactly what the regulations are to be. Actually, we do not know very much about the regulations until we see them. Therefore, we are being asked to pass legislation, the effect of which we do not really know. The minister and the Department of Manpower and Immigration are obligated to explain fully just who will be included and who will be excluded from the provisions of this bill. That can be done in committee.
We remember what happened in connection with unemployment insurance. We raised questions concerning severance pay and holiday pay, and are still waiting for answers. We are considering a most important amendment, and do not know exactly what the regulations will provide. Because we do not know what the regulations will provide, we could be subjected to a barrage of questions and criticism for passing a bill in good faith after debate in this House. I suggest, therefore, that we will need to examine closely the amendments which will be introduced in committee.
The minister should realize, I think, that on-the-job and in-plant training could be more valuable for certain employees than vocational training made available in institutions. In this regard the employers of this country have an obligation to fulfil, just as have the employees who take part in training programs. We must also make sure that people are placed in jobs for which they have been trained, so that they may use the practical knowledge they have acquired. Everyone knows that industry in this country is becoming highly automated and that technological changes are being introduced. We must make certain that changes in training programs will be in keeping with changes in industry. New skills cannot always, in my opinion, be taught at vocational training schools. Some can be better acquired through on-the-job training. Employees right in the plant can find out what methods are used. By so doing they can continue to serve the employer with whom they have trained and, if they meet the necessary requirements, serve him better.
May 5, 1972


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneui):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to congratulate the minister who is sponsoring Bill C-195, to amend the Adult Occupational Act, now before us.
The continuance and improvement of this program is a laudable initiative, and I rejoice at the thought that from now on the three-year period which in the past was required before people could become eligible for an occupational training course will be reduced to one year.
I imagine that of all hon. members who have no income other than their parliamentary allowance, not one could afford to wait for three years before getting paid.
However, this is more or less what we used to ask of young people under the previous act. We used to ask them to wait for three years before they could qualify and become eligible to receive a few cents, just enough to survive until they got a job.
Although our general education system has been improved, it is obvious that all young people still cannot aim for a profession. The chance to study big books and to attend places of higher learning regularly is not given to everybody, and this bill is designed to assist all other people who still have skills.
In this life, we need good lawyers, good doctors, good accountants, but we also need butchers, bakers, carpenters, and electricians. In other words, we need a very large team which, though it may not seem so, is very important-a team of people who accomplish tasks which are indispensable to the smooth running of our society.
Although this bill appears on the whole to be very effective, it should not lead us to believe that every problem will be immediately solved. We are getting ready, we are making plans and we want to help young people and persons of all ages to retrain and be prepared to perform new tasks, but after reviewing the events that took place in our country these last few years, I am asking the following question: Will the minister's appropriations be as great as his intended generosity?
My question relates to the fact that I know some people in my riding who have actually qualified for training courses, who have attended them for a certain period of time and, suddenly, have been forced to wait another year before resuming the second part of these two-year courses. When these people complained to the Manpower Centre or to the Quebec office, they were repeatedly told for a week that this delay was due to lack of facilities and space. The following week, these same persons called up other officials of the manpower centre and, this time, they were given another explanation to the effect that the interruption of the courses was primarily due to lack of funds, the budget having been exceeded. I think that this explanation has worn thin, Mr. Speaker.
Other ministers have proposed other programs; municipalities and citizens groups have also submitted projects to the government and it often happens that they are rejected due to lack of money.
The Opportunities for Youth program has come back this year amidst an unprecedented publicity campaign and we know that of the 19,000 projects that are submitted, the minister will only retain 3,000 and reject the remaining 16,000 because of lack of funds.
Adult Occupational Training Act Today, the minister is brimming with good intentions; he has come to us with a clear and definite bill. But how will it be implemented? With regard to the Opportunities for Youth program, one project out of six only was approved, on the average. Therefore, can the minister assure the House that everyone that qualifies under the act will be accepted? Will the minister have to deal with the same problems as his colleagues who introduced the Local Initiative Program and the Opportunities for Youth program? Is the bill before us, Mr. Speaker, going to be accepted throughout the country, for all provinces and all regions of this country? Or will this legislation only apply to some special, designated, Liberal, Social Credit, or Conservative areas? One may ask all those questions, Mr. Speaker, as a result of the way legislation is accepted in this country at the present time, and applied in several fields. Unhappily, such situation occurs on too many occasions. Now, there is a provision of this bill which really makes me laugh, that is section 6, page 2, which reads as follows:
(1)	The Minister may enter into a contract with
(a)	any employer operating or undertaking to operate an occupational training course for the training of adults employed by the employer, or
(b)	a group or association of such employers,
to provide for the payment by the Minister to that employer, group or association, as the case may be, of the costs incurred, as specified in the contract, by the employer, group or association in providing such training.
(2)	The Minister may enter into a contract with
(a)	any employer who has arranged for the training of adults employed by him in an occupational training course that is not operated by the employer, or
(b)	any group or association of such employers,
to provide for the payment to that employer, group or association, as the case may be, of the costs incurred, as specified in the contract, by the employer, group or association in providing such training.
Despite the clear wording of the legislation, I wonder whether employers will take this provision seriously, after the bad experience they underwent last winter. And I will take the liberty, at this stage, to quote a letter which I received on March 24, 1972:
I quote:
Mr. Roland Godin,
M. P. for Portneuf,
Parliament Building, Ottawa.
Dear Sir:
Following the outcome of my request for training and employment to the manpower centre, I submit my opinion to you uncritically, as you will certainly and very shortly be able to convey it to the people, departments, members of Parliament or officials who will be able to act on it.
I submitted a request for training pursuant to the requirements of the manpower centre, which consisted in a program based on twelve months of training and liable to result in about 55 per cent of the performance necessary for the candidate to continue his job. Without giving up the basic purpose of my proposal, I accepted, having no other alternative, the eight weeks that I was offered, in view of my employee requirements to be able to expand my business.
I infer from this that the federal government or the manpower centre is really working to create jobs, but if I consider the outcome of my proposal, I wonder whether securing continuing

May 5, 1972
Adult Occupational Training Act jobs while creating jobs through training programs would not be a better solution to the present unemployment problem.
How can 16 per cent of 55 per cent of required training secure a future for the candidate selected? What positive contribution can 16 per cent of a minimum of training make to the expansion of my business?
This case relates to a man who repairs and sells television sets. In fact, this businessman simply wanted to train electronics technicians. He feels it is really ridiculous that the manpower centre should dare believe that people will get appropriate training within eight weeks in such an important field as electronics.
I now continue my quotation:
Until I get proof to the contrary, I must conclude to a lack of seriousness in such decisions because 16 per cent is far from enough to meet the very objective of this training program set up by the government.
I have working for me a number of candidates to the manpower training program who deserve better job security and whose open minds, initiative and general ability should be encouraged. As for me, please believe that I will do my utmost to keep those employees.
By this letter surely you will admit the seriousness and agres-siveness of my business since the start and no less can be expected from those involved.
In another area, I would point out that other industrialists in my riding where approached last fall, that is to say in early January, when the government implemented a similar program. Officials of the Quebec manpower centre visited Loretteville and Saint-Emile where you can still find a fair group of glove and shoe manufacturers.
At that time they were proposed a program similar to that presented today. Long questionnaires were completed with the help of experts from the Manpower Centre.
Mr. Speaker, the proposed program was to last 26 weeks and all projects were to be submitted before March 31. However, for those who had made applications in January, answers were sent out in the afternoon of March 29 only, which was Holy Thursday. Those manufacturers who had jobs to offer were told that their programs had been accepted, even though the legislation stipulated that first they had to apply to manpower centres to get workers. Therefore, in waiting until Holy Thursday to inform the workers of the Loretteville and St. Emile area, the government was getting rid of them easily since the Quebec City manpower centre was closed on both Good Friday and the next day. These people had to wait until the next Monday to give an answer. So, in many cases, those manufacturers who were in a position to take in 30, 40, 50 or 60 workers finally hired only 5 or 10. Finally, the whole project went down the drain, especially when one considers that one manufacturer could have hired 50 people instead of the 5 that he actually did hire.
Mr. Speaker, this is an unfortunate situation, even if this bill is good. But to return once again to our manufacturers. When working for the federal government, especially in the Income Tax Division, even the most intelligent man in the world may behave stupidly simply because he walks around with a copy of the act in his pocket. Should he fail this year, he can always turn to the past four years to pick the pockets of Canadians and run away with what he can find. But for the businessman, the shoe and glove manufacturer at that, it is a completely different story. He

must hire travelling salesmen who must look after the orders. They have to buy leather for their industry and all kinds of materials essential to them and that must be done months in advance.
Whenever Manpower Centre employees discuss with manufacturers, they realize that they are not dealing with tax officials, that they are not dealing with people looking backward. The manufacturer is a man who has to look forward and take care of his business. If he did not, he would soon have to close shop. Those who are still in business are those who looked after their undertaking and I should like the government to give them full co-operation. Those people have done their utmost to make our country what it is today.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I should like the minister to give us the assurance that his budget will be important enough to come up to everything he is offering at the present time and I am wondering whether it would not be beneficial for the Canadian people to have a revision made in manpower centres in order to know what agents will assist manufacturers in cases such as this one.
And whenever a person is refused admission to a certain course, I should like manpower centre officials to be in agreement with one another so as to give the same answer every day. If the answer differs, it is too bad for people lose confidence in such programs.
It is for that reason that many citizens show dissatisfaction and I believe they are right, because we lied to them too often. Moreover, it is about time we helped them in every possible way and especially made financial means available to them.
So I hope that the minister will not miss the opportunity to explain such needs to all his colleagues, particularly the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) who after all is the last one to sign his name.


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to spend a few minutes discussing a particular aspect of the amending bill which the minister has placed before us. I refer particularly to the subject matter of Sections 5 and 6 of the act to which the minister's bill proposes certain modifications.
I think it is clear that with regard to the authority which is conferred upon the minister, the act may be divided into two parts. First, there is authority to enter into agreements with the public authority, the province, to spend public funds of the government of Canada; second, to enter into agreements with private authorities such as industrial corporations. From my understanding with regard to entering into agreements with the public authority for the expenditure of money for manpower training, the individual taking the training either has to be referred to and approved by a manpower officer or has been approved in effect through the legislation of the respective provinces under their various training programs. This makes it clear there is a direct dealing, either by the federal or provincial authority, with the individual involved in a training program. It is my understanding that this relationship between the individual and the manpower office of the federal government or a parallel office under an apprenticeship training program of a province is
May 5, 1972

one which must exist. However, clause 6, which gives the minister authority to enter into an agreement with an employer or a group of employers, makes no reference at all to the individual concerned-to whether he ought, or ought not, to be undertaking a training program. This is an essential difference and one which should be borne in mind in terms of two aspects of the bill as they are set forth in clauses 4 and 5 together and in clause 6.
I am not quarrelling with the principle that the minister should have authority to enter into agreements with employers or employer groups. I understand there are two aspects of the program. There are occupational training courses which are operated by an employer within his own premises and, second, there are situations in which an employer can arrange to send an employee to an institution for training and be reimbursed for costs so incurred. It seems to me there is an essential element missing from the minister's proposals, and that its absence warrants some changes being made in the bill when it reaches the committee stage. I suggest that, to the extent that the new arrangements for entering into contracts with private employers fails to provide for direct contact with individual trainees, an important safeguard is missing, even if one considers the matter from the point of view of protecting the public purse alone. In addition to being satisfied that the employer concerned has consulted the government of the province in which the trainee is located before a contract can be entered into, there should, in my view, also be a provision that the minister must be satisfied that the employer has entered into consultation with the certified bargaining agent of the employee before he can enter into a contract. In my opinion, the minister should consider adding to the new clause 6(3), after the part which states that the minister must be satisfied that the employer has consulted with the government of the province, something along these lines: "and with any certified bargaining agent or agents of the employees of the employer, or the group or association, as the case may be."
I am not putting this idea forward out of a vacuum, as it were. I am advancing it partly because the proposed new clause 6 would remove the prohibition against entering into contracts in which the minister agrees to pay an employer the cost of on-the-job training in skills only useful to that employer. The minister will recall that there is a provision in the present section 6 of the act which gives general authority to enter into an agreement, subject to a subsection which states:
The minister shall not enter into a contract with an employer described in subsection (1) with respect to training of adults employed by that employer, that is, training on the job, or in skills useful only to that employer unless he is satisfied that such training is necessary because of technological or economic changes affecting that employer which would otherwise result in loss of employment by the adult being trained in the course.
This is not an inconsequential matter if one thinks in terms of safeguarding tax money provided by the citizens of Canada for training programs which directly involve individual private employers and which is connected presumably with their attempt to improve the efficiency of their operations. The safeguard is also important as a means of discouraging employers from simply using the
Adult Occupational Training Act mechanism provided by this act in order to enhance their own private positions as a result of the expenditure of public funds. Perhaps no more effective safeguard could be provided than to require that the minister must be satisfied in all cases where a trade union is certified that the union has been consulted.
The proposal in this legislation, if I understand it correctly, is designed to make possible a more permanent application of some of the features of the on-the-job training program. This has given rise to some concern in the ranks of certain trade unions, because these arrangements have been used in such a way as to interfere with terms which have been negotiated as part of union agreements.
In some cases in Canada-this is a matter that can be gone into in depth in committee more effectively than one can discuss it in a speech on the floor of the House-very detailed contracts, agreements or memoranda of agreement have been worked out plant by plant with some employers which provide for on-the-job training of employees as a matter of course. As part of the collective agreement it has been deemed to be to the mutual advantage of employer and employee that the employer, without any assistance from the public purse, has a continuing program of training for his employees for upgrading their skills, so the employer always has available a work force which is expert in the skills which it performs in the plant.
In some cases these agreements in their genesis go back over a number of years. As a result of experience during the course of time, they have been upgraded and improved. To my knowledge, during the past winter, through the on-the-job training program and without any knowledge whatever coming either from the employer or the officials in the minister's department, the employers in effect, started to interfere with what was and has been accepted as being normal practice in the plant under memoranda of agreement between trade union and employer.
I suggest to the minister that, quite apart from anything in the legislation, as a matter of administrative practice-I am sure that under the act which set up his department the minister has this authority-it should be routine for the management of a local manpower office to advise and consult with established trade unions who are certified as the bargaining agents for employees in the particular plants or activities carried on by employers in their area of operation.
Apart from any legislative requirement for consultation by the employer, manpower offices should be a source of information. There should be a two-way flow of information between manower offices and local offices of trade unions lying within their area of operation. This has not always been universal practice across the country and has led to unnecessary misunderstanding and confusion about what has been actually going on in regard to the work force of the area concerned. I suggest that this question could best be dealt with in detail in committee, but I put the matter forward now in the hope that the minister and his advisers will give the situation very serious consideration and that opportunity will be given

May 5, 1972
Adult Occupational Training Act during the course of the committee proceedings to call experienced administrators in the trade union field to deal with the matter.
Even as a result of certain arrangements worked out in the past whereby employees have gone to training schools outside the employer's premises, in the opinion of some of those who are most familiar with the details of operation in the industry some of the courses offered have been less than useful vis-a-vis the amount of federal funds expended upon them. In the view of some of these people whom 1 know, the employer in effect has unnecessarily leaned on the public purse in order to provide a poorer kind of training than that which has been traditionally provided on the job without any supplement from the public purse be it federal or provincial.
This is another aspect of the matter which I think should be considered and is another reason provision for consultation should be made between the agents of the people involved and the employer before the minister is given the authority, as proposed in the bill, to enter into contracts.


Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise only one point regarding this bill but it is a very important point. It is not clear to me whether the bill or the regulations to be made thereunder cover the point. I fully approve of all the evident measures put forward in the bill and congratulate the minister for them. I am particularly pleased at the provision removing the requirement of three years in the work force and that regarding the eligibility of women who work in the home as housewives.
My point concerns those individuals who live in bilingual areas in Canada, such as Montreal, Ottawa, Moncton, Sudbury, Cornwall and so on, and who cannot find work due to the fact that they cannot speak the other official language. As a representative from Montreal I have found in the past few years that many well trained Canadians have been laid off from work for one cause or another and are unable to find other work because they do not speak the other language. For example, I have met many English-speaking stenographers and secretaries who are most competent and are looking for work, but when they go to the personnel office or employment agency they are asked whether they can also speak French. Very often, although these people have had some training in the second language it is insufficient to permit them to work in that language and this is the principal reason they cannot obtain employment.
I have been arguing for several years now that our manpower retraining program and retraining allowances should apply to people such as this, whether it be a French-speaking person in Ottawa who cannot find work because he does not have sufficient knowledge of English, or an English-speaking person in Montreal who cannot find work because he does not speak French. I maintain that our manpower retraining program should give these people courses in the other language so they can become qualified for work, just as other people need training in the art of carpentry, electronics and other trades.
As the House knows, courses are given under the manpower retraining program for completion of high school

and many people take grades 9, 10 and 11. If we agree it is necessary to be educated to grades 9, 10 and 11 in order to find work, we should agree to train people in the second language if that is necessary for them to find work. In areas such as Montreal and other bilingual districts, such is not now the case.
I am pleased to back the government's program which has been to promote bilingualism in those areas of Canada where it is necessary. At the same time, I believe that when people are affected by these requirements in their work we should help them, under the manpower retraining program, to acquire proficiency in the other language with which they are not familiar.
One of the anomalies of our programs is that under the immigration program we help people to acquire a working knowledge of the French and English languages. A person who comes to Canada as an immigrant can take a French or English course through the Manpower and Immigration Department and is paid a training allowance while taking the course. People coming from countries such as England, Ireland or the United States, being English-speaking can under the Department of Manpower and Immigration program take training courses in the French language while receiving a living allowance. But an English-speaking person born in Montreal, a Canadian citizen, cannot go to the Department of Manpower and Immigration and take the same course.
I have argued that if the government is going to provide courses to immigrants so they can learn the official languages of this country for purposes of employment, we should do the same thing for our native born Canadian citizens. Perhaps the minister in replying can cover this point. I should hope that as a result of these amendments or the regulations to be passed in relation thereto, language retraining programs will be included as a course one can obtain under the adult occupational training program. If this were allowed I think we would solve many of our employment problems in areas where bilingual capability is needed.
This is the only point I wish to raise in respect of the bill, and to me it is extremely important. My constituency is in Montreal. Seventy-five per cent of the population is English-speaking, yet they live in a city where 80 per cent of the population is French-speaking. The 75 per cent English-speaking figure includes immigrants from many parts of the world. We have many British people, Italians, Greeks, Germans, and so on. Once they become citizens and require employment, they must have the capability of working in both languages.
One of the objections raised by the government is that evening language courses are given by the school commission of Montreal and the people to whom I have referred can take them. The courses under the school commission are not as good as those provided by the Department of Manpower and Immigration. They are not nearly as intensive, and they are conducted in the evening. There is no retraining or training allowance attached to them. I argue that if the government carries out retraining programs and pays training allowances in order that people can finish high school, learn a trade and so on, the govern-
May 5, 1972

ment should do the same in respect of language training when such training is directly related to ability to work in the cities where these people live. I hope I have made my point, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to say a few words on this bill introduced by the minister. In his opening remarks the minister said, and 1 think I quote him accurately, that by no stretch of the imagination could this bill be regarded as a major overhaul of the legislation. I agree with him in that regard. He also said there had been consultations with the provinces regarding the bill. I wonder whether during these consultations the minister considered the fact that when the time period is reduced from three years to one year there will be a tremendous need for additional space.
The time period should always have been one year and should never have been changed by this government. When the time stipulation was increased to three years in the labour force, senior members of the Salvation Army and other groups condemned this action by the government. In my own area the participation rate in trades training schools is very high and I doubt that more people can be handled under the program. I hope this situation will be improved by the construction of a new school.
I am pleased to see the minister in his position as Minister of Manpower. I know he will be a pleasant change from his stone-faced and stone-hearted predecessor who never came down from his ivory tower, never knew how to smile and, I assume, never knew what it was to be unemployed. He had no compassion whatsoever for the unemployed or those who required assistance. This is typical of many members on the government benches; they do not seem to realize these problems. I cannot say that about the present minister, who has always been most co-operative and willing to work with all members of the House. I speak from experience. I have found him to be that way and I look forward to his bringing in further changes in the future. I think I have said enough nice things about the minister for the moment and now it is time to criticize him a little.
Like the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate-I should say the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) because the former hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate now occupies a well-padded position which I hope he continues to occupy. As I was about to say, like the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate I commend the previous deputy minister for doing such a good job. I congratulate the new deputy minister and hope he will weigh his statements and not make them off the top of his head. I have in mind, particularly, statements in reference to problems of unemployment insurance and benefits.
I realize this subject is not related to the bill before us, but I hope the new deputy minister will not continue to blame all the difficulties on the applicants rather than the drafters of certain measures. I hope he will not speak as wildly in future as he has in the past, without knowing the facts. Those of us who have been members for some time are aware that 10 or 12 people would call each day complaining about not receiving unemployment insurance benefits. The fact was that they had not received benefits for weeks and sometimes months.
Adult Occupational Training Act
Bill C-195 is a pathetic attempt to improve the operations of the Manpower training program. If does right a few wrongs and accomplishes a few housekeeping chores, but it leaves the bulk of the program as ineffective as it is now. As I understand it, there are five basic changes proposed in Bill C-195. First, the bill proposes to remove the current restrictions which require people to serve three years in the labour force or to be supporting dependants in order to receive an allowance. In future, people who have been out of school a total of 12 months, not necessarily uninterrupted, will be eligible to receive an allowance. Second, the bill provides that provincial training costs to be paid by the federal government will be specified in advance through a contract. Currently, the federal government merely picks up the tab in arrears.
Third, the bill would allow the federal government to enter into a contract for a training course with a group or association of employers rather than merely one employer. Fourth, the bill proposes to do away with the restrictions against on-the-job training, as the Economic Council of Canada, the Progressive Conservative party and many other critics have long been advocating. Finally, the bill would allow the payment of less than the specified amounts for allowances to persons without dependants.
Really, the only two important changes are those concerning the removal of restrictions on allowances and on in-industry training programs. These changes are long overdue. For the rest, the bill is a great disappointment. These changes are not sufficient to improve the program substantially. Low income, poorly educated Canadians, particularly in rural areas and in the outlying districts of Canada, will be no better off when this bill is passed than they are now. Many reputable groups have complained that the manpower training program has important limitations which restrict the role of the program in reducing poverty. The report of the Special Senate Committee on poverty emphasized the inadequacy of the program's effect on poverty. I quote from that report at page 150:
The federal manpower programs, like other national economic development programs, have . . . only limited relevance to the poverty question. They are not and cannot be evaluated in terms of the direct contribution they make to poverty reduction or elimination.
Similarly, the report of the federal task force on agriculture in 1969 complained as follows:
The role (of manpower training programs) in reducing the numbers of farm poor ... appears limited. The best hope is that manpower programs will provide good non-farm alternatives to younger operators, to the sons of marginal farmers and to other rural youth who are ill equipped to become modern farmers. ... But it is unrealistic to look for any great impact in the ranks of the middle-aged who make up a high percentage of the farm poverty sector today.
Even to reach younger operators poses problems. For example most training courses require at least grade 10 standing.
In contrast to these realistic appraisals of the impact of the manpower training program on poverty, we have the self-congratulatory pose adopted by the former minister of manpower-I emphasize that this is the former minister and not the present minister-who said in his report on the 1970 operations of the Canada Manpower training program that it-

May 5, 1972
Adult Occupational Training Act -is one of the major federal programs directed toward the alleviation of poverty by helping the poor develop their skills and thus improve their income and employment prospects. Its impact is directly centred on the poor.
However, in typical Liberal fashion the minister fails to quote figures to support his flowing rhetoric, for this same report does not in any way demonstrate how the program is achieving such a laudable aim. Although the then minister pointed out that 60 per cent of all trainees and 94 per cent of female family-head trainees in 1970 were living at or below the poverty line when put on a course, there is no reference to the proportion removed from poverty as a result of the training they received from the course.
There are some serious hindrances in the Adult Occupational Training Act which cripple any anti-poverty initiative the manpower training program might otherwise have. First of all, the underlying principles of the manpower training programs are not oriented toward disadvantaged groups. The Canadian government's strategy in the field of manpower policy is primarily a growth strategy-this was stated by the Economic Council of Canada in its eighth annual review-with the objectives of equity and stabilization clearly being secondary. This strong emphasis on growth and efficiency provides a sharp contrast with the manpower strategy of other countries, notably the United States.
In the United States, training programs are much more heavily oriented to serving disadvantaged groups. Most programs which draw on federal funds in the United States require that all or a large majority of trainees come from the disadvantaged population, meaning that they are poor and have one or more serious handicaps in finding and keeping satisfactory jobs.
Another criticism concerning the principles underlying the operations of the manpower training program has been voiced by the Special Senate Committee on Poverty. Their report charges that the federal manpower program is oriented toward providing a service to employers and not toward meeting the needs of the individual worker. Such orientation conflicts to some extent with the purposes of the Adult Occupational Training Act, as stated on March 3, 1967, by the then minister of manpower and immigration who said, as recorded at page 13738 of Hansard of March 3,1967:
We want to provide a second chance to the people who need it most. These are the men and women who missed the chance to acquire a skill during their youth or whose skill has been made obsolete by technological change.
The Special Senate Committee on Poverty charges that "what was intended as a 'people-oriented' program has become an 'economy-oriented' program". In addition to this problem arising from the principles of the manpower training program there is a second problem that hinders the effectiveness of the program in fighting poverty. This problem is that the regulations governing the application of the act provide that a potential applicant for a place in an occupational training program must have "a specific vocational goal".
This regulation is particularly discriminatory when applied to poor people in Canada. Persons without a basic education are not usually aware of the variety of occupational opportunities available to those with job skills. Why

was this stipulation not removed from the Adult Occupational Training Act through Bill C-195, if the Minister of Manpower is truly interested in helping the disadvantaged, and I think he is?
There is a third way in which the Adult Occupational Training Act is at fault. The act provides that no occupational training course may exceed 52 weeks duration of full-time introduction. The result of this provision is that no person requiring more than one year's academic upgrading is eligible for occupational training under the act. Because almost all vocational skill programs in Canada today require a grade 10 education as a prerequisite-here I refer to trades such as welding, carpentry, the electrical trades and plumbing-and because most academic upgrading courses can raise a student's functioning equivalent grade level by about three grades in 52 weeks, very few persons with an educational attainment below grade 7 can gain entry into "basic training for skills development" occupational training courses. Some of these persons do gain entrance to manpower programs but usually this happens in error or because there is a sympathetic manpower counsellor. In fact, in the 1968-69 training courses only 13.2 per cent of all the trainees had had six years or less schooling when they entered the course.
This 52-week limitation on programs is all the more important when we consider the direct correlation between a low level of schooling and a high degree of unemployment. In May, 1971, persons with less than a grade 8 education had an unemployment rate of 7.4 per cent compared to only 5.1 per cent for persons with a post-secondary education.
In the Atlantic region, persons with less than a grade 8 education had a 10.4 per cent unemployment rate in May, 1971, while those with a post-secondary education had a rate of only 6.2 per cent. Consider Cape Breton Island, where the educational level of a portion of the population is comparatively low and the unemployment rate comparatively high; in fact, figures of 20 per cent to 25 per cent have been given by non-partisan groups.
Only within recent days have we received a report from an association called the Cape Breton Alliance for Development which is comprised of the clergy, labour, unions, boards of trade and people in other fields with no political affiliation. This group conducted a survey on the island as a result of a grant under the Local Initiatives Program and came up with the figure of 29.31 per cent unemployment on Cape Breton Island. This is a tragedy, Mr. Speaker. There are those within the government who may say that these people do not know what they are talking about, but I think they did their job very sincerely. They suggested measures for reducing unemployment.
I placed a motion before the House under Standing Order 43 in order to discuss this matter, but it was not accepted by the government. I was sorry that the government House leader, who also represents in this House a portion of Cape Breton, did not rise to assist me in getting his colleagues to allow the motion to come before the House so that the contents of the report could be sent to the committee for consideration.
May 5, 1972

The removal from the Adult Occupational Training Act of the 52-week limitation on training is an essential step toward helping the low income, poorly educated unemployed toward meaningful training and employment. The Progressive Conservative party has pledged that it will abolish this time limit on these programs. In addition to these three faults there is a fourth problem with the manpower training program that has become more crucial since the new Income Tax Act made training allowances taxable. This problem concerns unemployment insurance as it relates to the manpower training program.
Currently, a person employed in insurable employment who is being trained under an occupational training course will not be eligible for unemployment insurance while in receipt of a training allowance, but will retain his benefit and contribution rights. The qualifying period will be extended to include any period during which he is being trained under an occupational training program and is in receipt of a training allowance. Similarly, his benefit period, which normally runs for a maximum of 52 weeks from the week of the claim, will be extended to a maximum of 156 weeks.
With these stipulations I do not quibble. However, I would argue that trainees should have unemployment insurance premiums deducted from their allowances for the entire duration of their courses. I discussed this matter with the minister and he was very sympathetic to my point of view. I hope he will be giving more consideration to the problem. In that way, Mr. Speaker, these people would build up credits and could qualify for unemployment insurance benefits if they were unable to secure employment upon completion of their courses. When they complete their courses, particularly in the schools of Cape Breton Island, under the present administration they have no hope of finding a job, given the figures I quoted a few moments ago. If they had some benefits to fall back on they would be in better shape, particularly if they found it necessary to move away from the island. I hope this will not be the case, because we get a little tired or exporting our brains to Upper Canada. I see the minister smiling.
The case to be made for such a step is very straightforward. The federal government, by removing the three-year labour restriction in the act has recognized the hardships now imposed by the act on young people with little work experience who are unable to secure jobs. It took them a long time to recognize that, Mr. Speaker. For ages we have been telling them that there should never have been a three-year period, it should have been only one year. When young men and women come out of school feeling that they have to kill time around the streets for three years before they can get training, it is very discouraging. They become depressed and disillusioned. They cannot find the employment they seek and neither can they get training because, until this bill was introduced, they had to be three years on the labour market. Thank goodness that provision is to be changed.
These young people are unable to accumulate enough unemployment insurance credits before they take a training course to qualify for UIC benefits after the course if they are still unsuccessful in their job seeking. I thought the minister might have taken care of that problem in this bill. His refusal to incorporate such a change in Bill C-195
Adult Occupational Training Act is puzzling. On April 20, 1972, he promised to consider the matter and reply to my question the following day. I am sorry the minister has such a short memory that he had forgotten his promise when he introduced the bill six days later, on April 26.
If trainees are to pay income tax on their allowances, they should be able to make unemployment insurance contributions and collect benefits if they need them at the conclusion of the training. This is already being done in the case of students at the Coast Guard College at Point Edward. If unemployment insurance is to be truly universal as the government apparently intended, it should also apply to manpower trainees. It would also be fair, I maintain, for the federal government to be consistent with arrangements in private business and industry and to pay half the cost of unemployment insurance premiums in its capacity as the temporary employer of the trainees. These are not the only ways in which the manpower training program could be improved if it is to function adequately to aid the hard core unemployed and the poor, but these four faults of the Adult Occupational Training Act could easily have been rectified in Bill C-195.
There are a number of other points I should like to draw to the attention of the minister. One is the question of hairdressing courses. I have dealt with this matter at the provincial or regional level and have been informed that there has been a cutback in training people in hairdressing, particularly on Cape Breton Island, because it is felt there will be too many hairdressers. This may be so, but not everyone trained there will stay; they may go to Ontario, Quebec or other parts of Canada. However, if they had this skill it would stand them in good stead, for when they move along voluntarily or even if they are forced to move because of the inadequate economic policies of this government, such training should provide them with employment. I hope the minister will look into the problem and ascertain if there is any reason for a cutback in this regard.
Schools in Sydney and the surrounding area were told that no more applicants for hairdressing courses would be accepted. At the same time, the school in Halifax enrolled 15 students. It seems unusual to suggest that people in Halifax have more hair on their heads than the people of Cape Breton and need to look after it better. I do not know what the answer is, and I hope the minister will look into the matter.
I wish to raise another important point. Young lads interested in becoming trained morticians have come to me seeking help. Not everyone wants to be a mortician, but the job has to be done. Regrettably, in my province-I do not know if it happens in other provinces-people who are in business as morticians employ young men to do all the heavy work, lifting and on-the-job training, so to speak, for a small fee. When these young men want more money-and, after all, most of them are on call 24 hours a day-they are politely told by the proprietor of the establishment, "We cannot pay you any more. We can soon get other young men to take your place."
Usually these young men want more money so they can enrol in the appropriate school and obtain a licence as

May 5, 1972
Adult Occupational Training Act embalmers. I hope the minister and his officials will consider helping young lads like these. This field of training ought to be included in the bill. There would not be a heavy drain on the treasury because I am sure not too many young men have entered this profession. Few members of the House, so far as I am aware, are members of the profession. However, it is an honourable profession and we should prepare young people to enter it. Actually, they would come in handy in burying this government after the next election which is no doubt to take place in a few months.
I agree with the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) who suggested that provision for language training should be included in the bill. I think that is an excellent idea for the simple reason that I supported the official languages bill. It has great merit. But I also agree with the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) and others who have said that the official languages program is moving too quickly. Hon. members of other parties have suggested that the program is being force-fed to the public service and as a result B and B-bilingualism and biculturalism-has for those people become another sort of B and B-loss of bread and butter. Some public servants cannot continue filling jobs which require the use of both languages.
In Cape Breton, particularly, I understand that there are to be four or five vacancies in the public service. An eligibility list was drawn up and came into effect in December. On June 15 next that list is to be eliminated. Those who have been tested in connection with public service vacancies and who have passed their examinations are no longer to be eligible. We know that these lists are valid for one year and, as I said, the current list is to be eliminated on June 15. The competition in that case required employees to be unilingual and speak English only. I understand that public servants to fill those vacancies are to be selected from the previous list which required public servants to be bilingual. I think 23 applicants previously qualified for these jobs. Today I asked the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) what I, as the member representing the area, am to say to the people who will be discriminated against and who will not get the jobs even though they were previously considered eligible.
I am pleased to note that widows are covered by the bill. Often, in the area I come from and in the area in which the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) resides, men become disabled and die, sometimes after long illness contracted in the coal mines, in the steel plant or in the fishing industry. Perhaps the man catches tuberculosis; sometimes he contracts silicosis. The compensation board in Halifax does not recognize silicosis as an illness coming under its jurisdiction. Often, because the man concerned cannot obtain compensation from the board, the wife or widow as the case may be must go out and work. There is great hardship in these cases. I am glad the minister has broadened the scope of the bill and made changes encompassing widows. He is to be commended for that.
I could mention a few other points but will relinquish the floor to other hon. members who wish to put their thoughts on record and persuade the minister to make 
changes. In discussing the bill, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Mackasey) is reported to have termed the total package as a series of efforts to improve what is already perhaps the world's finest manpower program. I do not agree, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure many other hon. members do not agree with that statement. None the less, I commend the minister for what he is doing, and in the short time during which he will remain minister I look forward to changes which may be introduced in legislation of this type. The minister is a man with whom one can discuss problems. He will give you a really good hearing and act, if action can be taken. It is unfortunate that other members of the cabinet have not learned a lesson from the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.


Mr. Dinsdale:: There you are, Bryce; there's a compliment for you.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Mackasey) hopes to finish this afternoon the discussion on this stage of the bill. Although we will not delay it, I do not think debate on this stage will be finished by four o'clock.
May I mention briefly one or two items of interest to Canadian workers. These may affect future training in certain fields. I draw to the minister's attention the fact that earlier this week, at an oil seminar, it was suggested that if an oil pipeline is constructed down the Mackenzie valley, 6,000 workmen will be required to build it. Many of those workers will need special skills. Since much of this pipeline is to be built far from our cities in the south, it is hoped that some of the work can be done by people indigenous to the northern area. These people will need to be trained. Perhaps they can benefit from on the job training. I call this matter to the minister's attention because we ought to look ahead to employing such people.
Such a pipeline, if built, would be a big project in Canada. It would be too bad if through lack of trained manpower in Canada workers from another country were employed on the building of the pipeline. I suggest to the minister that it might be wise if he were to begin considering this problem. Even if the Mackenzie valley pipeline is not built, obviously other pipelines will be built in our north country. Special skills will be required. Workmen will be living and working in extreme cold. They will need special skills if they are to work under such conditions. I suggest to the minister that we ought to look ahead and anticipate what will be required in this respect.
While considering the Mackenzie valley pipeline, let us remember that if the pipeline is built, about one million tons of steel pipe will be needed. Someone must make the pipe. We hope that Canadian factories will make a good proportion of it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not know whether the hon. member feels that what he is saying is related to the principle of the bill before us. Personally, I have some doubt.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: May I carry on for just a minute, Mr. Speaker? We shall require a considerable amount of training for work in the mills which manufacture pipe. This is
May 5, 1972

the point I wish to make. I also draw to the attention of the minister that building a pipeline as extensive as this will require expansion of the industry in Canada. It will also require expansion of training in Canada. This is the reason I raise the matter. I merely mentioned the one million tons of steel pipe required to emphasize the size of the project and the size of the labour force required in the steel industry, which is of special interest to hon. members. It would be unfortunate if we had to import the pipe because we did not have enough productive capacity or skilled labour to deal with this or similar projects. This is my point, and I leave it at that.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that I welcome some of the changes proposed in this bill to amend the Adult Occupational Training Act. The former minister of manpower who introduced this bill will remember the debate at that time, in which I participated. We took very strong exception to the provision the bill proposes to amend, namely, that a person had to be in the labour force for three years before qualifying for manpower training under the provisions of the act.
We pointed out that that provision would keep out of the manpower training program precisely the people who need the training most. I refer to relatively young people who have finished school but do not have the qualifications necessary to begin work. Although they do not have the training necessary, they are told they cannot receive the benefits of the program until they have been away from school and in the labour force for three years.
I do not intend to quote from Hansard, but I remember pointing out to the then minister that a person 18 or 19 years of age who had finished high school, was living at home and for whom it would be relatively simple and quite economical to provide training in our institutions was being told he had to wait for three years, by which time he would in all likelihood be married and meeting his living expenses while undergoing training would be a great hardship. I remember the arguments with which this point was met and the explanation as to why it should not be done. Therefore, we welcome the amendments proposed in this bill.
This is one of the few opportunities which we have in parliament to deal with the very real difficulties which we face in the whole field of employment and manpower training. To a large extent it is pointless and, indeed, cruel to be conducting such an elaborate and expensive manpower training program while at the same time accepting the fact, although the government does not admit it, that we shall continue to have large-scale unemployment in this country.
The minister is pointing out that we have only a few minutes left in this debate. I do not know why that is so. In any event, I hope the minister will take the opportunity, if not today then on a future occasion, to explain to the people of this country what earthly sense there is in spending several hundred million dollars on manpower training each year, when for the past two years we have had 6 per cent or more unemployment per month, on a seasonally adjusted basis.
Adult Occupational Training Act
As the leader of our party pointed out yesterday, projections made by the University of Toronto Institute for the Quantitative Analysis of Social and Economic Policy released a few days ago indicate that for the balance of 1972 and into 1973 we will be faced with the problem of having more than 6 per cent of the labour force unemployed. What sense is there in spending several hundred million dollars and keeping 100,000 or 200,000 people in training programs when there are over 600,000 people unemployed at the present time? I know there are political advantages to the government; it can say there are only 630,000 people unemployed today rather than having to admit that between 100,000 and 200,000 people in training programs will be added to the number of unemployed.
What jobs will these people be able to get when they have finished the training program? I wonder whether the minister and his department have conducted any surveys as to the number of people who have completed manpower training programs and have been unable to find jobs in the fields in which they were trained. Also, have any surveys been conducted to determine the number of people who have taken manpower training programs, not just once but two or three times? Attending manpower training courses becomes a way of life for some people rather than a method of getting better training in order to find a job. As long as we do not have a policy of full employment, manpower training to a large extent is a sham and a delusion. That is the first point to which we should address ourselves. Second, we need to ask ourselves-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I presume that at this time the House leader will want to announce the business for Monday afternoon, Tuesday and Wednesday.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I thought the hon. member was rising on the same point of order which I assume the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) is going to bring to the attention of the House. For the moment I will recognize the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, my suggestion may be out of order, but in the interest of progress and co-operation it might be a good idea to allow this bill to proceed to second reading now and then go to committee, so that we can get our teeth into it there if other hon. members have suggestions and observations to make on it.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak to the point of order. I would be very glad to waive the customary winding up speech by the minister, particularly since the hon. member who now has the floor represents a party that is supposed to be vitally concerned and is, I am sure, anxious to see this bill passed as quickly as possible; unless, of course, I am misrepresenting the view of the hon. member who just spoke.

May 5, 1972
Adult Occupational Training Act


Robert Muir: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could try to act as devil's advocate. If we could all agree to allow the hon. member to finish his remarks, we might then co-operate with the minister in giving the bill second reading as quickly as possible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I understand that my hon. friend from Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) will be able to conclude his remarks in ten or 15 minutes. Perhaps the minister needs only ten minutes or so in which to close the debate, and on that understanding we might take that much time out of private members' hour.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes so far available to me I was discussing the purpose of such a large program as this unless we are committed to a policy of full employment. I turn now to a second question. My feeling is that we are to a large extent concentrating our training programs on the wrong people. I have the impression that students who have to a large extent finished their high school education can, given conditions of relatively full employment, find jobs themselves, at least if some encouragement to industry is forthcoming by the government to provide on-the-job training.
The people we are neglecting completely in our present programs are those who for historical and cultural reasons have never really fitted into our work economy. I refer, for example, to the Indian and the Metis people. I refer to large numbers of citizens in the centre core of every city in Canada who for various reasons have never found regular, gainful employment. In large numbers of families one finds second and third generations living essentially on welfare. I suggest to the minister, whom I believe to be one of the better ministers of the government, one of the more imaginative ministers and certainly one of the most concerned ministers, that his department should give special attention to the difficulties of those who have never been able to fit in to our work-oriented society, with a view to providing training for them.
We have often heard the suggestion that the government should be the employer of last resort. Proposals have frequently been made that the government should assume the responsibility of providing a job in the public service for every person for whom private industry could not find work. I suggest that the minister consider the idea that governments should become the employer of first resort for the hard-core unemployed. This is not a criticism of private employers, but we cannot expect private employers to hire large numbers of individuals who do not possess any skills and who have not received any training. Private employers are in business to make a profit, and one cannot fault them for doing so.
The minister and his department might well consider training those whose names are now largely to be found on the welfare rolls of this country at municipal, provincial and, indeed, the federal level in the case of the Indian people. They could then begin employment in government jobs. I am sure there are many poor people, both white

and Indian, who would with some training work in hospitals as orderlies, nursing aids, and so on. I am sure there are many among the native people who could do work looking after the forests in the northern regions of Canada.
I suggest, too, that there are many Canadians, particularly women, who could benefit from training programs which, while not necessarily providing them with an opportunity to work, would help them make a better life for themselves. For example, many women, particularly in low income families, could make the few dollars which their families get in the way of earnings or welfare go a lot further if they knew more about the nutritional value of foods and more about cooking. There must be a large number of women who could make a better life for their families and themselves if they were able to sew, make their own clothes, and so on. In short, I believe the department should take a fresh look at the whole purpose of the manpower training program.
Lastly, I wish to say that I heartily approve the first steps about which the minister talked today toward the provision of a greatly extended program of manpower training on-the-job instead of concentrating almost all our effort on manpower training through the provision of courses in schools and community colleges. I am sure the minister has read even more carefully than I have the observations made by the Economic Council of Canada in connection with manpower training and policy in its eighth annual report. The view expressed by the council should cause all of us a good deal of concern. For example, it is pointed out that in the fiscal year 1969-70 only 3.9 per cent of the money spent by the federal government on manpower training in Canada was for training in industry, whereas in the United States 76.8 per cent was used to provide on-the-job training.
The council further points out that the Canadian adult training program represents, in comparative terms, a very substantial undertaking second only to that of Sweden. Further, the overwhelming proportion of our effort has been directed toward training not directly related to acquiring industrial skills; there has been heavy emphasis on institutional rather than on industrial training. The council states, and I am sure the minister knows this to be true from his experience, that to a large extent real training can only be carried out on the job itself where workers have an opportunity to become familiar with the physical plant and the materials used in circumstances in which they are involved with other personnel operating the equipment which is actually in use.
I should like to quote some examples given by the study commissioned in the United States. According to the survey-
-it probably "doesn't pay for schools to invest in locomotives, earth-moving machinery, big computers, etc., especially since instructional equipment is used only a few hours a day".
In other words, this observer is saying, and I completely agree, that the most effective job training that there can
be is training on-the-job, in the plant, in the factory, in the workshop.
May 5, 1972

I am not suggesting that we should put a stop to our present program, that we should close down our manpower training centres or that things can be done overnight. But I am urging the minister, to the best of my ability, to look carefully at those things we have accomplished and at those we have not accomplished. I suggest a large number of things we have done have not worked well. I am not saying that they have failed, but they have not worked as well as they might and the money expended on them could have been put to better use.
I suggest we take a serious look at the overwhelming preponderance of spending on institutions-not that we cease doing what we are doing now but that in years to come we turn more to co-operation with industry and labour in our manpower training programs on the job in industry. I further suggest the department take a serious look at my proposal, which I admit is not an original one, that we begin to look at the problem faced by the hard core of people who are at the bottom of the economic and social ladder in this country, those who have been unable to find work and have existed in pretty miserable circumstances on welfare. We should devise programs of training to bring these people into the economic, social and working life of Canada so they can begin to benefit from this great country which has not done what it should have done for these people.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. I appreciate there is a special arrangement, but to keep the record straight I must inform hon. members that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, my first remarks are to thank the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) for his courtesy and his appreciation of the urgency of the matter at hand. May I also thank the hon. member who has a very important private member's bill which he has waited a considerable period of time to introduce. I can picture him seething a little over in the corner, having been through the experience on previous occasions.
I am caught in the dilemma of, on the one hand, being very apprehensive and concerned for the undeniable rights of the private member and, at the same time, being quite conscious of my responsibility to answer many of the intelligent questions that have been raised during this debate. If I do not cover them all in five minutes-because I dare not go beyond that-I hope that when we reach the committee stage we will deal with them in a more specific manner.
As I said at the outset, I thought I had made it clear that I was not introducing what I regarded as the end-all, or a major overhaul of all the legislation of the Department of Manpower but, rather, I had concentrated immediately upon two points that all parties, my provincial counterparts and all responsible groups in the country concerned with the problem of manpower, had zeroed in on, namely, the need for on-the-job training and, second, the need to eliminate the three-year rule. I think the three-year rule served a very useful purpose and was a logical addition to the legislation at the time the bill was first formulated. Its
Adult Occupational Training Act purpose then was to direct priority to our senior workers in the work force, those who had lost their skill or had found their skill redundant or obsolete and needed a second skill in order to enable them to finish out their working days.
Times have changed and as the picture of the people who are unemployed has become clearer it has become obvious that those who are really suffering as a result of unemployment at the moment have definite characteristics. They are young, they are undereducated, they are quite often single. In too many instances they have not been part of the work force for long and therefore are unable to meet the three-year requirement. I think we all recognized this, and it has indeed been a tragedy.
All too frequently people become statistics. But they are not statistics; people are flesh and blood and have feelings. There is a tendency at times of high unemployment for the smug majority-the smug majority being those who are lucky to have work-to forget that the unemployed and those on welfare are more than statistics, that they are people who given the opportunity would work rather than remain unemployed, at least with very few exceptions.
What I have attempted to do today, as I made very clear at the outset, is at least to rectify at once one anomaly in the present act that is causing a certain amount of discrimination, unintentionally, against young people, both men and women, and at the same time remove the legal impediment against a permanent on-the-job training program after consultation with the provinces and, of course, the trade unions. This bill will do both these things. It will remove the impediment against young people who need training and it will permit the Department of Manpower to re-establish within the department our priorities in such a way as to give added impetus to on-the-job training, something that we have been unable to do under the present act.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) a little earlier talked about the need to consult the trade unions. Earlier in my speech I said that I hope to be able next week to talk at length in the budget debate, since I am no longer minister of labour, about some of the responsibilities that the trade unions have to meet their moral and legal obligations to the unfortunate unemployed of this country, especially in the apprenticeship field and the concept of the closed shop.
Much of the impediment to retraining on the job and off the job and to our young people learning a skill arises from the archaic practices of the trade union movement itself. So while it is necessary and obligatory, and very much in line with my own philosophy, in introducing on-the-job training to take into consideration the views of the trade union movement, I am sure that the overwhelming majority of its leaders must and will assume that their co-operation will be needed over the next decade if we are to meet the kind of challenge that this country, with more and more capital-intensive industries, needs to meet.
The Department of Manpower is going through a period of very severe, in-depth appraisal at the present moment. The new deputy minister has already set up a task force to work on unemployment insurance to see how we can best co-ordinate the two items and render the best service

May 5, 1972
Business of the House
to the same client, the unemployed or even the employed Canadian. The hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir) said some kind things about the export of brains from the Maritimes. My father came from Halifax, so I will give the hon. member no argument in that regard. I hope it is hereditary.
Next week I should like to discuss with him his concept of unemployment, but I must remind him that at the present moment a person on the job or taking a course, as they call it, who is eligible for unemployment insurance can postpone his unemployment insurance and re-enter the cycle at the appropriate place when his course is completed, or he can while he is on the course receive a training allowance supplemented by unemployment insurance so he does not suffer financially by taking the course rather than remaining at home untrained but on unemployment insurance.
Mr. Speaker, I will just look back quickly to see if there is anything of real urgency that cannot be answered in depth at the committee stage. I will not even pass comment on the number of hairdressers in the Atlantic provinces, but probably this accounts for the very well groomed look of most of the members from that part of the country. Perhaps this is where the Minister of Manpower should be going for his haircuts.
In any event, let me say that the passage of this bill, which I hope will be completed very early next week, will go a long way to bringing an end to the unintentional discrimination in the old legislation. This is something I am sure all parties endorse and I hope all parties, realizing the importance of the need to end this type of unfortunate and unintentional discrimination against certain groups of Canadians, will give us extraordinary co-operation next week in order that the bill may pass the committee stage and third reading.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.

Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, if I may respond to a question asked earlier by the hon. member for Malpeque in respect of the business for next week, we will call the farm credit bill on Monday, followed by the CNR expenditures bill.


John Angus MacLean: I presume that order will be followed on Tuesday and Wednesday?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, if we do not finish it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions and private bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. D. Gordon Blair (Grenville-Carleton) moved: the second reading of and concurrence in the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-78, respecting the use of the expression "Parliament Hill".


Mr. Clermont:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Before the House agreed to continue the debate on Bill C-195, to amend the Adult Occupational Training Act, it seems that we had agreed that two public bills could be examined this afternoon, that is Bill C-78, respecting the use of the expression "Parliament Hill", which was introduced by the former member for-


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what the Speaker just called en frangais.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. I should like-


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Even though the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has the reputation of being an authority on procedure in the House, I have risen on a point of order and if he will just wait patiently one minute he will know the reason for my intervention. There was a possibility that Bill C-78, introduced by the former hon. member for Ottawa-Centre (Mr. Mcllraith) who is now in the Senate, and also Bill C-17, to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (seat belts), introduced by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather), might be passed today on second reading.
Here is my point of order, Mr. Speaker: Could it not be ruled that only Bill C-78 be dealt with, after which the House would adjourn?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I say that was implied when we agreed half an hour ago to eat into private members' hour in order to clean up the bill of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Mackasey). It was understood then that we would leave enough time to deal with Bill C-78 which has now been called, but the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather) realized that his bill would have to be dealt with on another occasion.


Duncan Gordon Blair: Mr. Speaker, it might be of assistance to hon. members if I were to offer a word of explanation to the amendments which have

May 5, 1972

been presented to us. Hon. members will recall that this bill was passed unanimously because it was the clear intention of the House to provide protection against the commercial exploitation of the words "Parliament Hill".
Subsequently in the other place it was discovered that some complications existed which were not known to this House when the bill was passed. It has been discovered, among other things, that the place where the legislature of the province of Quebec is located is described in the Statutes of Quebec as "Parliament Hill", or "Colline Par-lementaire". Therefore, the bill has been amended so it will not apply to the use of the words "Parliament Hill" in reference to the site of the legislature of the province of Quebec or of any other province.
Perhaps it is unnecessary for me to go into the details of the amendments which have been made, except to say that an addition has been made in paragraph (a) of clause 1, limiting that paragraph to the national capital region. So that all we would legislate, were this amendment to be adopted, would be a prohibition of the description or designation of a property in the capital region as "Parliament Hill", except for the actual Parliament Hill upon which our parliament is located.
The other amendment which has been made is to paragraph (c) of clause 1. It has the effect of clarifying the language we adopted in originally passing this bill in the House. This clause now reads as a prohibition against using the words "Parliament Hill" in combination in association with a commercial establishment providing service.
I might say I have had the privilege of having a discussion with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who originally seconded this bill in the House at second reading stage. I believe both he and I are in agreement that had we had the preparation of these amendments we might have chosen perhaps different language and a different formulation. However, I have looked very carefully into the effect of these proposed amendments and I am persuaded that the effect of the amendments is not to weaken the original bill.
The meaning of the main amendment is to permit the use of the phrase "Parliament Hill" as a description of a site outside the capital region so long as it is not a commercial site. In other words, the amendment presented and the bill in its amended form do not weaken the original intention of this House in respect of protecting the use of the words "Parliament Hill" from commercial exploitation. I hope that with that explanation it will be found possible to concur in the amendments made in the other place.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) was kind enough to point out, I had the honour of seconding the motion for second reading of this bill when it was moved in this House by one of our former colleagues who has now gone to another place.


An hon. Member:: He has passed over.


Thomas Miller Bell: He has gone to the other place.
Public Bills


Stanley Howard Knowles: The interest in that other place here in this place seems quite active. At any rate, I thought it was a good bill and I must say I do not like what the Senate has done to it. It seems to me if there was a need to protect the right of the people in Quebec City to refer to the location of the Quebec National Assembly as Parliament Hill and if there was a need to protect the right of the people in Edmonton to refer to the location of the provincial capital of Alberta as Parliament Hill-and I understand these are the only two cases in this country where it applies-this could have been done in a better way. Indeed I think this could and should be done in a way that would not seem to leave a loophole for the term "Parliament Hill" to be used in other connections.
On the assumption that some people read Hansard and may wonder what this is all about, I believe, it is necessary to place on the record the wording of clause 1 of the bill which is being amended by the motion now before us. That clause before it was amended by the Senate read as follows:
Notwithstanding anything contained in any act of Parliament or regulation thereunder, no person shall use the words "Parliament Hill" in combination
(a)	to describe or designate a property, place, site or location other than the area of ground in the city of Ottawa bounded by Wellington Street, the Rideau Canal, the Ottawa River and Bank Street,
(b)	to identify any goods, merchandise, wares or articles for commercial use or sale, or
(c)	in association with a commercial service rendering establishment.
The Senate has proposed as its first amendment a change in the wording of paragraph (a) which I just read, so that paragraph (a) as amended would read as follows:
(a) to describe or designate a property, place, site or location in the national capital region other than the area of ground in the city of Ottawa bounded by Wellington Street, the Rideau Canal, the Ottawa River and Bank Street,
There is more in this clause but I will come to that in a moment. What bothers me about this change is that we seem in paragraph (a) of clause 1 to be saying that the prohibition against using the phrase "Parliament Hill" to describe a property applies only in the national capital region. In other words, nobody can do it in the national capital region. Nobody can call anything else "Parliament Hill" in this immediate area, but out in the Ottawa valley where my friend hails from, or in Brandon, or in Saint John, in Moncton or in Halifax there is no prohibition against using the phrase "Parliament Hill" to designate a property.
If all we wanted to protect was the right of provincial legislatures or the members of provincial legislatures to use the term "Parliament Hill" in relation to their locations, I think this could be done much more easily by amending clause 3 of the bill. Clause 3 now reads:
This act shall not be construed to limit in any way the powers, privileges, rights and immunities of both Houses of Parliament and of their members.
I would think there could be added to clause 3 these words: "or of the provincial legislative assemblies and their members". Out of a desire to protect the right of provincial bodies to use the phrase "Parliament Hill", and in fact out of a desire to protect that for just two locations,

May 5, 1972
Public Bills
Quebec City and Edmonton, we have been given wording that would provide carte blanche. It says in effect that the phrase "Parliament Hill" can be used without offending this law anywhere in Canada except in the national capital region.
Someone in the other place suggested that some of the Senators were making too much out of this issue, and I do not want him to say we are doing the same thing here. I recognize that in practical terms no hotel in Smiths Falls or in Manitou, Manitoba, or in Swift Current, Saskatchewan, is likely to want to use the name "Parliament Hill", but if we are legislating to protect the use of this phrase I think we should do it for the whole of Canada and not just for the national capital region. I recognize also that the learned member for Grenville-Carleton has applied his legal talents to the other change being made in the bill, namely, in paragraph (c) of clause 1, and that he is satisfied that because we will now use as the wording for paragraph (c) the language, "in association with a commercial establishment providing services" that we will be protected against a hotel, a restaurant or a pool hall taking that name anywhere in Canada.
I also know that my hon. friend from Grenville-Carleton is not the only person learned in the law and that lawyers have a way of finding loopholes. I would be afraid that some lawyer defending some outfit which wanted to use this name would make something out of the fact that in paragraph 1(a) Parliament said you cannot use the phrase "Parliament Hill" but the only place in which you cannot use it to describe a property is the national capital region.
I think Their Honours, who are supposed to be capable of sober second thought and of looking things over, did a clumsy job on this thing. I have no objection to their desire to protect the rights of the National Assembly of Quebec who sit in Quebec City, or the rights of the members of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta who sit in Edmonton, but it seems to me that it could have been done in a much neater way. The wording we now have seems to suggest that we are making a law prohibiting the use of the phrase "Parliament Hill" on the understanding that that prohibition applies only in this national capital region.
I think Mr. Mcllraith's bill, since we can call him by his name now that he is no longer a member of this House, was a good one and I was happy to second it. It was passed unanimously. I wish Their Honours had taken a little more time and had come up with a less clumsy way of coping with the problem that was presented to them.
Our procedure for handling amendments made by the other place is very awkward; there is really no chance to move an amendment or a subamendment. We are dealing with this with Mr. Speaker in the chair, not in committee of the whole. We are stuck with it unless we want to have a conference of managers of the two Houses. That would be making too much of a fuss; it would be carrying the thing a bit far, so I suppose all I can do is record my opposition and at least say "On division" to the passing of this amendment. As between the bill as it stood and the bill as it came back from the Senate, I would rather have it as it stood, although I would have been quite happy to

accept an amendment to clause 3 along the lines I indicated.
In any case, I hope it is clear from what has been said on the pages of the Hansard of this House that we mean what Mr. Mcllraith meant when he brought in the bill- that we want to protect the use of the phrase "Parliament Hill" against commercial exploitation not only in the national capital region but anywhere in Canada.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think the debate this afternoon has been particularly interesting. I followed the remarks of my colleague, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) and my good friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) very closely. I must confess that I am quite impressed with the argument of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He points out that the effect of the amendment before us is to limit clause 1(a) to the national capital region. This raises a broader question as to possible designation of any number of other areas outside the national capital region, which is clearly contrary to the expressed intent of this bill. It also raises the second question of whether there are limitations, in any geographic sense, imposed in paragraphs (b) and (c). My lay opinion of the wording would be to say no to that, but there may well be a question raised about it.
There are times, Mr. Speaker, when all of us, with the best intentions in the world, rise very sincerely to protect the symbols of our nation. There is the question of the protection, for example, of "O Canada" and at other times in this place we have had debates to prevent its use as a commercial. The measures to designate and develop Canada Day fall in the same category of the preservation of symbols.
There are times, however, Mr. Speaker, when we have to keep a sense of humour about things. For instance, clause 1(b) prohibits the use of the words '"Parliament Hill' to identify any goods, merchandise, wares or articles for commercial use or sale". I presume that leaves us in the position where we can allow the use of "Parliament Sauce" to continue, but there could be no "Parliament Hill Sauce" ever designated, promoted or otherwise offered for sale in Canada. There is a real question of whether we are doing things in such a way that it is on occasion going beyond the limits of what is in fact practicable and enforceable. The penalty provided is that an offence is "punishable on summary conviction".
Mr. Speaker, it is with some reluctance that I shall vote for the bill, not because I do not agree with its general purpose but because I have reservations, as expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, about whether the amendments that have been proposed will really achieve the purpose in mind. On balance, I am going to support the bill-I can hardly do otherwise-but I cannot help but strongly express the wish that there were a procedure for consultation more frequently used between the other place and this House when there is a difference of opinion in respect of a bill and when amendments are offered. I understood such a provision exists but has fallen into disuse. In the period that I have been in this House I cannot recall its ever being implemented.
May 5, 1972


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is clumsy.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Well, maybe a clumsy procedure is better than bad legislation. I regret that there was not an opportunity for joint consultation between members of the other place and members of this House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the
hon. member a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Would the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) accept a question?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Certainly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon.
member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) indicated that he would be supporting the bill, as we all did at second reading. Is he also supporting the Senate amendments?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, I am going to support the amendments out of a very practical consideration that the alternative to not supporting them is probably to jeopardize the bill itself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not with George over in the Senate now.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I had a few words to say on behalf of our party when this bill was at the second reading stage, and therefore I should like to say a few words now. I am not surprised that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) might be a little biased in his judgment of things that come from the other place, but I am a little surprised that my hon. friend who has just spoken seems to have the same attitude.
I tend to agree with the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) that these amendments are, over-all, an improvement. I see them as meeting the objection that was raised, and with that I think we all agree, that we are not limiting the right of other legislatures or areas to use the term "Parliament Hill".


Stanley Howard Knowles: We should have said that.


John Angus MacLean: I think it could have been said in a neater way; I agree with the hon. member on that. However, as I read the bill as amended it means that three things cannot be done under it. One is to name any site in the national capital region or any place or establishment as "Parliament Hill"; secondly, that name cannot be used anywhere in Canada or in the federal jurisdiction for goods, merchandise, wares or articles for commercial use or for sale and, thirdly, the bill prohibits the use of the name in association with a commercial establishment providing services anywhere in Canada.
As I understand the bill as amended by the Senate, the only loophole would be the possibility that it permits the use of the name "Parliament Hill" outside the national capital region by some organization that is not commercial and does not supply services. There may be an organization that might use the words "Parliament Hill" but I
Public Bills
think the likelihood of that is not very great and I would support the amendment.


Duncan Gordon Blair: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) rises on a point of order.


Duncan Gordon Blair: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order but I freely confess it is not a good point of order. I wonder if I might have the indulgence of the House to make one comment which I failed to make earlier.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: An honest request deserves unanimous consent.


Duncan Gordon Blair: In view of the excellent analysis of the legislation made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I think a few words should be offered for the sake of the record in order to explain the apparent awkwardness of the amendments which were made in the other place.
As I understand the traditions of parliament, it has been the universal custom for this House and the other place not in any way to attempt to interfere with the definition or prescription of the immunities and privileges of provincial legislatures. There is considerable law on this question. Reference has been made to the leading case of Fielding v. Thomas, 1893, in which it was held that "provincial legislatures have power to pass acts for defining their own powers, immunities and privileges," and so on. I think, out of deference to this longstanding tradition, members of the other place decided not to refer specifically to the legislatures or sites of the legislatures of provinces in the way in which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre suggested might be done.
I offer these comments as a historical footnote so that there may be something on record to show the reason for the wording with which we have been confronted in this debate.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I support this bill and I think the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) has given good reasons for supporting it. You must accept the purpose for which this bill was brought in. If you start to mess around with it you are likely to get into trouble, and that is what happened in the other place. They tried to make it somewhat more inclusive than it was intended to be.
When the bill was previously before the House on second reading, I raised one or two questions and was told, quite rightly, that the bill had only one purpose and that my questions were not related to that purpose. This bill has been introduced for one particular purpose. If we accept that, I do not think we will be reluctant to pass it. No doubt one thousand questions could be raised about its applicability to provincial jurisdictions, about whether

May 5, 1972
Public Bills
it ought to apply to phrases other than "Parliament Hill" and so on. For instance, someone might open a beer parlour in the Chateau Laurier and call it "Room 16". Would we be against that? This bill has a narrow purpose and in that context I support it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, indeed on a question of privilege. I deplore the suggestion that "Room 16" is a beer parlour.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Five o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.