June 23, 1972


Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. June 23, 1972


ADULT OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING ACT

AMENDMENTS RESPECTING ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS TO RECEIVE ALLOWANCES- AUTHORIZATION OF CONTRACTS WITH EMPLOYERS


The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-195, to amend the Adult Occupational Training Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.


NDP

Winona Grace MacInnis

New Democratic Party

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway) moved:

That BiD C-195, to amend the Adult Occupational Training Act, be amended in clause 1 by changing the period at the end of line 10 at page 1 to a comma, and by adding immediately thereafter the following words:

"including a woman who is engaged in the domestic services of her home whether or not she has at any time been a member of the labour force.

She said: Mr. Speaker, in order to explain the background and the reason for introducing this amendment I shall have to go back a little in history. The amendments being introduced by the minister are to the Adult Occupational Training Act, 1970. My amendment would apply to clause 3, the definition section of that act, which now reads as follows:

In this part

"adult" means a person whose age is at least one year greater than the regular school leaving age in the province in which he resides; "adult eligible for a training allowance" means an adult who

(a) has been a member of the labour force substantially without interruption for not less than three years, or

(b) has one or more persons wholly or substantially dependent upon him for support.

The way that clause reads, without the bill which the minister has introduced, has been a source of great trouble and difficulty to women across this country. Many women have needed to go out into the labour force, not only to receive training but to obtain the allowance while taking the course. One type of woman affected by this legislation is the single-support mother who because she was unable to get the training allowance and was not able to afford any kind of babysitting or housekeeping service could not go out to work and, in any case, was not eligible because of the three-year requirement. Other women were also affected adversely. Recommendation No. 130 of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women reads:

-we recommend that section 3(b) of the federal Adult Occupational Training Act be amended so that full-time household responsibility be equivalent to participation in the labour force in so far as eligibility for training allowances is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, for several years I have been trying to achieve exactly the same sort of thing as is contained in that recommendation, and I have had a bill on the order paper to amend this clause. My bill, C-143, referred to section 3 of the act to which I added the following:

(c) without restricting the generality of the foregoing, the words "labour force" includes a woman who has been engaged in the domestic services of her home for a period of not less than three years.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, I wanted the definition to make sure that a woman who had been engaged in look-

Adult Occupational Training Act ing after the domestic services of her home for a period of three years would be considered to have been a part of the labour force and consequently eligible not only for training but for the training allowance. I realize very well that the minister has been besought and besieged by groups of women and has been embarrassed by the recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. In this new Bill C-195 he has sought to correct this particular form of discrimination against women in the home. Clause 1 of the new bill provides:

1. Section 3 of the Adult Occupational Training Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

"3. In this part, "adult" means a person whose age is at least one year greater than the regular school leaving age in the province in which he resides."

Anyone who reads that is apt to wonder why I am now seeking to introduce an amendment, because they could assume that it is plain that an adult is a person whose age is one year greater than the school leaving age in the province in which he resides, and presumably a woman is an adult. It might be asked why I want this spelled out. That is what I want to make plain this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. As it reads now, this section leaves it wide open that women can get training and allowances presumably on the same basis as male adults. I know the minister intends that in his legislation because he has been very sympathetic to this approach, but I am moving this amendment because women all across the country are concerned that they have not been able to get specific guarantees from the minister that this is so.

I should like to put on record the reasons I am worried enough to bring in this amendment. When the regulations to this bill come out, unless they are clear and definite on this point, women-and some men, too-will be asking me where I was when the legislation went through. They will ask, "Why didn't you get it clarified beyond any doubt?"

On May 4, when the minister introduced the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women to this House, he said:

The bill to amend the Adult Occupational Training Act which received first reading last week in the House of Commons will provide women-

The minister did not underline this, but I will.

-who have worked one year at any time in their lives the opportunity to receive training as well as training allowances for the first time.

The minister knows as well as I do that any woman, except a few parasites, has worked more than one year at any time in her life. I could not help but conclude that the minister still had in mind the idea of the labour force and the necessity of being part of the labour force in order to qualify. Listen to these words again:

the bill will provide women who have worked one year at any time in their lives-

That can only mean they have worked for one year in the labour force in their lives; it does not make sense otherwise. All women have worked more than one year in their lives, Mr. Speaker.

-the opportunity to receive training as well as training allowances for the first time.

I replied for our party to the ministerial statement. I asked the minister about this and he nodded his head in

3464

June 23, 1972

Adult Occupational Training Act

affirmation. I said I hoped that Hansard would record the nod. I might have had my fears allayed by that nod. But on May 5, during second reading of Bill C-195, an act to amend the Adult Occupational Training Act, the minister said:

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.

The words "must return to work", if they are to mean anything, must be construed as "must return to work in the labour force". That is the only possible meaning one can give them. Again, this made me worry about the type of regulations that will come down. I wondered if they would be clear, or would lead to all sorts of red tape or wrangling as has happened in far too many cases where discrimination has been involved.

I do not think the minister used those words intentionally; but he used them, and that is what worried me. He suggested this will make it easier for women who must return to work, to do so. I suggest that such provision will not help those women who want to take advantage of this legislation but who have never been members of the work force. I am talking about women who married when they were young and perhaps had children, perhaps the husband has died, perhaps the husband is chronically ill or is a drunkard or helpless and is not much use as a breadwinner. Women in that position desperately need training and the training allowances without which they cannot make the necessary arrangements that will permit them to be away from home while they are undergoing training.

I wish the minister would listen, Mr. Speaker, because I shall present one or two further pieces of evidence in support of my contention. On being questioned by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), a member of my party, on whether farmers' wives or housewives on farms would qualify for manpower training allowances under this act, the minister said:

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.

Then he said that no doubt we should 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, or a woman in a similar situation could be defined by regulation. That statement worried me because the question was not answered. Here, again, the minister could have given a categorical yes or no answer; but he did not, and that worried me.

I read the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, a report which was so carefully prepared by Mrs. Paltiel under the direction of the minister, and found on page 23 this reference to amendments to the Adult Occupational Training Act:

This would remove a major obstacle and vastly improve the opportunities for training for women who require it for re-entry into the labour force.

Again, the significant words are "for re-entry into the labour force". When I saw this last piece of evidence-and one must admit, Mr. Speaker, that I am not presenting merely a single piece of evidence-I could not help but worry again. I worried precisely because in the time I have spent here I have learned that provisions must be spelled out clearly in legislation, otherwise regulations over which we exercise no control whatever may be fudged-up or so confusing and messy as to lose sight of the end the legislation was intended to bring about.

So I say to the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that the women of this country want their rights in this act spelled out so that they are clear beyond any doubt. I introduced my amendment because women of this country have had a long, hard fight asserting their rights, and the right enshrined in the amendment is tremendously important for women. Many women across this country need the benefits of this legislation. Women in the home, in the cities and in the country want to supplement the income of the home. They might be the only breadwinner in the home, or perhaps the husband is a cripple, helpless, or no use as a breadwinner. Women need this legislation for supplementing the income of the home.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister to make a clear and definite statement this afternoon on whether the definition of a person who is to be eligible for training and training allowances is to include a woman "who is engaged in the domestic services of her home whether or not she has at any time been a member of the labour force." That is the definition for which I press. I want this language in the act to be clear and plain. I trust the minister will do as I ask, on behalf of thousands of women across this country who want to know whether they will be eligible for the training allowance or for training once this act is proclaimed.

Topic:   ADULT OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS TO RECEIVE ALLOWANCES- AUTHORIZATION OF CONTRACTS WITH EMPLOYERS
Permalink
PC

John Howard Lundrigan

Progressive Conservative

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):

Mr. Speaker, one would be entitled, if one were judging the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) and the amendment she has proposed, to conclude that an election is just around the corner. She wants to include apparently, "woman" in the definition of "adult". Apparently the hon. member is implying that women are not persons, since the bill as now drawn says that an adult means a person. I have the greatest respect for people who fight for the rights of groups in the country even though one group may include 50 per cent of the population, the women of the nation. On the other hand, I think hon. members would agree that any attempt to segregate groups of people in legislation like this amounts to a form of discrimination.

I will not become involved in that question because I am sure the minister will want to raise it when he speaks. I have been the recipient of much commentary, especially since the publication of a recent article which, unfortunately, misrepresented my views.

Topic:   ADULT OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS TO RECEIVE ALLOWANCES- AUTHORIZATION OF CONTRACTS WITH EMPLOYERS
Permalink
?

An hon. Member:

You should read it carefully.

Topic:   ADULT OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS TO RECEIVE ALLOWANCES- AUTHORIZATION OF CONTRACTS WITH EMPLOYERS
Permalink
PC

John Howard Lundrigan

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Lundrigan:

It was printed recently in a national magazine. It purported to represent my views on the basis of my talking to certain groups of women across the country and in various parts of the Atlantic region.

June 23, 1972

Topic:   ADULT OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS TO RECEIVE ALLOWANCES- AUTHORIZATION OF CONTRACTS WITH EMPLOYERS
Permalink
LIB

Murray Arndell McBride

Liberal

Mr. McBride:

There has been a great change in the hon. member.

Topic:   ADULT OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS TO RECEIVE ALLOWANCES- AUTHORIZATION OF CONTRACTS WITH EMPLOYERS
Permalink
PC

John Howard Lundrigan

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Lundrigan:

The hon. member from Arnprior who represents Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton has been very active in the House in the last few months. I wonder how things are in the valley. I am sure the House will be delighted to hear about some of the rallies the hon. member has attended, which it might be in order to put on the record although perhaps the hon. member would not wish the matter to be debated. In any event, I have the greatest respect for the minister and the government for the moves made to eliminate various types of discrimination against women in the labour force. In this category we must include all women who participate actively not only in the work force but in any capacity in Canadian life. So I do not think we ought to talk about the special status of any group, be they young people, old people, women, males or anybody else. Once you put people into special compartments, you are discriminating. I like to think that in legislation like this, which I think reflects the attitude of the Canadian people-that is the important aspect of this question-we can eliminate discrimination so that we need not introduce special status for anyone, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway has attempted to do, I am sure for good reason. If she wants to emphasize an area of discrimination and place before the Parliament of Canada her views, then naturally she is entitled to do so. I would be disappointed if she did not hold strong views on women's movements and women's rights in Canadian society. However, I do not think her proposal is other than discriminatory. I will not elaborate because I am sure the minister will want to touch on this point.

The fact is that Bill C-195 is a progressive step. We have talked about it for a long time. I could say, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) likes to say, that we introduced such legislation six years ago, four years ago, three years ago, and finally the government has adopted it. I will not do that. I think all members of the House agree that eliminating discrimination in the labour force is a move in the right direction.

Once again, we urge the minister and the government to look at the 52-week requirement respecting adult occupational training. I am sure his officials will say that this matter has been handled with discretion and flexibility. I think the 52-week provision ought to be incorporated in this legislation so that we do not see a repetition of the stupid situation in which a person, having started a course, finds 52 weeks later, even before he is finished, that under the regulations his eligibility for participating in the program has ended. That stupidity must be eliminated, Mr. Speaker.

Including on-the-job training in Bill C-195 is a good move. This program has been successful. I have repeated my concern in this House and in committee. I am afraid that areas that are not well organized so far as the business structure is concerned-I am talking about the rural parts of the country-will not be able to take advantage of on-the-job training to the extent of the more structured parts of the country, unless there is some flexibility.

25319-33J

Adult Occupational Training Act

I cannot imagine a great deal of money flowing into northwestern Ontario under the on-the-job training program as compared to what will flow into Toronto which has a very well structured business community. The minister refers to on-the-job training in large companies such as Northern Electric. There it is no difficulty in bringing in on-the-job training of a sophisticated nature. I can see that happening in large businesses and well structured communities, but not in rural parts of the country.

I do not have this concern because I am from a rural part of the country: my concern is the same as that for a good bit of government legislation, including the recent announcement on housing policy. There seems to be greater emphasis on the urban and better structured parts of the country. Without making any announcement, the government is in fact de-emphasizing rural Canada. It is trying to eliminate rural Canada. That is what I am concerned about. This is one of the most fundamental, unwritten aspects of the government's policy. It has never been enunciated. However, if one looks at the various aspects of the legislative program of the past three years, he will see a good many areas in which the government is trying to legislate rural Canada out of existence. I will leave it at that and move on to another challenge on which the minister can comment either today or next week.

The minister referred to the fact that a number of activities of his department in the past six or seven months have had some effect on the economy. He referred to the several moves to help people in occupational training, the Local Initiatives Program, which is indirectly related to this bill, Opportunities for Youth and other areas in which his department has been trying to stimulate the Canadian economy. From day to day in the House we have expressed a good number of reservations, not on the programs introduced by the minister or on the philosophies underlying such programs as LIP but on the way the programs have been decided, brought into effect, the way Parliament has lost control and the fact that we have never been involved in establishing the criteria or determining the evaluating procedures. We have not been well informed on the whole spectrum of the programs.

The minister will have an opportunity in three or four minutes to tell the Canadian people whether he plans, aside from the legislation presently before us, to introduce within the next few days a program which I believe might be called CMOP. That is the first time that term has been used in the House of Commons. Is the minister familiar with CMOP? I understand it stands for Canadian Manpower Opportunities Program. Perhaps the minister is surprised to hear that expression coming from this side of the House.

I challenge the minister to tell the House whether the government has a plan to bring in that program, and whether it will give an undertaking to introduce that program in the House of Commons and have it duly debated in terms of funding, criteria and the whole process so that it will not become another Local Initiatives Program which is basically outside the jurisdiction of this House. I just throw this out to the minister. I do not say that all the decisions have been made with regard to CMOP. My source of information is not official; I have to

June 23, 1972

Adult Occupational Training Act draw conclusions on what might sometimes be inadequate information.

The minister has a right to be proud of the work he has done. However, I ask him to give us a broad indication about the CMOP program which will be funded between $80 million and $100 million. I ask the minister to inform us before Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday of next week whether this program will be handled like other programs which may be very sound philosophically but on which Parliament has never had a chance to express itself. It therefore becomes a bureaucratic operation and handled in some ways without the just concern of the whole nation. I challenge the minister on this matter. Although it is not directly related to the bill in a specific sense, I am sure it is a matter with which he will want to deal.

Topic:   ADULT OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS TO RECEIVE ALLOWANCES- AUTHORIZATION OF CONTRACTS WITH EMPLOYERS
Permalink
LIB

Bryce Stuart Mackasey (Minister of Manpower and Immigration)

Liberal

Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):

Mr. Speaker, I have taken note of some of the questions raised by the hon. member for Gander-Twillin-gate (Mr. Lundrigan). I hope I will be able, if not to answer them at least to allude to them on third reading, if the hon. member does not mind, because the business before us at this stage is specifically whether or not we are to accept the amendment introduced by a representative of the New Democratic Party. I listened with a great deal of interest to the forceful presentation of the young lady.

Topic:   ADULT OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS TO RECEIVE ALLOWANCES- AUTHORIZATION OF CONTRACTS WITH EMPLOYERS
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

Topic:   ADULT OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS TO RECEIVE ALLOWANCES- AUTHORIZATION OF CONTRACTS WITH EMPLOYERS
Permalink
LIB

Bryce Stuart Mackasey (Minister of Manpower and Immigration)

Liberal

Mr. Mackasey:

I always do. However, I was tempted very early in her remarks to suggest that the amendment was entirely out of order, as can be seen if one reads the bill carefully. I listened to her comments, and at the risk of appearing, certainly not flippant but rather crabby in my old age, I was left with the impression that the hon. member felt that she and she alone had any concern about women in the work force, and that she and she alone defined work as including domestic work or the traditional type of work that a busy mother has to do while carrying out her household duties. I can assure her that she has no monopoly on this type of thinking. Theoretically, she presumes she has that kind of monopoly.

It is a definition that in general I accept. I think many members of the House realize that housework of the traditional nature and type is work in the full sense of the word and that in part our lack of consciousness should have been recognized a long time ago and in many other fields. If I chastise the hon. lady on this, it is because I think that the whole thrust of her argument is that whenever I talk about work-apart from the times I talk about re-entry into the work force, or even when I talk about that-I talk about the work force excluding work in the home. On many occasions I have expressed the opinion of the hon. lady that work in the home is work in the work force. I will not belabour the point about the need of re-entering the work force.

The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate has quite logically and concisely dealt with, and I want to try to remain concise and precise, the question of whether the definition of "adult" includes people working at home, in the traditional sense. It is absolutely immaterial under the terms of Bill C-195 as it is now written. The argument is valid as

far as the original act is concerned because the three-year rule did, very definitely, discriminate-unintentionally, I hope-not only against women but against other members of Canadian society who for one reason or another found their right to financial assistance while taking training courses jeopardized.

If hon. members would look at Bill C-195 and read the explanatory notes which showed the bill as it was prior to the proposed amendments, they would find that we had left out entirely the old section 3(b) which defined an adult. So under the new bill it is immaterial whether a person, male or female, was ever a member of the work force. Every bill defines an adult in a different way, depending on its purpose. The definition of an adult in Bill C-195 is a person whose age is at least one year greater than the regular school-leaving age in the province in which he resides. What we are saying is that a person, male or female, may never have been a member of the work force at any time. That is no longer a prerequisite to obtaining financial assistance. That no longer has any meaning under the present bill.

We have therefore gone further than the recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada that section 3(b) of the act be amended so that full-time household responsibility be equivalent to participation in the labour force as far as training allowance is concerned. We have eliminated discrimination of any kind. We do not want to substitute one kind of discrimination for another by setting up preferred groups. We shall not rectify the imbalance in Canada as between opportunities for men and for women in the final analysis by legislation. We have to rectify that discrimination by education. It is not by substituting well intentioned discrimination of one type that we shall eliminate discrimination of another. Many of us who feel this way are sometimes accused of being reactionary whereas, in fact, we see beyond the short range and do not wish to replace one type of discrimination by another, however well meaning. The bill as written eliminates discrimination entirely by removing section 3(b).

Having taken five minutes to say all that, I must recognize that the hon. lady has been one of the strong advocates of the total elimination of discrimination against women. Her career has been notable in this respect. Her speeches have often been directed to this end. Indeed, she has become synonymous with this battle which is only beginning but which at least is progressing along the right lines. I am sure that her amendment, which I think would be out of order, or at least it might be considered out of order because it is redundant, is nevertheless an honest attempt to bring to my attention as minister some of the ambiguities in my statements and to the fear she has that regulations may interfere with the intent of the law, although in practice a federal court would prevent that happening. Nevertheless, I am prepared to entertain, if the hon. lady feels this to be desirable, an amendment in her name-this is a tribute to the hon. lady, I can assure her, rather than the result of any fear I have of the bill as presently drafted-which would substitute one word for another in her amendment as set down. Thus, instead of reading, "including a woman who was engaged in the

June 23, 1972

domestic service of her home whether or not she has at any time been a member of the labour force," the amendment would read, "including a person who was engaged in domestic service at home," and so on.

Hon. members will appreciate that there are men engaged in domestic service at home, paraplegics and others whose wives go out to work and who maintain the home in a happy marriage situation. There are more of these people than we realize. So in my view the amendment should read:

-including a person engaged in domestic service at home whether or not such a person has at any time been a member of the labour force.

In this way we shall be removing the remote possibility of regulations ever limiting what the act intended. The amendment makes the point which the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate made so eloquently when he argued we should not substitute one type of discrimination for another, and in a way it recognizes, though perhaps after the fact, the contribution made by the Royal Commission on the Status of Women and its particular recommendation made at the time the officials of my department were drawing up these amendments.

I am not sure of the procedure, Mr. Speaker; I will leave that in your capable hands and I will gladly yield the floor to the hon. lady if she feels disposed to change her amendment along the lines I have indicated. I would then be quite prepared to second it.

Topic:   ADULT OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS TO RECEIVE ALLOWANCES- AUTHORIZATION OF CONTRACTS WITH EMPLOYERS
Permalink
PC

Donald MacInnis

Progressive Conservative

Mrs. Maclnnis:

I wish to say right now that I find the minister's generosity very great. Not only is his generosity great, but his wisdom is much greater than mine because I infinitely prefer the word "person" in there rather than "woman". But I did not know the minister was prepared to look far enough ahead to the point at which men would be doing household work on a large scale along with women, and that is exactly how it should be.

Topic:   ADULT OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS TO RECEIVE ALLOWANCES- AUTHORIZATION OF CONTRACTS WITH EMPLOYERS
Permalink
LIB

Bryce Stuart Mackasey (Minister of Manpower and Immigration)

Liberal

Mr. Mackasey:

You haven't been to my house.

Topic:   ADULT OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS TO RECEIVE ALLOWANCES- AUTHORIZATION OF CONTRACTS WITH EMPLOYERS
Permalink
PC

Donald MacInnis

Progressive Conservative

Mrs. Maclnnis:

I accept the minister's suggestion with real pleasure and profit. I accept the minister's strictures concerning what is perhaps a positive attitude on my part in seeming to be more concerned about women than some other people are. I accept this criticism, but in order to gain anything one has to drive very hard against tradition. I may never have occasion to say this again, but I think that what the minister has done today in this regard at least is to introduce a bill which will be very much appreciated, not only by the women of this country but by the men who have wit enough to understand what he has done. I thank him very much.

Topic:   ADULT OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS TO RECEIVE ALLOWANCES- AUTHORIZATION OF CONTRACTS WITH EMPLOYERS
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

Topic:   ADULT OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS TO RECEIVE ALLOWANCES- AUTHORIZATION OF CONTRACTS WITH EMPLOYERS
Permalink
NDP

Stanley Howard Knowles (N.D.P. House Leader; Whip of the N.D.P.)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

Mr. Speaker, things I might have said are now not necessary to say, so I rise simply to ask whether the House will give consent to the motion on the order paper in the name of my hon. friend from Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) which I had the honour to second, being taken as though it read:

-including a person who is engaged in domestic services at home

Adult Occupational Training Act

whether or not such person has at any time been a member of the labour force.

One could write out an amendment to change this, that or the other word, but it is crowding five o'clock and in view of the unanimity in the House the motion in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, which I am still pleased to second, might be regarded as reading in the terms suggested by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Mackasey).

Topic:   ADULT OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS TO RECEIVE ALLOWANCES- AUTHORIZATION OF CONTRACTS WITH EMPLOYERS
Permalink
LIB

Russell Clayton Honey (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Hon. members have heard the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Mackasey) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) suggest the way we should proceed. The Chair is in agreement, if hon. members are. Is there such consent?

Topic:   ADULT OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS TO RECEIVE ALLOWANCES- AUTHORIZATION OF CONTRACTS WITH EMPLOYERS
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Agreed.

Topic:   ADULT OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS TO RECEIVE ALLOWANCES- AUTHORIZATION OF CONTRACTS WITH EMPLOYERS
Permalink

June 23, 1972