1962-01-31

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Pitman: 1.	How many areas have been designated as surplus manpower areas as of December 31, 1961?
2.	What areas have been so designated as of December 31, 1961?
3.	How many Industries have been established in these areas as a result of double depreciation provisions granted in 1961 under the Income Tax Act.
4.	What is the total employment given by these industries?
5.	How many new industries processing new products and Canadian materials have been established under the provisions of double depreciation as granted in 1961 under the Income Tax Act?
6.	What is the total employment of these industries?
Answer by: Mr. Balcer:
1.	As of December 31, 1961, 19 areas and localities had been designated.
2.	The following areas and localities have been designated: National employment service local office areas-Amherst, N.S., New Glasgow, N.S., Springhill, N.S., Newcastle, N.B., Drummondville, P.Q., Cornwall, Ontario, Elliot Lake, Ontario, Windsor, Ontario; Localities- Louisburg, N.S., Grand Falls-St. Leonard, N.B., Milltown, N.B., Port Elgin, N.B., Sack-ville, N.B., Campbellton, N.B., Louisville, P.Q., Matane, P.Q., Tracy, P.Q., La Broquerie, Manitoba, Drumheller, Alberta.
3.	4, 5 and 6. To be answered by the Department of Trade and Commerce.
3.	To date, 9 new industries are being established in surplus manpower areas as a result of the special capital cost allowance program. In addition, several other applications are under consideration in the department at the present time. These industries will produce 22 new products.
4.	The employment effects of the capital cost allowance program have been twofold. In many cases, immediate employment has been given to construction workers in the erection of new or expanded premises. Industries supplying materials, equipment and machinery have also benefited. In many cases, the new plants will not be completed for several months and the full employmentgiving impact of these new industries may
not be fully realized for some months. In total, we believe that a large number of workers will find jobs in surplus manpower areas because of the program.
5.	To date a total of 66 new industries have been established under the program. These industries will be producing close to 100 new products. In addition, the department is examining a considerable number of other applications and these will result in the establishment of more facilities to produce new products.
6.	Because many of these industries are in the process of being established, that is, having plants erected, buying machinery, etc., it is not possible to know how many workers they will ultimately employ. At the present time, they are giving employment to substantial numbers of construction workers who are erecting new and expanded plants. Furthermore, employment in machinery and equipment supplying industries has been assisted through the orders placed by these new industries. We believe that the total employment resulting from the program will be substantial.


*MB. ABBE BERGERON    SERVICE WITH ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY
Mr. Pigeon: 1.	Has Mr. Abbe Bergeron, from Cornwall, Ontario, ever held a position with the St. Lawrence seaway authority and, if so, during what year, and for how many months?
2.	What were his duties and working conditions?
3.	By whom was he recommended to the president of the St. Lawrence seaway authority?
4.	Who was then president of the St. Lawrence seaway authority?


Mr. Martini:: The answer to No. 1 is yes; 1957-7 months; 1958-11 months.
The answer to the second part of the question is: soils inspector on construction of dike in Laprairie basin from May 29, 1957, to December 3, 1957; watchman at St. Lambert from December 4, 1957, to April 15, 1958; soils inspector on construction of dike in Laprairie basin from April 16, 1958, to November 28, 1958.
Working conditions as (1) soils inspector- casual employee, 40 hour week; (2) watchman-prevailing rate employee, 48 hour week.
In reply to the third part of the question, there is no record of any recommendation to the president of the authority.

Questions
The answer to the fourth part of the question is: Mr. Charles Gavsie until January 31, 1958; Mr. B. J. Roberts from February 1, 1958.


LINCOLN PARK R.C.A.F. BASE, LETHBRIDGE   IRREGULARITIES
Mr. Argue: 1.	Have any irregularities taken place at the Lincoln park H.C.A.F. base, Lethbridge, involving (a) the R.C.A.F. detachment in Lethbridge (b) Canadian Pacific Airlines (Repair) Ltd.?
2.	It so, is an investigation under way, or has one been carried out?
3.	If so, what is the result of the investigation? Answer by: Mr. Chambers:
1.	Yes, in the disposal of material from stored aircraft at Lethbridge.
2.	An investigation is under way.
3.	Results of investigation reported to date are as follows:
Three civilian employees of Canadian Pacific Airlines (Repair) were tried in civil court on December 12, 1961. A total of 15 charges, each involving government property, were preferred by the R.C.M.P. This included 11 charges of theft over $50, three under $50 and one of illegal possession. Each person was given a two year suspended sentence on each offence, as charged, to run concurrently.
The three persons, who were charged, as above, were suspended from duty by C.P.A. (R) on November 20, 1961. They were dismissed from the company on November 27,
1961.	Four other civilian employees were temporarily suspended by C.P.A. (R) on November 20, 1961 but were reinstated shortly thereafter. One of the latter was subsequently dismissed by the company. No R.C.A.F. personnel were implicated.


INCREASE IN INFECTIOUS HEPATITIS
Mr. Martin (Essex East): Is the Minister of National Health and Welfare in a position to explain the increase in the incidence of infectious hepatitis in Canada in the past year?
Answer by: Mr. Monteith (Perth):
The reason for the increased incidence of infectious hepatitis in Canada last year is not known precisely. However probably the reasons are (1) the tendency for the disease to appear in cycles and (2) better reporting of the disease.
Infectious hepatitis is most common in children and young adults. Many infections are mild, develop no jaundice, and are recognizable only by liver function tests. The mode of spread of infectious hepatitis is similar to that of intestinal infections. The principal mode of spread of this disease is probably through intimate person to person contact.


BLIND PERSONS ALLOWANCE
Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	Has the government received representations from any organizations, requesting a specific allowance for blind persons of $25 a month free of a means test, to compensate for extra expenses incurred because of blindness?
2.	If so, from what organizations have such representations been received, and what answer has the government made?
Answer by: Mr. Monteith (Perth):
1.	Yes.
2.	Representations were made by a joint deputation of the Canadian Council of the Blind and the Canadian National Institute for the Blind on September 26 last. The Minister of National Health and Welfare in meeting with this group indicated the desire on the part of the government to be helpful to blind persons and that their representations would receive very careful consideration. He mentioned that in any steps taken to improve Canada's social welfare legislation the needs of blind persons would certainly be included and that in this regard it was hoped that further steps would be taken at the next session of parliament.
A number of these steps have already been announced. The increase in the maximum benefit to $65 a month and the provision of a higher income ceiling under the Blind Persons Act will with the co-operation of the provinces bring added income to more than 8,500 blind persons across Canada. The increase in the federal old age security pension to $65 a month will bring higher benefits to between 10,000 and 11,000 blind persons now covered by that program. The proposal for the establishment of a national council of welfare at this time is for the purpose of advising on the federal government's social assistance programs including the Blind Persons Act; the representations made by organizations representing blind persons with respect to the further improvement of legislation affecting the blind are of course especially important in the consideration of this question. The fourth step relates to plans, if the provinces agree to a constitutional amendment, to introduce an old age survivors and disability insurance program which would include social insurance protection against blindness along with other disabilities.


CHRISTMAS POSTAGE STAMP
Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	Has the postmaster general received representations from any organizations or individuals for a special Christmas postage stamp?
2.	If so, from what organizations or individuals, and what reasons were given for not complying with such requests?

Answer by: Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) The following individuals and organizations submitted letters during the past year recommending the issue of a special Christmas postage stamp. This list is representative of requests received during previous years.
Mr. Robert Kingham, 125 Victoria ave. S., Hamilton, Ont., 5th Jan. 1962,
Miss Grace N. Gawley, 17 Lascelles blvd., Toronto 7, Ont., Dec. 1961,
Mr. T. D. Hulbert, 3325 E. 27th ave., Vancouver 12, B.C., 30th Nov. 1961,
Mr. H. Barrett, Richmond, Surrey, England, 19th Aug. 1961,
Hon. Paul Martin, M.P., House of Commons, Ottawa, 8th Sept. 1961,
Sr. Rose-de-la-Trinite, c.s.c.,	1295 Basil
Moreau, Montreal 9, 31st July 1961,
Mr. Norman M. Easton, Minto st., Regina, Sask., 6th June 1961,
Mr. Laurier Regnier, M.P., House of Commons, Ottawa, 14th April 1961-May 1960, Mr. J. R. Tucker, M.P., House of Commons, Ottawa, 14th April 1961-29th Dec. 1960,
Mr. C. W. Carter, M.P., House of Commons, Ottawa, 13th April 1961,
Letter referred from the chairman "Christ in Christmas campaign" St. John's, Newfoundland, by Mr. J. A. McGrath, M.P., House of Commons, 20th Dec. 1960; by Hon. W. J. Browne, M.P., Solicitor General, Ottawa, 6th Jan. 1961; by Mr. C. R. Granger, M.P., House of Commons, 27th Jan. 1961.
Master David Carter, 469A LaFontaine st., Montreal, Jan. 1961.
(b) For a great many years it has been the policy to avoid the representation of a religious subject on postage stamps in Canada. This long standing policy was maintained to promote religious tolerance and mutual respect. It is believed that there are a great many conscientious Christians who believe strongly that there should not be a Christmas stamp. In this country where there is such a high degree of tolerance of various points of view, particularly in religious convictions, postage stamps to commemorate the religious character of Christmas might very well have the opposite effect from that intended by those who have advocated it. Until there is a much more uniform opinion on this question, it is thought the issue of a Christmas stamp would be inadvisable.


C.N.R. STATION AGENT, STONEY POINT, ONT.
Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1. Will the Minister of Transport advise whether the board of transport commissioners has issued
Order for Return
an order granting the Canadian National Railways authority to remove the station agent at Stoney Point, Ontario?
2. If so, what is the effective date of this arrangement?
Answer by: Mr. Martini:
The board of transport commissioners for Canada advise as follows:
1.	Yes, by order No. 106776 dated January 11, 1962 of the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada.
2.	As soon as arranged by the Canadian National Railways.


P.E.I. CAUSEWAY SURVEY
Mr. McWilliam: Have the studies into the Prince Edward Island causeway been completed to the point where such studies have demonstrated the feasibility of constructing such a causeway?
Answer by: Mr. Walker:
No. The engineers are reasonably certain at this stage that some type of crossing can be constructed. However, studies into the designs for various types of crossings and into some of the engineering problems associated with them, all of which have a bearing on cost and feasibility, are still not completed.


* GRAIN ELEVATOR STORAGE CAPACITY, PRINCE RUPERT, B.C.
Mr. Howard: 1.	Since January 1, 1958, have any studies been made of the possibility of increasing the storage capacity of the grain elevators at Prince Rupert,
B.	C., and, if so, what do these studies indicate?
2.	Have any steps been taken or are any contemplated with respect to so increasing the storage capacity of the said elevator and, if so, what are they?


Mr. Jorgenson:: In reply to the hon.
member's question I wish to advise him that an interdepartmental committee has been appointed to study the problems related to the storage and handling of grains in Canada. Its major function will be to prepare an initial assessment of the adequacy of present facilities for the storage and handling of grain in relation to present and future requirements for the storage and the movement of Canadian grains. The situation in Prince Rupert will be examined during the course of the over-all study.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
[Stage Direction]
C.	M. DRURY

Mr.. Malheson: 1. What civilian and military appointments, with dates, have been held by the C. M. Drury referred to by the Prime Minister on January 23, 1962?

Motions for Papers
2.	What decorations, if any, have been conferred upon Drury?
3.	Has this government honoured Drury by any appointment?


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 1-Mr. Cardin (for Mr. Chevrier):
That an. humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before, this house a copy of all correspondence between the Prime Minister of Canada and the premier of the province of Quebec concerning university grants since January 1. 1961.
Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, subject to the concurrence of the provincfal government.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservation expressed by the Prime Minister, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 2-Mr. Cardin (for Mr. Chevrier):
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Minister of Justice and thes attorneys general or other provincial ministers since July 1, 1960, regarding the method of amending the constitution of Canada.
Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Speaker, in anticipation of a request of this nature I wrote to the provinces, I think on January 9, to ascertain their position with regard to the production of correspondence. I have not as yet heard from all the provinces and would therefore ask that this motion stand.
Motion stands.


ROAD CONNECTION, KITAMAAT INDIAN RESERVE-KITIMAT MUNICIPALITY
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 3-Mr. Howard:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between the federal government and any other government or person since January 1, 1956, and dealing with a road connection between the Indian reserve of Kitamaat and the municipality of Kitimat.
Mrs. Fairclough:: Mr. Speaker, this motion can be accepted subject to the co-operation and permission of the provinces.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservation expressed by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 4-Mr. Howard:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid
[Mr. Matheson.l
before this house a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between a Mrs. Bernadette Grey of Fort Fraser, B.C., and the superintendent general of Indian affairs or any official of the Indian affairs branch since January 1, 1960, regarding Indian handicrafts or imitation Indian handicrafts imported from Japan.
Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, we accept this motion. There may be a short delay in procuring copies of this correspondence because some of it has to come from our field offices.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 5-Mr. Mcllrailh:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all contracts entered into between the Canadian wheat board and the China Resources Company for the sale of grain under the long term agreement between the Canadian wheat board and the China Resources Company.
Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister I would ask that this motion stand, and also No. 6.


Mr. Speaker:: The parliamentary secretary asks that this motion stand. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion stands.


AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF WHEAT TO CHINA
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 6-Mr. Mcllrailh:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of the long term agreement signed by the Canadian wheat board and the China Resources Company covering the period June 1, 1961, to December 1963.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that this motion stand, at the request of the parliamentary secretary?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion stands.


CANADIAN POLICY FOLLOWING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: 
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think there was the general agreement on the part of hon. members in all parts of the house that so long as our trade with Cuba was in nonstrategic materials there was no reason whatever to interfere with it. I think there were representatives of the official opposition as well as of the N.D.P. who held that view. No consideration has been given to any change in the policy.


INQUIRY AS TO NEGOTIATIONS FOR NEW AGREEMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Agriculture. Would the acting minister inform the house as to the general attitude being taken by the Canadian negotiators at Geneva having to do with the establishment of a further international wheat agreement? More particularly, would he comment on a press report in the Winnipeg Free Press that Canada is asking for a ceiling price of $2 to $2.10 a bushel while certain other countries are asking for a ceiling price of $2.35 a bushel?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Acting Minister of Agriculture):: As usual, Mr. Speaker, I will not comment on assumptions or guesses made by the Winnipeg Free Press. I can tell the hon. member that our delegation at this conference will do its best to have a further wheat agreement arrived at on equitable terms.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder whether I might ask the minister if Canada is shooting for a ceiling price of $2.35 a bushel, or $2.10, or somewhere in between.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may ask, as he has done, but I am not going to answer.


URANIUM
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether any progress has been made in bringing to a conclusion the negotiations regarding the uranium contract with the United Kingdom since he last mentioned the matter in the house.


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: There is progress being made, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Pickersgill:: At the usual speed.
Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR CONDITIONS


BRANTFORD, ONT.    DISMISSAL OF EMPLOYEES OF IMPLEMENT COMPANY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. I wonder whether the minister is yet in a position to report, as a result of his discussions, with regard to the lay-offs of employees of the Cockshutt Farm Equipment Limited plant in Brantford. In particular, would the minister comment on the statement by the general manager that 600 employees are about to be laid off and will receive only about one third of the severance pay that they should get.


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mk. Speaker, the hon. member for Assiniboia is following up the question he posed to me yesterday. Since then I have had a long discussion with the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Wratten) who is vitally interested in this matter, and I have contacted the national employment service office in Brantford.
We have received a report from the Brantford national employment service office that a part of the Cockshutt Farm Equipment plant is in process of sale to the White Motor Company and its affiliate the Oliver Farm Equipment Company. It is understood that this sale has been approved by the directors of Cockshutt Farm Equipment Limited and recommended to the shareholders.
Lay-offs have occurred at the plant over the last three weeks while some employees, it is understood, have left of their own accord to accept other employment. The Brantford national employment service office is finding employment within commuting distance of Brantford for some skilled tradesmen, while others are finding employment through personal contacts with other employers. One employer from outside the Brantford area has interviewed skilled tradesmen with a view to their employment elsewhere.
The prospect of alternative employment for the semi-skilled and unskilled workers is less bright at this moment. However, the situation concerning all those laid off is still somewhat uncertain until the sale has been completed and the intention of the new owners concerning the operation of the plant has become known. The national employment service office is keeping in close contact with the situation and will do everything possible to re-establish as quickly as possible the men who are being and will be laid off.
As to severance pay, that is not a matter which comes within federal jurisdiction. The agricultural implement industry is under provincial jurisdiction.
400	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask a supplementary question. In view of the interest which I am sure the minister has in maintaining as much employment in the country as possible, is the hon. gentleman prepared to discuss with the new foreign owners of what was once a Canadian company the possibility of maintaining the work force and not providing for the dismissal of 600 workers at this time?


Michael Starr: I am always willing to have discussions at any time with anyone interested in the employment of Canadians.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to address a related question to the Minister of Finance, and ask him whether the acquisition of this historic farm implement company by a foreign corporation and the subsequent unemployment can be attributed to his policy of depreciating the Canadian dollar.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question, as I heard it, appears to be an attempt to express a point of view rather than a search for information.


REPORTED REFUSAL TO TAKE TECHNICAL TRAINING COURSES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John R. Maiheson (Leeds):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Does the minister agree with the statement of the government leader in the other place as reported in today's Globe and Mail-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Ross Matheson: -that unemployed Canadians are refusing to take technical training courses-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member is asking for an opinion. If he has a question of fact to bring to the attention of the Minister of Labour, it would be in order to do so.


John Ross Matheson: May I ask the Minister of Labour whether it is true that unemployed Canadians are refusing to take technical training courses that would enable them to find jobs?


Michael Starr: This has not been brought to my attention.
I am not aware of that situation.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay Wesl):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Na-


tional Revenue. I am sure we are all very pleased to see him in his place and looking so well.
In view of the charges made by the Toronto night club comedienne Jean Templeton- no relation to Charles Templeton-that the C.B.C. ordered deletion of satirical references to the Prime Minister written by her for the television variety program "Parade", would the minister investigate these charges to make certain that political influence is not being exercised to censor humorous or satirical references related to the policy, platitudes or physique of the Prime Minister in violation of our tradition?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minisler of National Revenue):: I cannot help wishing that the question asked had been more in keeping with the kindly words spoken by the hon. member at the beginning. I do not have to make any inquiries as to whether political influence was used in connection with this matter because neither this government, nor any member of it, either now or in the future, would use political influence over the C.B.C. I have heard suggestions of political influence, but emanating from within toward this government, rather than in the other direction.
If the hon. gentleman had read the article this morning on which he purports to base his question he would have noticed that the monologue was directed not only to the Prime Minister of Canada but to the President of the United States, to members of the royal family, to Mr. Khrushchev and many other distinguished people, and that the producer of the C.B.C. program said these references were deleted because they were in poor taste. Having received complaints at various times in the past from the hon. member for Kootenay West as well as from other hon. members with respect to poor taste alleged to have been exhibited by the C.B.C., I am sure that these references must have been in very poor taste indeed or they would not have been deleted.



MONTREAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Loiselle (St. Ann):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. Is the minister aware of a statement by the mayor of Montreal to the effect that the city expects to receive a favourable decision before February 12 concerning the C.B.C. project to be built in the east end of Montreal? Has the minister any comment to make on Mayor Drapeau's statement?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: No.



&quot;THE LIMELIGHTERS&quot;


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Clyde Nowlan: I should have mentioned, while I was on my feet, that yesterday the hon. member for Ottawa West asked me a question with respect to the program called "The Lime-lighters". At that time I did not know precisely to what the question referred, but in reading the papers this morning I noticed there is some connection between "The Lime-lighters" and the monologue proposed for broadcasting by Miss Templeton. Perhaps the answer which I gave to the hon. member for Kootenay West could be taken as applying to the question asked yesterday.



PROTESTS AGAINST PROGRAM ON LIFE OF MR. DUPLESSIS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Deschaieleis (Maisonneuve-Rosemoni):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Would the minister inquire whether the C.B.C. has received a telegram from Quebec legislative councillor Mr. Gerald Martineau protesting two television programs on the life of Mr. Duplessis. Further, could the hon. gentleman say whether this matter is being investigated?


George Clyde Nowlan: I can say without inquiry that the C.B.C. has received protests with respect to parts of the programs dealing with the life of the late Hon. Mr. Duplessis. The corporation has also received protests against the portrayal of the life of a former Liberal premier of the province of Ontario.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like, if I may, to direct a question to the Minister of Justice and ask him what action has been taken with respect to the recommendation of the restrictive trade practices commission to the effect that a court order either for the dissolution of the merger or for preventive action should be sought in relation to the acquisition of Calgary Packers Limited and Wilsil Limited by Canada Packers?


Edmund Davie Fulton: My
recollection is that this matter has been referred to counsel, but with precisely what instructions I do not recall. I shall have to look that up and give a more complete answer tomorrow.
Inquiries of the Ministry



OLYMPIC GAMES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arthur Smith (Calgary South):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport in his capacity as joint chairman of Canada's centennial committee. I should like to ask him whether this committee would consider including in its plans, which I presume are currently under way, support and co-operation for the various agencies attempting to bring the 1968 Olympic games to the Banff-Lake Louise area of Canada.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: I am confident that the centennial committee would welcome any opportunity to co-operate with any group or association in order to promote this undertaking, which should prove a great boost for Canada's international prestige.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Labour whether the government proposes to introduce legislation to deal with the rapidly decreasing unemployment insurance fund before the dissolution of parliament or before the end of the present fiscal year?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister of Finance could best deal with this question, but I may say there will be an item in the further supplementary estimates later this year.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would be happier to have the reply of the Minister of Labour, but since the minister prefers to pass the responsibility to the Minister of Finance, may I ask the Minister of Finance whether he is prepared to reply to the question?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the question has already been replied to, and I am sorry if the hon. member did not hear the reply.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. On February 7, 1961, as

Inquiries of the Ministry reported at page 1796 of Hansard of that date, I asked the minister the following question:
Has the minister received a protest against the 15 per cent dividend tax from the director of the $100 million Anaconda development in northwestern Ontario, on which they have already spent $5 million? If so, have they indicated that they will suspend operations on the property, thereby displacing 100 men employed on the project?
The minister replied as follows-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is undoubtedly very interesting but it is a matter of record in Hansard. Has the hon. member a current question to ask?


Hubert Badanai: Has the minister received indications lately that the company, which employs 100 men, is closing its operations due to the 15 per cent dividend tax? Has the minister received communications or representations in that regard?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, sir.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the Canadian government received any request from the government of Ghana to supply officers or military officials for the training of the Ghanaian army?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that same question or a similar one was asked some days ago, and the hon. member will find the answer in Hansard.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question.
My question is based on a late report from England which indicated that there had been a further request. Would the minister say if there has been any additional request?


Howard Charles Green: There has been no change in that situation since the answer which was given the other day.



CANADIAN PARTICIPATION IN BOND ISSUE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he is in a position to state the attitude of the government of Canada toward participating in the United Nations bond issue designed to deal with the financial situation confronting that organization, along
[Mr. Badanai.1

the lines of the recommendation being made by the President of the United States for the purchase of $100 million of these bonds.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government was the first to announce participation in that bond issue. This was some weeks ago, and I am amazed that the hon. member did not hear about it. I did notice one report in the magazine U.S. News and World Report which I am very glad to have the opportunity to correct today. This report said that Canada owed the United Nations the amount which is to be subscribed to this bond issue. That is completely wrong, of course. The facts are just the opposite.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for this information, and I regret that I did not know the government had made up its mind. I can only say that the government propaganda machine apparently was not functioning.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Could the genial minister, who seemed to be a little cross at my question, tell me what amount we are taking up?


Howard Charles Green: Canada is subscribing for her share of the bond issue. It is about $6| million.
(Translation):



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Pit Lessard (St. Henry):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Until a definite date is set for the opening of Champlain bridge, can the minister assure the house that it will not be a toll bridge.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, with regard to tolls on the bridges between the island of Montreal and the south shore of the St. Lawrence, I made a statement at the beginning of the session to the effect that we were asking the province and the city of Montreal to discuss with us a plan designed to remove the tolls on Jacques Cartier and Victoria bridges.
As far as Champlain bridge is concerned, nothing has been changed in the previous plans of the Department of Transport.


Mr. Azellus Denis (Sf. Denis):: I should like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister tell the house whether he has written to the provincial and

municipal authorities in connection with an agreement for the abolition of tolls on the Jacques Cartier bridge and whether he has communicated with the authorities of the C.N.R. with respect to the Victoria bridge?


Léon Balcer: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
(Text):



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
"bounty"
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources if the Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer Corporation-


An hon. Member:: Mayer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, I am not very familiar with those things.


George Harris Hees: You do not get to the movies much.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -has offered-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Hon. members cannot expect the question to be dealt with if they all endeavour to answer the question before it is asked.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -that fine ship the Bounty to the Canadian government and, if so, whether the minister would consider having the ship come to rest in one of the harbours in Terra Nova national park in the province where so many of the finest Nova Scotia ships have found their last home.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, there were several implications in the question that was asked by the hon. member. My reply to the first is that there has been an approach made to the government of Canada by the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Corporation. This approach has been made through the Department of National Defence, I believe. As to the second part of the question, whether the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources would give consideration to making the Bounty an integral part of Terra Nova national park, and the hon. member's reference to the ships that lie in the bays there, I shall take that matter under active consideration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the minister very much for his answer.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Martineau in the chair.
Supply-Labour



DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

[Stage Direction]
613. Special services branch including the promotion of a program for combating seasonal unemployment, the organization and use of workers for farming and related industries and assistance to the provinces under agreements entered into with the provinces by the Minister of Labour with the approval of the governor in council-further amount required, $90,000.
Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, this item in the further supplementary estimates for $90,000 is an amount required in connection with our do it now campaign. There has not been a complete statement on the functions of this campaign and the goal that we have in mind, or the participation that is involved in this campaign along with the promotional work undertaken by the federal government. Today I will try to give the members of the committee as full and complete a report on this item as is available.
This money is to provide for additional publicity material in the way of posters, pamphlets and advertising to support the efforts of and fulfil requests from our winter employment committees in towns and cities from coast to coast. This national campaign is designed to encourage individuals, businesses, industries and householders to carry out as much work as possible during the cold months. This program has reached a degree of effectiveness in the last couple of years which has resulted in positive effects on business activity in a wide variety of areas each year, and particularly each winter.
While there is still much to be done, the construction and supply industries have proven beyond any doubt, Mr. Chairman, that construction of all types can be a year round activity. The Canadian Construction Association reported in a bulletin dated November 30, 1961, as follows:
During the past eight years, increased efforts have been made by government at all levels, by individuals, by communities and by national organizations to stimulate winter employment. These have met with a substantial measure of success. As a matter of fact, the volume of wintertime construction and employment has increased so that now more Canadians are employed in construction operations in mid-winter than were employed during the so-called building season a dozen years ago.
This is the end of the quotation that appeared in this bulletin issued by the Canadian Construction Association on November 30 last. In further support of this statement I should like to quote from the September, 1961 issue of the National Builder, a magazine which is closely associated with the National House Builders Association. I quote:
The swing to year round operation in building has made faster headway among the general contractors, but now it seems that home builders are catching up fast, encouraged by the easy availability of mortgage loans, the increasing

Supply-Labour
number of pre-sold houses, and the advantages of getting their latest designs on the market for the growing spring market.
Recently the editor of this magazine sent us the following message relating this trend to our do it now campaign. His message read thus:
You will be interested to know the do it now winter work campaign is converting the building industry across Canada to a stabilized year round operation from former spring to fall activities. Winter home building particularly now goes ahead in volume for a newly created winter-spring sales market.
That is the end of his remarks. Another authoritative magazine, the Building Supply Dealer-I might say at this time, Mr. Chairman, this magazine has vigorously supported the do it now campaign and its principle over the past several years-reports an increasing winter business amongst lumber dealers during each of the past few winters. In the December issue of Lumber Merchandising, another trade paper which serves the construction industry, the editor stated as follows, referring to the do it now campaign:
The idea of having work done in the winter months has been promoted consistently for the past few years and every year the accumulated effort helps produce more results for the current season.
Now, Mr. Chairman, during the past winter, from November to March, government sponsored N.H.A. home improvement loans increased over the previous year by 63 per cent and in total dollar value by 115 per cent, reaching almost $16 million. Government backed farm improvement loans increased by 51 per cent and the dollar value by 53 per cent, reaching a total of some $3.5 million.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will my hon. friend permit me to make an observation? In view of the related nature of the item now before us and the more important one of $40 million, may we not consider both these items at the same time? The minister is now making a speech that would apply in part at any rate to both these items, and so for convenience of discussion, we would all be in order if we might consider both items together if this is agreeable.


The Chairman:: The unanimous consent of the committee would be required, of course.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Does the committee give unanimous consent to items 613 and 614 being considered at the same time?


Michael Starr: Provided, Mr. Chairman, that the committee would agree that both items would be passed simultaneously.


Paul Raymond Martineau: When the discussion has been exhausted, both items will carry.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Michael Starr: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This means that during the winter months almost $19 million more was spent than in the winter previous on home and farm improvements. We hope for similar results this year. One large lending agency specializing in the building supply field reported an increase of 400 per cent in last winter's business over the previous winter, and attributed it largely to the effects of the do it now winter works campaign. They have just reported that during this past December their home improvement loan business equalled their entire winter business of last year, indicating, I submit, a marked increase this year over last year.
Further support of marked increases in winter construction activity is found in reports from 1600 lumber dealers, painting and decorating contractors and plumbers who tied their business promotions in with the do it now campaign we sponsored. The building supply dealers reported an average increase in their sales last winter of 19 per cent as a result of their participation in this campaign. Painting and decorating contractors reported a 21 per cent increase in their business, while plumbing and heating contractors had a 10 per cent increase.
In view of the heavy publicity campaign and advertising being carried out through all media at the present time, I should like to point out that more than 90 per cent of all we see and hear promoting the do it now principle is either contributed as a public service or paid for by business and industry, and this is all done as a result of the promotion that has been carried out in regard to the winter works do it now campaign. We estimate that we receive at least $10 public service support for every dollar we spend on behalf of the do it now campaign, and public support will again exceed $3 million this winter.
I take this opportunity of paying tribute to the hundreds of public spirited business enterprises, as well as to the newspapers, magazines, radio stations, television stations, public spirited companies and others that are so generous in supporting this national campaign. In addition to the paid public service support, it is very encouraging to me, and I am sure to all of us, to note that the direct advertising, whether in news or services by business and industry, has been increasing each winter, resulting in a reversal of old habits and customs of waiting for spring. On the radio last winter there were 37,000 spot

announcements, either sponsored or contributed as a public service by 220 radio stations, as well as 400 hours of program time discussing the do it now campaign. Television stations carried almost 80,000 spot announcements, either contributed by themselves, their advertisers or the C.B.C.
Advertising tied in with the do it now theme in newspapers has produced a total sum of 1,500 pages, and in addition newspapers carried more than 4,200 news stories. The poster advertising association of Canada and its member companies contributed 2,000 billboards as a public service across Canada, and thousands of merchants placed our poster material in their shop windows.
Excellent leadership has been provided at the local level by the national employment service and by some 195 winter employment campaign committees in all parts of Canada. The local campaigns which they developed have enlisted the full support of municipal governments, boards of trade, labour unions, women's groups, service clubs, banks, contractors, retail merchants, public utilities, churches and a variety of community groups. I also want to place on record my sincere appreciation of the efforts and support forthcoming from hundreds of private citizens who have helped to organize effective local campaigns in co-operation with the local employment offices.
Doing our best to practice what we preach, all departments within the federal government which are in a position to contribute to winter employment are doing so on an increasing scale. The departments which carry out construction and maintenance projects have set a good example in planning their operations so that a maximum amount of work will be carried out during the winter months.
The value of repair, alteration and maintenance work scheduled for the winter has averaged more than $10 million for the past four years, and will exceed this figure during the present winter. Procurement has also been specifically initiated or rescheduled in order to provide maximum winter work. The provincial governments have also taken effective steps to increase their construction, maintenance and procurement activities during the winter months.
There is not much else I can add to my statement on this particular item, and since the committee has agreed that we should consider both items at the same time I shall now give some idea of what is entailed in the next item of $40 million, known to all of us as the municipal winter works incentive program.
As in previous winters, these payments cover one half the payroll costs on accepted
Supply-Labour
projects from October 15, 1961 to a date to be determined by order in council. This is exactly the same as it was last year. In previous years the closing date was set at April 30 in the first supplemental vote, and this date was extended to May 31 in subsequent supplemental votes. Last year the vote was changed to provide for flexibility, if required at April 30 or close to that date.
The program was first introduced in 1958 as a part of the government's over-all action to create additional winter employment and, through performance, has proven most successful. It is now in its fourth winter and has provided an increased number of jobs each year. These have been mainly in the construction industry, where traditionally in Canada unemployment during the winter months has been high.
During the first winter, 1958-59, the number of men hired for on-site work was estimated at 41,500. That was when the opposition described the program as "peanuts" and "a bagatelle". During the second winter, 1959-60, the number of men hired was 51,600, and this was again described by the opposition in the same terms.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In relation to the total problem.


Michael Starr: Last winter the number was
121,000	and already this winter the figure has reached 111,200. I might point out, as I have done in the past, that at least as many more persons have received employment or guarantees of employment each winter on off-site work, in the supply of materials used in the various projects.
The program was introduced as something of an experiment in 1958 to help stimulate work during the winter months, and the results achieved prove that it is a most useful method of attacking seasonal unemployment. Proof of that statement is the fact that the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, among others, supported the program from the outset as being a desirable means of providing additional winter employment and, at the same time, enabling municipalities to undertake much needed public services.
However, there were some who felt the program had little chance of success and that it would not appeal to the local governments. Now, to refute that, the increased number of municipalities that have taken advantage of the program each winter clearly indicates that it does appeal to municipalities; and the amount of work undertaken, together with the number of jobs created, are evidence that the program is effectively fulfilling its purpose.

Supply-Labour
During the first two winters, as an example, the program applied to certain specified categories of projects such as the construction and major improvement of roads, streets and sidewalks, the construction and major improvement of water, sewage and drainage facilities and the construction and development of municipal parks and playgrounds. These categories were then extended under last winter's program to include construction, major reconstruction or renovation of municipal buildings. The program for the current winter has again been broadened to cover any capital undertaking of a municipality, with only a few exceptions. The major exceptions are work on schools and hospitals. The reason for this is that the federal government participates in these fields and grants assistance under other measures.
The present program covers all the categories of projects which qualified in previous years, as well as many additional classes of projects. This year's program has been further broadened to include projects carried out in unorganized settlements, provided the work is sponsored by a community organization and carried out under acceptable community and provincial supervision. The current program also provides for participation by Indian bands, as was the case last winter and the winter before.
Up to the present time this year we have received 6,121 applications under this program, of which 6,048 have been accepted. Of the remainder, some have been rejected and some are pending decision.


Paul Joseph James Martin: How many have been accepted?


Michael Starr: The number accepted is 6,048.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And 6,121 have come in?


Michael Starr: Yes. Some are pending decision. The estimated total cost of those applications which have been accepted to date is $257J million. Of this amount it is estimated that $200 million will be expended during the period of the program, which commenced on October 15, 1961. The estimated total payroll costs of the projects which have been accepted during the period of the program is $66 million and the estimated federal government share is, of course, $33 million, 50 per cent of the payroll costs.
It is estimated that these undertakings which have been approved to date will provide employment for 111,200 men, for a total of 4,743,000 man days of work. Last winter's program did not reach these proportions until mid-April.
A total of 647 municipalities participated in the program during the winter of 1958-59.

That was the first winter in which this program was put into effect. The following year, during the winter of 1959-60 a total of 869 municipalities and Indian bands undertook projects under the program. Therefore there was an increase of over 200 municipalities participating during the second winter of the program.
With the broadening of the program last winter a total of 2,163 municipalities and Indian bands participated. That was three times as many as the winter before. Under this winter's program a total of 2,286 municipalities, Indian bands and unorganized settlements have submitted projects to date. This is an increase over last year of 120 municipalities so far this winter which are participating.
Some provinces, in co-operating with us in order to help in this situation, are granting additional assistance to the municipalities by making a financial contribution toward the payroll costs of projects approved under the program.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Six provinces?


Michael Starr: I was just coming to that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I just ask the question.


Michael Starr: How many, did you say?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Six, is it not?


Michael Starr: It is seven. I should like to list the provinces which are participating in this form of contribution and give their contributions. Prince Edward Island contributes 25 per cent; Quebec contributes 40 per cent; Ontario contributes 25 per cent; Manitoba contributes 25 per cent in respect of persons who are not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits, and 50 per cent in respect of persons who have been in receipt of social welfare assistance for a specified period. Saskatchewan contributes 25 per cent; Alberta contributes 25 per cent; British Columbia contributes 25 per cent plus an additional 25 per cent in respect of persons who have been in receipt of social welfare assistance for a specified period.
Under the laws of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia these provinces carried out work in rural municipalities that is of a nature normally considered to be a municipal function. Projects of this nature are acceptable under the municipal winter works incentive program, and in these instances the provinces contribute 50 per cent of the payroll costs of approved projects and bear the costs of materials and services.
I indicated earlier that in addition to creating jobs the municipal winter works incentive program has been of benefit to municipalities

in enabling them to provide much needed public services. In this connection I should like to point out that the program since its inception has contributed to the construction and major improvement of roads, streets and sidewalks having a total value of $167 million; to the construction and improvement of water, sewage and drainage facilities totalling $481 million and parks and playground facilities worth $36 million, while $78 million has been spent on the construction, major reconstruction or renovation of municipal buildings. This represents in all a total of more than $762 million in municipal works since the program began. This is a truly worthwhile program, Mr. Chairman.
Applications covering projects under the program are being received daily. There is an almost hourly change in the program. In my opinion there is no doubt at all that the number of municipalities participating and the volume of work provided this winter will be considerably larger than under last winter's program. We are endeavouring, with success, to interest more and more municipalities to participate in this program. Once they have entered it they want more of it. They are continually participating and being joined by other municipalities. In view of the excellence of this program I am sure the committee will find no difficulty in passing these estimates.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In the light of the fact that as of the last reported period there were 413,000 Canadians out of work, and bearing in mind that this was in the month of December, a period when the seasonal rise normally begins to take on a more acute form in our pattern of unemployment, not too much satisfaction can be derived from the statement made by the minister.
The hon. gentleman says that the do it now campaign for which he is asking a vote of $90,000 is carried out largely by business promotion and promotions generally under the auspices of non-government bodies. Likewise, one has to draw the conclusion from the circumstances surrounding federal participation in the winter works program that the bulk of this program is not carried on by the federal government but by the municipalities and the provinces. Notwithstanding this, the government gives the impression that through this program, of which it seeks to claim authorship, it is embarking on a vigorous measure to correct unemployment.
The fact is that this program, as it is, is not good enough. The fact is that this program neither at the present time nor since it came into being has dealt with the problem of unemployment which faces us in this country. There were 413,000 people out of work in the month of December. We do not
Supply-Labour
know what the figure is as of this date, January 31, 1962. Normally we would have received that figure some time around the 20th of the month, and perhaps before this debate is over the minister might explain why we have not received it as yet. In any event, this program cannot be regarded as satisfying the needs of Canada with regard to unemployment at this time.


Michael Starr: Would the hon. member permit a question? Is he asking about the bureau of statistics figures on employment and unemployment for December?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No; for the last
reported period. We should have had them on January 20.


Michael Starr: On January 20 the hon. member received them for December, and he will not receive the January figures until the middle of February.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know, but the minister could easily have given us an interim report.


An hon. Member:: Give your own figures.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am asked to give my own. Well, I will tell the committee this, and it is something everyone in this country knows. The problem of unemployment in Canada continues to be the major domestic problem facing us, and this government cannot, by a program of this kind, satisfy the Canadian people that it is resolutely and adequately confronting the problem. We welcome any measure taken to mitigate these fluctuations of employment, particularly those due to seasonal causes; but we are acutely aware, as I am sure the country is aware, that solutions of the type now being put forward do not go to the root of the unemployment problem.
It is, of course, characteristic of seasonal unemployment that it is most likely to occur in those very regions which suffer most from chronic unemployment. I have in mind, for example, the Atlantic provinces where unemployment since 1957 has been running at nearly twice the level of unemployment in the country as a whole. The seasonal swing in those provinces is twice as large as it is in Canada as a whole.
This government has not met the problem of unemployment. It certainly is not confronting the question as the President of the United States is. When one examines President Kennedy's state of the union message and the statement he made one week later, and compares the comprehensive measures envisaged by the government of the United States with the haphazard, laissez faire manner in which this government is meeting the problem, even a few months, or a short time

Supply-Labour
before a general election, one will not find it difficult to justify the condemnation which again we level at this government at this time for the way it is handling the problem of unemployment. There can be no doubt that the government has not yet given us any evidence of a program designed to carefully, thoroughly and effectively meet this problem. We say this program is satisfactory as far as it goes.


Mr. Palleli:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question? The hon. gentleman referred to the proposals advanced by the President of the United States. Would the hon. member indicate any suggestions made by President Kennedy that were not already introduced by this government some time ago?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I shall certainly do so before I complete my remarks, Mr. Chairman. The Prime Minister and other hon. gentlemen opposite make continued reference to the fact that the government of the United States is following the government of Canada in its handling of this problem. The Prime Minister, however, is unable to back up that rhetorical observation. The fact is that the government of the United States has confronted this problem vigorously and has given an example to this government. This government's big answer to those who suggest that the problem has not been adequately met is to refer to the winter works program.


Michael Starr: They are just going to consider this program in the United States.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Labour says that this program has to date provided employment for 111,000 people representing approximately 4 million man days of work. What does that mean? Let us find out from the minister what that statement really means when shorn of its verbiage and extravagance. How many men out of the 413,000 unemployed, according to recent figures-disregarding what the figure is as of this date- have been put to work for more than one week? How many men have been given work lasting throughout the period of the winter season? It is all very well to say that a certain number of men were put to work-


Michael Starr: I am able to answer that question now if the hon. member wishes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister may speak when I have finished.


Michael Starr: The hon. gentleman asked a question and I am prepared to answer. If the hon. member will divide 111,000 persons into
4,700,000	days of work he will find it averages out to 45 days per man.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There we have the answer, Mr. Chairman; 45 days per man. This government says it has solved this problem by providing 45 man days of employment to 111,000 people.


Michael Starr: Nine weeks' work.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Do we require a better illustration of the inadequacy of this program than the reply just given by the Minister of Labour? Last year almost 12 per cent of our work force was unemployed-*
715,000	people-and less than 200,000 people were put to work for limited periods only under this program; yet the government says that the winter works program must be regarded as having satisfactorily solved the problem.
Let us examine the real facts. Last year the minister said the program cost $200 million. He said the payroll cost was $66 million and that the federal government had agreed to pay $33 million, half the payroll cost. The total federal contribution under a program costing $200 million was the figure mentioned by the minister, half the labour cost or $33 million.
As good as this winter works program is, so far as it goes, it does not really represent on the part of the government a vigorous confrontation of this problem. To the extent that the program is effective the credit should not go to the Minister of Labour or to this government but to the combined endeavours of the provinces and municipalities.
When we last discussed this matter the Minister of Labour said the average labour content of all municipal works was 34.5 per cent, and since the federal government paid only 50 per cent of the direct labour cost the federal share of the cost of such projects last year amounted to only 17 per cent. The conclusion to be drawn, as I have said, is that the municipalities involved bear the major brunt of the expenses incurred under the program.
The minister just reminded us that seven provinces were paying an additional 25 per cent of the payroll costs; that Quebec was paying 40 per cent, and that Manitoba had increased its contribution to 50 per cent with respect to employment provided for persons who had been on social assistance for a continuous period of 90 days. The minister did not, however, announce any substantial improvement in the contribution of the federal government to the operation of the winter works program.
I have already indicated that seasonal swings in unemployment have their greatest impact in distressed areas such as the maritime provinces. Because of this, the distressed

communities are the ones least capable of covering the two thirds of the total cost which must be met by the municipalities. That is why we in the Liberal party suggested the establishment of a municipal loan fund which would greatly aid the affected communities in contributing their share of the cost of the projects.
The fact is that more men and women could be put to work under this program if the government either bore a greater share of the burden of the cost of the program or was willing to establish a municipal loan fund which would enable the municipalities to obtain the necessary revenues to carry out certain projects which they are not carrying out under this program now, because of the terms of financing as among the three levels of government, and because, in so many instances the municipalities cannot possibly bear the burden involved.
Lest there be any doubt of this let me make reference to the figures I have before me. I have in my hand figures relating to the winter works program in Toronto, the largest city in Ontario. I find that in the year 1960-61 the city's share of the cost of that program was 61.3 per cent. I ask hon. members to reflect on this. The city of Toronto has had to meet the problem of unemployment to the extent of 61.3 per cent in respect of a program the responsibility of which is shared three ways but mostly, in this case, by the city of Toronto, second by the province of Ontario, and to a much lesser extent by the federal government.
The federal government wishes to accept all the credit for this program. By its advertising and by the implications of the do it now campaign the impression is given that this government which said it was going to see that no one suffered from unemployment is solely responsible for whatever is being accomplished under this wholly inadequate program, one that is not sufficiently vigorous to meet the problem as it should be met.


Mr. Creaghan:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question at this point? Would the hon. gentleman refer to his notes and put on record the extent to which the 61 per cent, the city's share, of the cost of that program is represented by building materials and the extent to which the 61 per cent represents direct payroll costs?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not have those figures.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: If my hon. friend has them I have no doubt that they reveal that this represents a very considerable purchase. But I am not thinking of the assistance
Supply-Labour
given to those who sell such materials. I am thinking of whether or not this program as a whole is designed to provide employment to a greater number of men and women than have been put to work or affected by it to date.
That is the problem to which the mayors of Canada address themselves every time they consider this question in relation to the winter works program. The mayors of Canada met the government on November 10 last. While they were grateful for the combined consequences of this program through the three levels of government, they certainly were not satisfied with what had been achieved to date.
In their brief they point out that one of the major obstacles to fuller municipal participation is lack of any provision for financial assistance toward the cost of materials. This is an old demand of the municipalities, repeated again. They say another obstacle is the very real difficulty some municipalities have in obtaining the money needed for capital undertakings, and at reasonable interest rates. That confirms the desirability of the concept and program of the municipal loan fund which the Liberal party has recently put forward. They point out that still another difficulty is that it is not practicable for municipalities, although they are willing to reschedule their work requirements as much as possible to the winter season, to make a sharp division between seasons.
They make certain other proposals which the government to date has given no indication of considering. They propose that federal loans be provided to municipalities for capital work projects at a favourable rate of interest, extending the practice now followed in the financing of sewage facilities. Second, they propose that federal contributions to municipal works be extended throughout the year with the federal government contributing a proportionately greater share of the cost of material involved in such work undertaken during the winter months of the year. If this is not feasible, they urge that the time be extended to permit completion of projects already commenced during the winter season.
Their third proposal is that municipal works for which federal aid is available under other forms of assistance be considered as allowable projects for federally assisted municipal winter works program. I presume that railway grade crossings would be an example under that proposal. The next proposal is that measures be taken to assure prompt interim payment of the federal government's share and early final settlement of all federally assisted municipal programs.
It is clear that there should be an extension of the types of projects now coming under

Supply-Labour
the winter works program. I am sure that the proposals to which I have just referred are not the only suggestions that should be considered. In order that the winter works incentive program may have its major impact upon the communities that need it most, I suggest that federal participation should be on a sliding scale depending on the amount of unemployment in a particular area. At present the program is not having a major impact on the communities that need it most. If my suggestion is not adopted the situation will continue under which the communities that are not in dire need of this type of assistance will postpone work which would normally be done in the summertime, as they are now doing, in order to take advantage of the government's partial coverage of the labour costs incurred during the winter. As a consequence, certain areas with less than the national average of unemployment are receiving a proportionately greater share of the additional employment created by the program.
I ask the Minister of Labour if it is not a fact that some of the areas where unemployment levels are highest are the areas that are least able to take advantage of the assistance under this program. The names of some of the cities in this category were put on Hansard last year and they could be repeated. Right in Ontario areas like Cornwall, Windsor, Oshawa, Peterborough-


Mr. Pitman:: We are not a distressed area now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not talking of distressed areas. I am talking about areas where there is unemployment and there is great unemployment in Peterborough. These communities do not have as many projects as other communities in Canada where the problem is less severe. If the government was really on its toes, if it really had an unemployment program it would be one that would be addressed particularly to those areas where unemployment is heaviest.
But all that the government does is to go through a demonstration of apparent activity without rationalizing its program or making it applicable in those areas where it would do the most effective job. Why does the government not expand this program if it really wants to bite into the problem of unemployment? Why should it not pay for a portion of the materials used? That, it has been demonstrated by the mayors, would be one way to reach many more unemployed in this country. Why does it not act upon the suggestion that the federal government should pay a substantial portion of the
[Mr. Martin (Essex East) .1
supervision costs? This would assist two municipalities in Ontario that I know of in taking greater advantage of this program.
Why does the federal government not give some consideration to the reduction or elimination of the sales tax on building materials used on projects designed to give work during the winter period? If it really wants to meet this problem of unemployment, why does it not act on the proposal that this might be done as it is being done in the United States, by tax incentives such as increased depreciation allowances based on wintertime construction payrolls applied to industrial and commercial projects?
The minister spoke a while ago of the approval given to this program by the Canadian Construction Association. This association has recommended some of these very things but the minister gives the impression that these organizations that have spoken of the positive aspects of the program are completely satisfied, when such is not the case. Why should the federal government not bear a more substantial share of the cost of construction machinery used on a project such as bulldozers, trench diggers for sewers and the like? If the government really wants to make its contribution more effective, if it really wants to justify the designation which its propaganda machine has sought to achieve for this federal program, why does it not embark upon some of these proposals?
This matter continues to be a serious one in our country, Mr. Chairman. We would have thought that the government in this session prior to an election would have displayed toward this question the fever, agitation and concern that it has in certain other aspects of government activity represented by the program that it has announced in the speech from the throne. This government will be held to account when the next federal election comes, just as it has been held to account in this house for not having embarked upon policies in keeping with its assurance that no one would suffer in this country for want of work. The government has failed to live up to this promise notwithstanding the statement of the Prime Minister that practically all of his promises have been fulfilled. This is one promise that has not been met and no amount of adulation of the government's anaemic program is going to change this picture when, as of the month of December last, 413,000 people were out of work, more proportionately than in any other country in the western world. I ask the minister to tell me what the unemployment figures are in Great Britain, what they are in Germany, what they are in Switzerland, what they are in Belgium-


An hon. Member:: Japan?


Paul Joseph James Martin: -what they are in the Scandinavian countries.


George Clyde Nowlan: What are they in the United States?


Peter Francis Martin: What are they in the United States? I say that in the United States the problem is severe but it is not as bad as it is here.


George Clyde Nowlan: That is not so. Look at the record.


Peter Francis Martin: One reason why the situation is not as bad there is that they have in charge of their affairs an imaginative head of government who is trying to fulfil the promises he made to the electorate of that country. This has not happened here.


George Clyde Nowlan: Are you speaking of the speech the president made the other day or of legislation which has been enacted by congress? My hon. friend knows there is a great difference.


Peter Francis Martin: I am speaking of the leadership given in the United States with regard to this problem by the President since he became the President of the United States. I am referring to the state of the union message last year and this year and the way congress has acted upon his recommendations, their program of accelerated depreciation, their examination of the problem in distressed areas and so on. No legislative body in the United States has been refused the opportunity to examine into the unemployment situation. When I think of the fact that during the last four and a half years the present government has denied the House of Commons the right to examine the problem of unemployment in a committee, I say that in the face of that fact alone the government has demonstrated that it has not confronted the problem of unemployment in the manner in which it assured the Canadian people it would.


George Clyde Nowlan: May I ask the hon. member a question? What is the proportion of unemployment in the United States?


Peter Francis Martin: The other place examined this problem. Members of the other place made a valuable study, a study that should have been made by the Department of Labour, a study that might well have been made by this house where the elected representatives of the people could have called before the committee all kinds of witnesses to ascertain the nature of the problem. In the town of Moncton, for instance, there is a great deal of unemployment. We should have had a parliamentary committee and should have been able to call the heads of the railroads
Supply-Labour
before that committee to find out why their program in that particular community did not allow for the continuation for a particular level of unemployment. It would have been valuable to find out why and offer a solution.
We should have had a parliamentary committee so that we could have called representatives of the automobile industry before it and have found out why unemployment was taking place at particular levels, what was the percentage of automation and what the possibility was of rectifying the problem. We could have gone into the same matter with regard to the town of Peterborough. We could have examined why in the city of Cornwall last year 14,000 people were out of work.
The House of Commons was denied that opportunity because the government was apparently unwilling to allow any committee of this house to examine into the causes of unemployment and propose remedies for the simple reason that the government was not prepared to embark on policies which a committee of that sort would be likely to recommend. That is the situation.
It is all very well for the government to say that there are more men in the work force now. Of course there are more men in the work force. The population is larger. Our birth rate is continuing its normal course. Of course there are more men in the work force. But what does that prove? That does not in any way deal with the problem of unemployment. In the face of the promises made by this government, in the face of the fact that we now have over a quarter of a million men and women out of work, this government cannot hope to escape the indictment that as a government it has not faced up to its responsibilities.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order; I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Michael Starr: If the hon. member has not completed his remarks and wishes to continue-


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


Walter George Pitman: Mr. Chairman, once again we are called upon to pass an estimate in order to provide this government with its answer to unemployment, the winter works incentive program. The minister ended his remarks by saying it was a worth-while program, that it was a successful program and because of the excellence of this program there would be no difficulty in securing the passage of this item-this in spite of the fact, as the hon. member for Essex East said, there may be
413,000	people unemployed in our nation and probably even more than that at this very moment.

Supply-Labour
I took the time to look over the remarks made by the minister on this item in other years. According to him this program was a success in 1958-59 when 41,000 men received work. The minister has a penchant for large figures. He assumes that five weeks of work for an individual provides him with work for the winter. According to the minister, in Canada we have five weeks of winter.


Michael Starr: It was nine weeks work.


Walter George Pitman: Then, surely, we should suggest not 41,000 but 20,000 for 1958-59; 25,000 for 1959-60 and 60,000 for 1960-61. We should be able to place some reliance upon the statistics that are given in connection with this matter of winter works. The program was a success last year when, as we have heard, we had more unemployment in Canada than there was in any other country in the western world and when we failed completely to deal with the program which faced us. If we include those who are dependant upon those who are unemployed, then probably 1.5 million people in this nation are suffering. Unemployment has blighted the hopes of many young people so far as future education is concerned because their parents have no hope of a stable income.
We are told that this program is a success, a worth-while project. Why are we told this? We are told this because the government does not know what success means. There are no goals. They refuse to set goals. They refuse to organize or direct the economy in order to achieve goals. Anything which provides employment is therefore a success. There is no measure of success; there is no measure of failure. All they have to do is add up the figures and tell us there were so many more people in the work force, so many more employed. This becomes therefore success with a capital "S".
Over the last number of months, and over the last number of weeks particularly, there has been considerable glee and rightly so. I am sure all of us are extremely happy to find that the percentage of unemployed has been going down. This does not result from anything this government has done. They have no reason to take any credit for this fact. After all, it was only last winter that this government said you could not do anything about unemployment. When the unemployed marched on Ottawa, the Prime Minister said this was a free enterprise society; this government could do nothing for them. Every few weeks the Minister of Trade and Commerce came forward with a solution. It was his theme song; management and labour must sit down together. Yes, this is like being in favour of motherhood. Indeed,

labour and management must sit down together, but who is going to provide the opportunity? Who is going to set the rules? Who is going to give some kind of assurance that when management and labour do sit down together and come to a conclusion there will be someone who is going to provide some direction, some kind of purpose to the economy so that both will have the assurance that neither will be at a disadvantage because they have sat down together.
When this government does get management and labour to sit down together and a report is made to the government, then the government forgets completely what they have said. There is no follow-up. How strange it is that this government is actually now taking credit for lowering the number of unemployed in our society. This action is strange indeed on the part of a government which has refused to plan, refused to give any direction and is only tinkering about and hoping that they do not drop a wrench and completely destroy the machinery.
Well, because of activities in other sectors, notably in the world trade movement, because of the strengthening of the economy of our neighbours to the south, there are fewer unemployed. The minister, therefore, brings before us smother winter works incentive program and tries to convince us that this is the kind of dynamic leadership which we should expect from a Conservative government, I could not help but find rather amusing article in the Globe and Mail of October 3. Our Prime Minister was then down in Dunnville speaking to the Haldimand county Progressive Conservative association, and according to this article he remarked upon the fact that the percentage rate of unemployment was going down. Canada had a rate of only 4.8 per cent, said the Prime Minister, and this is not abnormally high when economists regard 3 per cent to 4 per cent as the flexible part of the labour force. Even when we cannot reach minimal levels it is apparently all right.
On the same page in the Globe and Mail we have another article which states that direct relief costs jumped 40.6 per cent. The unemployment insurance offices are not so crowded today nor are the national employment offices because all the unemployed are over in the municipal welfare offices. In my own municipality in the month of September welfare rolls doubled as compared with the past year. We regard with some eagerness the fact there are so few people on unemployment insurance, but the truth is many of these people are dependant entirely upon municipal relief.
What is wrong with this program is the fact, of course, that it is completely and

utterly inadequate for the kind of unemployment that Canada is facing and will face. The program just tries to deal with seasonal unemployment. The minister knows very well that this is only one small aspect of the whole unemployment picture of this nation. Indeed, it is one of the lesser aspects of the unemployment problem in the last few years. In the middle of summer last year we were over what could be called a full employment society. But what about technological unemployment? What are we going to do about that? What about cyclical unemployment? We all know that the economy has started to run now; it has started to move slowly. What will happen by 1966? We will be in the same mess again. Now is the time, if ever Canada had the opportunity to take hold of this problem and deal with it. We should deal with it now when we are not so overwhelmed with this tremendous problem of mass unemployment. Now, when the unemployed are starting to move back into employment, we can decide that never again will Canada have to face mass unemployment with 800,000 or 900,000 unemployed people in our nation.
This is the challenge, and what do we get? We get another winter works program. That is all this government can do, just look about three or four months ahead. If they survive that long, then evidently that is success. This is a worth-while project and one which will not need to be defended on the floor of this house. That is the first thing that is wrong with this program. It is completely inadequate to cope with the various complexities of unemployment with which we are going to be faced over the next decade.
Second, of course, and this has already been touched upon by the hon. member for Essex East, this program does not help those who most need help. The federal government pays only one half of the labour cost. As we have seen, this is only a fraction of the total cost, perhaps only one dollar or two dollars out of the ten dollars which the municipality will pay towards these works. I should like to see a breakdown of these projects. I should like to see a number of winter works projects carried out in Amherst and New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, in the province of Quebec, in Lindsay, Ontario, and other areas which this government decided were areas of surplus manpower and required to be given particular attention.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And Hamilton.


Walter George Pitman: In that particular sphere we spent a long enough time trying to find out which areas would be selected. We spent from December to March trying to find out what plan was going to be implemented, and it was months later before any of these areas were
Supply-Labour
designated. Indeed, we can remember being told that once they were designated we would see the opening of the gates of paradise, and that there would be industries scrambling to get into these areas.
How many industries have been brought into the surplus manpower areas?


Paul Joseph James Martin: A total of one.


Walter George Pitman: According to the minister there have been nine-only nine new industries all across the whole of the dominion. He says that these works cut unemployment, but all I can find is that a large number of workers still have to find jobs in surplus manpower areas. This program is the kind of niggling and tinkering which has been going on, and which will completely destroy us should we try to compete with other nations that have decided to do something about the problem of unemployment.
Only last month I was amused to read an article from a publication in Sydney, Australia. It is headed: "Unemployment the key issue in Australian election." My first reaction was that I was going to learn a lot about great unemployment in Australia, and once in a while it is comforting to learn that other countries share the same problem that we have. One feels we are completely out of step when we read of West Germany inviting
70,000	workers into that country, and reading that they have stopped unemployment insurance because of over contribution to the unemployment fund in that country. In Sweden they are absolutely shocked at the level of unemployment here in Canada. Indeed, it has been said that our Department of Immigration might well be called the department of emigration as more people are trying to get out of the country. For these reasons I thought there would be some comfort for me in the article on unemployment in Australia. There was none. It reads:
There is no denying that unemployment is worrying many Australians. Official government figures place the total unemployed at 96,552 representing 2.3 per cent of an estimated 4,200,000 work force.
Only 2.3 per cent of the labour force in Australia is unemployed, yet last winter we had 10 per cent, 11 per cent, 12 per cent, and in some parts of the country 15 and 18 per cent of our labour force unemployed. It is no wonder I say it was amusing to read that article which said unemployment was a major election issue in Australia.
How far out of step can this country get? I should like to know how much money is really being spent in these areas which need it so desperately. In spite of all the drawbacks of what little they are getting, we would certainly hope for better progress in those areas where it is so desperately needed.

Supply-Labour
My third point of criticism about the program is that the projects are entirely short term ones. They do not really give any hope of employment. At the most they give five weeks employment-five weeks when the men working do not have to turn to some other source of income.
Last November and December I took the opportunity of going through the nearby armoury to see what was going on in the government's survival program. There were some 2Q0 people talking part in it over there. Whether we agree with survival or not, at least they were looking after their own survival and getting paid by the government of Canada. Who were these people?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The unemployed.


Walter George Pitman: That is right. The hon. member for Essex East says they were the unemployed. They were the people I had seen standing in front of the unemployment insurance office and the welfare office, but when they approached the government last winter the government told them: "We cannot give work. This would be undermining our free enterprise system." Has it come to this that the only way we can use our imagination is by putting men in uniform? Is that the only way we can provide a decent wage for at least a few weeks? Is it not a disgrace that a person would have to say that about a country which has all the opportunities of this nation?
There are no long term projects under the winter works incentive program. Instead of such projects we have a whole group of small -not insignificant but extremely limited- types of projects. Only a year ago my own city tried to get a grant for industrial site clearance work. It was a very sensible plan for a municipality with a large number of unemployed to prepare an area for the incoming industries that might be provided, that might be interested in moving there, but it was not accepted as a winter works program project. In passing I might say I am glad that the program is being widened now, but not sufficiently in my view. This government does not believe in public works. The Minister of Public Works himself has said that. According to him "you cannot expect public works to provide real employment." Can anyone imagine a more completely directionless cabinet where we have one minister standing up telling us how much has been done to provide employment, and another minister standing up and saying they cannot really provide employment? This is another example of the dichotomy of thinking in this particular field.

My fourth criticism, and most serious charge against the winter works program, is that it misleads the people of this nation into believing that this is all that a federal government can do, that this is the sum total of the federal government's duty to deal with the national problem of unemployment.
A few minutes ago I said that in 1962 we would be in a position to do something dynamic about our economy, that we would be coming out of the doldrum, but will we then have had the same kind of directionless, ridiculous growth, unproductive growth at least in terms of national growth and employment. I said that we should have a disciplined, sensible, planned growth in place of municipal works programs. That, I believe, is the only thing that can provide the kind of full employment this nation must have.
I think I heard an hon. member say that we cannot provide full employment. That is an interesting remark to make in terms of what the rest of the world is doing. A winter works program is not the alternative. How can this nation compete on such a basis with the nations of the European common market? How can we compete with Britain and other countries in the commonwealth? How can we compete with the possibility of competition from the communist world when we have 300,000, 400,000 and 500,000 unemployed?
Can we afford to pay for this unemployment? Industry pays for it in unemployment insurance benefits and also pays for it in property taxes. In other words, we have got this expense on our backs while we are trying to compete with other countries in this very competitive world. There is no alternative to full employment. This is not some kind of luxury which we can afford in the twentieth century. Those of us who believe it is are living in a fairy land.
It is fine to set up productivity councils, but how can we get labour and management to sit down together in a productivity council if what they are doing in effect is producing less jobs? The labour force has learned from the plight of the agricultural workers over the last 15 years. They have "produced" themselves down to the point where there are only half as many of them as there were 10 years ago. The agricultural worker has improved his production to the extent that he only gets half of the material rewards for his work that he should get. Instead of 12 per cent of the national income he gets 6 per cent. Unless this government can find something more than a winter works program it is utterly futile to try to suggest that productivity councils have the answers to the economic problems of the nation.
I think we were all somewhat discouraged by the howling that went on over in Europe

regarding Great Britain's entry into the European common market. What we fear most is that we cannot compete, with the kind of blundering, purposeless, directionless economy that we have. We are doing a little bit at a time; we are putting a little bit of oil in there with the municipal winter works incentive program.
This is what we should be doing, instead of a little bit of municipal building or reconstruction of parks. We know we are going to have a health plan. Two parties in this house have already said that they are in favour of it and the other party is now looking at the possibility of a royal commission providing the answer.
What will happen when we have a health plan? We will have a run on our hospitals such as we have never seen before, but we will not have the hospitals. What did we do last year? We spent millions and millions of dollars on unemployment insurance while men were standing with their hands at their sides when these hospitals could have been built.
We have set up a sports council and given them $5 million. We hope they will be able to develop some physical fitness in this nation. What are the problems this council will face? They will face a lack of facilities in this nation with its varied climatic conditions. What could we have been doing last year with the millions of dollars we were pouring into unemployment insurance and welfare, with all the money we were losing from taxation? We could have been building recreation centres across this nation into which this new sports council could have fitted this new program which has been spoken of so promisingly during the last few weeks.
This program is simply not enough. Toronto has already been mentioned. Out of a total of
67,000	unemployed in Toronto the winter works incentive program provided work for only 2,000. Two thousand out of 67,000. There is no long term plan; there is no planned development. Of course, the party in office has no interest in planning, no concern over planning and no real faith in planning.
We will vote for this measure. We will see this go through; but it will be with a heavy heart, realizing that there will still be hundreds of thousands of unemployed people in this country, some of whom have been unemployed for, not months but years.
We know that when we pass this measure they will still be unemployed; that countries in the world will still look at Canada and wonder why it is that this nation of all nations, with its tremendous resources, with all its opportunities, cannot solve a problem like unemployment. I am sure these countries will 26207-1-274
Supply-Labour
not hear very much about the municipal winter works program. I am sure they will not see headlines about this program in the Financial Post or in the newspapers which circulate in other countries of the world. They will look at us and wonder just what is wrong, if this is the best we can do.
We will watch this go through. We will know it will not be enough. We will know it will provide heartbreak for hundreds of thousands of people in this nation. If this is the measure of activity this government is prepared to take in dealing with this No. 1 national problem, we have little fear about what the electorate will do when the time of accounting comes at the polls.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Chairman, there is not very much I can add to what has been said by the two previous speakers. I think they have covered this subject quite thoroughly. However, there are a few things with which I should like to deal, and possibly underline one or two of the matters they raised.
The minister opened his statement on these estimates with a talk about the effectiveness of the great advertising we have seen on the do it now program. It reminded me of one evening a month or so ago when I was sitting with some people in my constituency and one of the favourite propaganda t.v. shots for this do it now program came on the screen. One of the people with whom I was sitting remarked that the thing he liked best in that particular commercial was where the carpenter sawed a hole and dropped the announcer down through the floor into the basement. He said, "That is the treatment that should be given to anyone who broadcasts that kind of poppycock". I will not go so far as to agree wholeheartedly with him. Possibly some good comes from that program, but I would be rather hesitant to estimate just how much.
The minister said something else that disturbed me. He seemed to think that with this increased activity in the winter works program we were going to balance off the employment picture in this country. In other words, many of the jobs that were previously carried out in the summertime would now and in the future be carried out in the wintertime because of this program.
I should like to remind the minister that this would not be a very favourable solution to the problems of this country. If under this government we are going to have from
700,000	to 800,000 unemployed in the wintertime, and from 300,000 to 400,000 unemployed in the summertime, all we will do by shifting the summer work to the winter will be to average it out so that we would have 550,000

Supply-Labour unemployed the year round. I certainly do not think this is any solution of which any government should be proud.
The minister also mentioned the past year's figure of $250 million which had been spent on this program. I was rather surprised at the hon. member for Essex East in this connection. I know he has been accused by government members of having a mathematical formula all his own, but I beg to differ with the conclusions at which the hon. member arrived. The minister said that some $250 million have been spent on this program and the federal government contributed $33 million. That works out at about 13.2 per cent. Then of course the government of Ontario contributes 25 per cent of the labour costs, which comes to 6.6 per cent, or a total from the two governments of 19.8 per cent. I think that to properly assess this program we must realize the position which faces the municipalities. First of all they must raise all the money that is to be spent on any of these projects. Then after they have raised it and proceeded with the project they can hope to be reimbursed 13.2 per cent of the cost from the federal government and 6.6 per cent from the provincial government. This still leaves the municipalities having to provide over 80 per cent of the cost of the project from municipal funds.
I have spoken on this item in previous sessions. I admit that the situation has been improved since this program was first started. There have been some changes and progress has been made in this regard. However, the fact remains that the programs subject to approval under this plan are very carefully selected programs. To qualify under this plan it appears that municipalities must have projects that could be more adequately handled by machinery than by manpower in this modem day and age. Of course, as we all know, neither the federal government nor the provincial governments make any contribution toward the cost of machinery or material, so it would seem that the projects which would be approved under this program are of such a nature-almost, one might say, from careful choice-that they cannot be too successful.
I do not wish to cover the field which has been covered by the two previous speakers, but I should like once more to underline some of the objections we have to this program and some of the shortcomings we find in it. I have brought these to the attention of the committee on previous occasions and the reason I am doing so again is because no attempt has apparently been made to remedy those shortcomings. This is called a winter

works program and in my opinion that is something of a misnomer. First of all, if we had winter work we should not need this program. In the second place, it will not work in winter; it only works in those parts of Canada where winter conditions are not too severe. In proof of this contention I point to the fact that this is the second year in succession in which, to my knowledge at least, there has not been one single project either in my own riding or in the riding to the north of it under this program. The reason is simple. None of the projects that can be approved under this plan can be carried out with any degree of common sense during the winters we have in the north country.
Another problem we have with regard to this winter works program is that it puts the municipalities in a most unfair position. At the time they strike their budgets they have no assurance that this plan will be in effect the following winter. Then, by the time the announcement comes along, their budgets have been struck and have gone before the municipal board for approval. Consequently, they have no provision made for participation in the program. I feel also, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Peterborough, that there is a great danger that this program is coming to be regarded as a solution to the unemployment problem. I think there is a very great danger in this approach. The unemployment problem is a direct problem and this particular scheme is a very indirect and very expensive way of meeting the problem.
It seems to me that the government should take a look around the world today. The people now responsible for the administration should look at what is being done in Sweden, West Germany, Denmark, Israel and other European countries which have full employment. Surely if this government has not the intelligence and the brains to do at least as well as the governments of those countries, then in heaven's name it is time they admitted it to the public and went back to the public for a decision.


William Lawrence Marven Creaghan: It is a privilege to say a few words at this time and to congratulate publicly the minister and the federal cabinet upon having had the wisdom to bring forward this additional assistance in the amount of $40 million.
As the previous speaker, the hon. member for Timmins, has said, perhaps the name is a misnomer; it should generally be referred to as the federal-municipal winter works incentive program. My own remarks will be primarily confined to a few situations occurring in the province of New Brunswick. Last May I placed a question on the order

paper and as a result it became publicly-known that five provinces in Canada were contributing 25 per cent toward direct payroll costs to assist municipalities taking part in this program. The provinces of Quebec and Manitoba provided assistance in excess of that amount.
So far, the province of New Brunswick has not seen fit to extend financial assistance to municipalities in any way in order that the towns and cities in the province may take more advantage of the federal assistance. I strongly doubt whether much of this $40 million will be available to the towns and cities of New Brunswick and I say this because I do not feel the provincial administration is taking enough interest in the plight of unemployed people in the incorporated cities and towns.
Early in October the federal Department of Labour made public the number of projects accepted in New Brunswick up to October 16. I have a list in front of me, and 42 projects are listed. Only four of them would normally qualify as municipal projects but because of a generous amendment to the regulations which was primarily directed to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, highway works in those two provinces now qualify for assistance. Of the 42 projects in New Brunswick as of October 16, 1961, 38 dealt with the construction of bridges, seawalls along highways and work of a similar nature. Consequently, in an indirect manner, the province of New Brunswick is contributing to the payroll costs because it has placed itself, by interpretation, in the position of being a municipality.
I have no complaint to make about the province of New Brunswick taking advantage of federal assistance to rebuild bridges, seawalls and highways. However, I do feel, when I look at the figures and see that out of the first 42 projects only four were undertaken by municipalities, that somebody somewhere is not co-operating with Ottawa.
In addition, I believe that politics or provincial patronage are entering into the scheme. To explain what I have in mind, may I say this: the details outlined by the Minister of Labour to the premiers indicated that the national employment services throughout the country would be used in connection with placements for work provided by the program. If a program originates in a municipality, whether a city, a town, or a rural municipality, it becomes a public project which is submitted first to the provincial capital and then to Ottawa. The people who are unemployed, together with employees in the national employment service local offices
Supply-Labour
know all about the project. However, if the project is a provincial one in its entirety, one that is designed by the provincial government in camera, no one knows about it until Ottawa has given its approval. In the intervening days or weeks, friends, organizers and supporters of the provincial government tell local people that, for example, a bridge in their rural area is to be rebuilt. The same people are advised to apply to the local employment service office if they want work. Those who are supporters of the administration get this advance notice. They are immediately put on the list and referred to the provincial government garage concerned. Therefore, under this program one must, in my opinion, be a supporter of the Liberal administration of New Brunswick in order to get employment on a provincial project. I strongly criticize that practice. This is supposed to be a joint venture. The programs are under the partial administration of the federal government, but in most projects as stated earlier the provincial administration has complete charge.
I also want to point out to the minister that his written instructions of July 25 have not been entirely fulfilled. The letter to the premiers concluded by indicating that this was a federal-provincial-municipal program and that programs are to be advertised with signs making reference to the joint participation. I have yet to see a program in New Brunswick sponsored by the provincial government that in any way gives credit to the federal Department of Labour.
Turning to the subject of education the New Brunswick department of education and the provincial department of labour have brought out a program entitled "Basic Education Training Course" which has been extensively advertised on radio and television throughout the province. The advertisements are designed to attract people to enrol in order that they may improve their skills. These advertisements in no way give credit to the federal government notwithstanding the fact that 75 per cent of the costs of advertising, administration, teachers' salaries and other costs are contributed to the province by the federal government. The same situation may obtain in other provinces across the country. I suggest to the minister through you, Mr. Chairman, that where necessary, employees of the federal Department of Labour should have something to say in the preparation of television, radio and newspaper advertisements where the federal government contributes 75 per cent of the advertising expenditure. If a province will not co-operate, I further

Supply-Labour
suggest that employees oi the federal departments should be directed to take a personal interest in the matter at the local level to ensure that some of the bouquets and some of the credit are directed to the proper source.
Those are my basic criticisms. I am pleased to observe the wisdom, effort and interest the federal government is showing in the municipal winter works incentive program. However, I take issue with the fact that the program is not being administered in a fair way in my province.
(Translation):


Mr. Bourgel:: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of dwelling at length on this item, because I had the opportunity in the past of paying particular attention to this program which has been applied for the last four years.
I realize that, during the last three years the government has widened its scope, that is it allowed a larger number of projects; but I think the more important point is that in the four years since this government introduced this program it has failed to realize exactly what should be done.
I believe that I am not the only one to think so, because several hon. members who rose before me mentioned that, after all, this winter works program is not a federal program but a program financed by the provinces and, more particularly, by the municipalities. Nobody will, I think, deny what I just said, since it is also confirmed in the report published by the federal Department of Labour. Indeed, that report indicates that the contribution of the federal government for all those winter work projects comes down to only 15 per cent.
I may be accused of prejudice-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Which would be unfounded.


Maurice Bourget: I should like, at this point, to read an editorial published in the Quebec newspaper Le Soldi of July 27, 1961, under the title "Municipal winter works-A poor way of solving the unemployment problem." I quote:
Last year, Quebec's contribution was more considerable than that of the other provinces, and almost double that of Ontario, for the good reason that the Lesage government-a Liberal government-decided to contribute up to 40 per cent of the cost of labour.
At this stage, I should like to commend the Liberal provincial government which, since it took over in the province of Quebec, has understood its responsibility as regards the unemployment situation, something which did not exist before June 22, 1960.
IMr. Creaghan.]
The article goes on to say:
That was something new, and a greater number of municipalities have developed large scale projects which are far from being all completed. We know something about it in Quebec-
And when reference is made to Quebec, it means Quebec city.
-where those projects had to be stopped following violent snowstorms.
Here is, in my opinion, the main point raised by the members of the opposition since the introduction of this winter works program. I quote:
Those works are still costing a lot of money, too much, to municipalities, which are shouldering crushing burdens and which are requesting more sources of income from higher levels of government.
Here, I should like to digress a little in order to remind the house that during the election campaigns of 1957 and 1958, this government had promised to give municipalities-not only the provinces-a share of the national income, in order that they could fulfil their constitutional responsibilities. Well, we know that nothing has come out in this regard. The article goes on to say:
The inadequacy of their current resources has obliged them to resort to massive loans. Issues of bonds are succeeding one another, and municipal debts are increasing at a rate which cannot last indefinitely. Several municipalities find it impossible to secure new loans. That is why they are requesting greater assistance, without obtaining any satisfaction.
I shall end the quotation here for the moment.
I say once again that, for the past three years, we have asked the government for a greater assistance instead of the mere 15 per cent granted now.
If, at the time of the 1957-1958 elections, municipalities and provinces had been told that they would have to find by themselves a solution to the unemployment problem, I am sure that many of our friends now sitting on the government side would not be here today.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but it being five o'clock-
(Text):
Items stand.
Progress reported.


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



REQUEST FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL GRID

Mr. Arnold Pelers (Timiskaming) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give immediate consideration to the advisability of talcing the appropriate steps necessary for the early establishment of a national power grid which would be utilized to develop Canadian industry and provide employment opportunities through development of all natural power resources. And that the government should consider providing the necessary research and technical study and the calling at the earliest possible date of a dominion-provincial conference to implement the national power grid authority.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it would appear that this idea is not unique within myself. As you know, we introduced this resolution before we were aware of what was in the throne speech. Having heard the speech from the throne, we are now aware that the government and in particular the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) have decided to do something about the matter of a national power grid.
I believe all Canadians are aware of the need to solve the problem that is developing because of the fact that at the extreme ends of Canada there is a great potential of electrical power while in the central part, particularly in the province of Ontario, a shortage of power is rapidly developing. The extent of the shortage is indicated by the fact that in Ontario the arctic watershed and the rivers that flow northward in that area are now being developed for power purposes. This in itself is a strong indication that in Ontario we have about reached the end of our hydroelectric power development.
Saturday Night pointed out on January 6 of this year that installed potential horsepower in Ontario was 7,814,562 and of that amount 7,701,000 was being used. This would indicate that there is less than one million horsepower available in Ontario at the present time. It was recognized a long time ago that the economic problems in developing a country of this nature were going to be tremendous and that there were economic factors which naturally led to a north-south flow of trade. To overcome this situation, the first prime minister of this country promised the people that he would build and did build a railway system to counteract that natural flow and to create an economic flow across Canada from east to west and west to east. We believe that the railway has now to some extent served its purpose of making it possible for us to develop a Canadian economy.
We are now concerned about another very large natural resource with which we are going to have to do something and which again is creating problems similar to those involved in the natural north and south
Request for Establishment of Power Grid flow of trade in earlier days. This situation has been brought forcibly to the attention of the Canadian people because of the poor handling and mismanagement of the Columbia power development. The Canadian people are faced with the proposal of exporting power to the United States or doing something about supplying that power to Canadian markets. Electric power cannot be held or stored. You cannot put it in a tank and keep it; you have to use it. You also cannot keep the resource that produces the power. The water is going to go over the dam or down the river no matter whether there is an electric power plant there.
So it is essential that when we can develop hydroelectric power we should do so. The people of British Columbia are now in the position of wanting to increase the amount of power in that province and they are going to be faced with the situation of the federal government saying that there shall be no export of power, or no export on such a short term basis that it is not practical, and the provincial government saying that they are going to export that power on their own terms.
In the Globe and Mail of November 26, 1961 there is a report of a speech made by the Prime Minister in Newfoundland and it contains this passage:
A hint that a national power grid plan is in the works was dropped Saturday night by Prime Minister John Diefenbaker. He said it may not be too long before such a grid could be established using new techniques in long haul transmission of power.
I suggest that the Prime Minister was flying a kite to see what the reaction of the Canadian people would be to long transmission lines and the establishment of a national grid. Obviously the results must have been favourable. The matter must have been discussed a good deal between that time and the opening of parliament this year because the speech from the throne contained an indication that something was going to be done to develop a national power grid.
I think the Canadian people should be treated more fairly with regard to the matter of a national power grid. It is a very important step and if the Prime Minister were really serious about doing something he would know that research and development work is necessary to adapt the system that has been developed in other countries of using d.c. power transmitted in heavy concentration over long transmission lines. He should know that this system needs to be adapted to the Canadian scene and that this takes research and work. If he really believes that something should be done about this matter, then this a field that obviously is
420	HOUSE OF
Request for Establishment of Power Grid within federal jurisdiction and he does not need any support from the provinces to make a start on it.
Certainly the implication was left that the government wants to have a line as soon as possible that will take surplus power developed in one place in Canada and transmit it to another area that can use it, and if this is so I think the government must say that it will supply the power grid on a national basis to those provinces that want to join in the implementing of such a plan.
I am quite sure that other speakers will say that we have to take into consideration the British North America Act and the constitutional issues, but what consideration did we give to constitutional issues when we wanted to build a national highway? When we instituted the trans-Canada highway certain provinces did not agree to come into the plan and only recently have they participated in it. I think the government of the day was farsighted enough to realize that they had to take the responsibility of providing the vehicle for developing a Canadian highways system. They did so and the provinces that wished to co-operate did so under that scheme.
I believe this is not a constitutional issue. In my view the government is going to try to blame the province of Quebec and say, "It is not our fault there is not going to be a national power grid". The government will have read in the Gazette today, as everyone else has, the headline: "Power Grid Proposal Gets Answer. It is No."


Mr. MacEwan:: Would the hon. member permit a short question? Why has he put these words in his resolution:
-the government should consider providing the necessary research and technical study and the calling at the earliest possible date of a dominion-provincial conference to implement the national power grid authority?


William Arnold Peters: As the hon. member should know, we on this side of the house have great difficulty in introducing resolutions that will avoid reference to the expenditure of money. The resolution must be couched in such terms that the government will be able to manoeuvre. The resolution must simply ask the government to take into consideration rather than referring to the spending of the money that would be necessary to build a grid.
In reading this article, Mr. Speaker, one finds that the premier of Quebec refers to the constitutional issue which I suggest will be the major factor in determining what will be done. However, there are much more important factors to be taken into consideration. The premier of Quebec says, in effect, "This
[Mr. Peters.1

is a field of provincial jurisdiction and I consider that is where we must let the matter rest."
Is it not a fact, Mr. Speaker, that about a year or so ago this house passed a measure to enable the federal government to participate in the establishment of a maritime power grid? It is true that this power grid could not be considered national in scope, but it did extend over several provinces in the mari-times. If we are so interested in protecting the export of power, and I agree we must protect the export of power from Canada, is it not the responsibility of the federal government to make certain at the earliest possible moment there is a substitute method for handling the surplus power that will be developed? If we established a transmission line, you can call it a national transmission line, a national power grid or whatever you want, I believe the Canadian people would want to see a large concentration of secondary industry in Canada in order to use our natural resources.
I have spoken to some of the people in British Columbia and they are not averse to exporting power to the other provinces of Canada if the need is there. What they wish is the right to sell their power and they are certainly willing to give preference to the Canadian market. I am quite sure the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) suggested this plan in all seriousness and that he has been advised as to the feasibility of it. I hope that the government will take a much stronger position in this field and, since there is apparently not going to be unanimous agreement amongst the provinces, establish a national power grid in those provinces that will take advantage of it.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this will be a very lengthy and very expensive program. We will be moving millions of kilowatts of electricity across a national power grid. We will not necessarily have to transport this power great distances because our country is so broad the time zones will vary the peak load periods, so surplus power can be transmitted east to west or west to east. There is another factor that should be borne in mind. These transmission lines will be useful not only for the transmission of hydro power, which appears to be the cheapest method of producing electricity at the moment, but these lines will be available to transmit electricity developed by thermal power or by nuclear power. It will be possible for us, through watching developments in other countries, to transmit a large amount of power from those areas now producing it.
One of the problems I have encountered, and this is particularly true of my own area, is that we have continued to export natural

resources in the raw state. We have seen the end or close to the end of several of our natural resources without gaining any secondary industry to replace these primary industries. I am sure the same situation exists in the maritimes and in the prairies where many farmers are being displaced by automation. This plan seems to me to present an opportunity for the Canadian people to take advantage of the tremendous resources we now have. Resources can be built upon and increased as the need becomes evident. Secondary industries depend entirely on such things as low cost power and a ready access to markets. I would think, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian people would watch the development of this program very carefully.
It is a fact that a private member cannot introduce all the implications that should be introduced into a resolution of this nature. The government is in a position to do something about this, whereas a private member is not. We are in a position in Canada, I think, where we can offer those provinces willing to take advantage of this national grid, all the beneficial results that will flow from such a plan. I would suggest that although Quebec has turned down this plan, it will be one of the first to take advantage of a program of this type. I can foresee the tremendous potential of some developments in the near future such as the one at Hamilton falls in the Labrador area. This will be an interprovincial development that will bring power to the north shore of Quebec and I am sure some of the surplus would be available to Ontario and the maritime provinces if these transmission lines are established.
I suggest this government will be remiss in its duty if it tells the public, "If it were not for this terrible Liberal in Quebec, we would have a national power grid." I do not believe it is the responsibility of a single Liberal in Quebec to squash this plan. It is up to the Conservative government in Ottawa to take the bull by the horns and develop a national power grid. I believe the Canadian people will respond to this plan with the same eagerness that they responded to the development of the national railway. It is obvious that this plan could result in the establishment of secondary industries. It will provide a blanket of cheap electricity. There will be periods when there will be surplus electricity that could be used by industries.
I hope that members on the government side will indicate that they, too, are interested in the federal government going ahead immediately with the research and development of this national project. Then those provinces that see an advantage in it, as British Columbia obviously does, will be able to start a 26207-1-28
Request for Establishment of Power Grid transmission line to handle the export of power to other provinces. It has been pointed out that this plan will be almost as important to the development of Canada in the next 20 years as was the development of the trans-Canada railway. I believe, knowing the developments that took place as a result of that project, the Canadian government should give immediate consideration to the implementation of a project that will not require the co-operation of all provinces. We should begin immediately with the co-operation of those provinces that wish to join in the establishment of a national power grid.


Mr. H. M. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak to the motion introduced by the hon. member for Timiskaming. It was rather interesting to see how he got around the idea of "following John". The only way he could do it was to attack the sincerity of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker).
As hon. members know, one paragraph inserted in the throne speech had to do with the establishment of a national power grid system. I think it should be put on the record, and I quote:
The provision of low cost electric power is one of the most important factors in the economic growth and industrial development of Canada. As a further step in the national development policy, my Prime Minister has invited the provincial governments to join with the federal government in early discussions of the steps that might be taken toward the establishment of long distance power transmission to link provinces and eventually the different regions of Canada.
I suggest, sir, that this attack on the sincerity of the Prime Minister by the hon. member for Timiskaming was not only uncalled for but was out of place. If he wishes to use his motion as a political attack then he is doing the country a disservice, he is doing himself a disservice, and is doing a disservice toward his constituents.


William Arnold Peters: I am not.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: We have read the report in this morning's Gazette about the response from the province of Quebec. This response, I suggest, is a political one and is not the response of sensible people in that province. To say "no, we won't even discuss it with you," does not seem to be very reasonable. I would suggest to the premier of Quebec, and perhaps to some of the premiers of the other provinces, that the idea they should build, not power grids but political power grids within their provinces, as some of them would like to do, is not in the interests of Canada as a whole. If we as a nation are to progress, then some of the political grids in
422	HOUSE OF
Request for Establishment of Power Grid some of the other provinces will have to accept the fact that co-operation is the only method that can make confederation work.
I have quoted the paragraph in the speech from the throne which deals directly with the problem. In effect the government has said that it intends to establish negotiations and discussions immediately with regard to the long distance transmission of power, and I am sure all Canadians will respond to the suggestion. Equally I am sure that a negative approach from one province will not hinder or stop discussions on a national power grid. Certainly the concensus coming from the resources for tomorrow conference was that the federal government must show the way in the development of Canada's resources, and I feel one of the major first steps in showing the way must be discussions upon and implementation of long distance power transmission.
We in Alberta are keenly interested in this subject because we happen to be in the happy position of having an abundance of energy producing sources. We have our hydroelectric developments that are now taking place, and those that can take place in the future. In my own constituency one of the major hydroelectric developments now being undertaken is on the Brazeau river, in the eastern foothills of the Rocky mountains, and there are plans for other rivers, the Athabasca, the McLeod, and the Pembina. All of these rivers flow down through areas which have tremendous natural resources, areas which are just now coming into their own and the resources of which are being considered for the very first time.
United States Steel is now investigating coke coal immediately north of Hinton and Edson, and there has been a tremendous upsurge in the exploration for and production of natural gas and its by-products. Very soon we shall have one of the first large thermal plants with the Calgary power plant being converted from natural gas back to coal. All of these resources, coal, gas, hydroelectric and petroleum by-products are primary sources from which electric energy can be made.
I do not know if the hon. member has mentioned that hydroelectric power remains the cheapest form of power, but I am sure there will come a time in the not too distant future when thermal plants fired by coal, gas and petroleum by-products will take a strong position in the production of electric energy.
A power grid system does not have to be trans-Canada at the start. Indeed we could have regionalization in the west, connecting the prairie provinces and British Columbia with the primary market in the north and to the east. Certainly the need for power is just


now becoming apparent in the northern territories. With the development of our natural resources at Pine Point, beyond Yellowknife, and at the Great Slave lake the power requirements of that area will be tremendous and could be most easily served by a grid connecting Alberta, British Columbia and the northern territories. Other regional transmission grids could be constructed elsewhere particularly in the maritimes, including the one mentioned by the hon. member at Hamilton falls.
It is my belief we should look at the problem of the transmission of power in the same way as we looked at the problem of the transmission of other forms of energy. In this regard I refer to the trans-Canada pipe line relating to gas. These energy sources should first be offered to the Canadian people and then, when we are sure that our own requirements are satisfactorily met and our future assured, we can go on to consider the export of surplus energy.
In this connection I may mention our national oil policy which has worked so well. We suggested to the oil companies that they meet quotas for production in the various oil fields. We exported oil into the western United States and we imported it back in the eastern area, and some consideration should be given to such a plan in regard to the use of electric power.
I am sure that everyone in Canada will look forward with pleasure to the implementation of a national power grid under the dynamic leadership of the present Prime Minister. I believe the power grid will go ahead and, notwithstanding some resistance in certain parts of the country, will become a major plan in the development policy and growth of Canada. I believe it will be brought in by a Conservative government as was the original trans-Canada railway in 1867.
(Translation):


Mr. Augustin Brassard (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say a few words in connection with the motion of the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) concerning the establishment of a national power grid in Canada.
Obviously, every one of us welcomes developments of some scope in this country, because they always have a deep impact on the expansion and the economy of Canada and, consequently, on the income of the Canadian people.
As the hon. member for Timiskaming said, it was not so long ago when visiting Newfoundland the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Diefenbaker) left the people of that province with the idea that a national

Request for Establishment of Power Grid
power grid might be established. I suppose, as suggested by the hon. member, he wanted to know the views of some Canadians and to receive suggestions. I think that such a line of action was not quite in good taste because, even if people accuse us of playing petty politics, as the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Horner) did just now, when speaking of the constitution, I want to say- and those who do not admit it have not read the British North America Act or, if they have read it, they did not understand it- that our natural resources come under the jurisdiction of the provinces.
This does not mean that the provinces may not join in the implementation of national projects, after having met, considered the projects, and come to some agreement respecting the rights of each party, with the national interest in mind.
It has been said that Quebec's answer was of a political nature. Now, all the Quebec government said, was that natural resources come under the jurisdiction of the provinces, and Mr. Lesage added, as reported in the Gazette of January 31:
(Text):
After noting that power transmission is on the agenda of this summer's interprovincial conference of premiers at Victoria, B.C., of which Mr. Lesage is chairman, the letter stated:
"As a matter of fact, I have already opened talks on this subject with the premiers of other provinces''.
(Translation):
That is not exactly what was said by hon. members who spoke before me. I do not think his reply can be interpreted as a definite refusal. The premier of Quebec merely states that natural resources come under the jurisdiction of the provinces, but I do not think that he completely closed the door to any future discussion if no obstacle is put in the way of the talks that will take place this summer between the premiers of the different provinces.
In my opinion, it is entirely normal that the premiers should want to discuss such an important question which affects the rights of the provinces and, at the same time, can have great repercussions on the economy and development of the country.
In other words, I strongly support the first proposal put forward by the hon. member for Timiskaming, concerning the field of research related to that great project; I believe it is a very valuable proposal. In fact, the government has everything it requires to put to work a staff which could further research in that field.
Besides, an authority on the subject has already made some studies on the matter. I refer to Mr. H. L. Briggs, of the national 26207-1-28i
energy board. I should like to quote what he has written on the subject, not that I agree with his views, because I cannot express an opinion on such a complex issue, but I should like to have my colleagues understand that such a thing cannot be decided overnight. That question involves complications and complexities, and I have confidence in Mr. Briggs' judgement, although I do not know if everything he says will come about. But it would still be worth while to undertake and further these studies in order to ascertain the soundness of Mr. Briggs' claims, since, as everyone knows, he is an authority on the matter.
He submitted a brief to the annual meeting of the Engineering Insitute of Canada, and at the end of his paper we read the following:
(Text):
That no advantage is clearly apparent to justify the construction of a trans-Canada grid system.
(Translation):
As may be seen on page 22 of the brief, that is his own personal opinion, but precisely because the problem is very complex, it gives even more weight to the proposal made by the hon. member for Timiskaming.
And a little further on, on page 26 of the same brief, we can read the following:
(Text):
A commercial dependable trans-Canada power grid from southern Ontario to British Columbia, integrated with the various local utilities through which it passes, is not a serious consideration in the foreseeable future.
(Translation):
And further down on the same page: (Text):
A transmission grid system interconnecting major power resources across northern Canada, built with tapoff connections taken southward at intervals for the purpose of supplying large power consuming areas, is for economic reasons of no interest.
(Translation):
Once again if I am informing the house of the ideas held by Mr. Briggs, who is considered as an authority, it does not mean that I feel we should turn down this proposal. However, I feel that we should proceed with caution and make the necessary investigation before we take such an important step. We must also meet with the provincial authorities to discuss the situation.
I was not too happy with the Prime Minister when he expressed that idea without first consulting the provinces. He wrote to them only afterwards. It was said that the Prime Minister was then on a non-political tour but if I am to follow the example set by my hon. friend from Jasper-Edson, I should quote part of the press report which appeared
424	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Request for Establishment of Power Grid in the Ottawa Citizen, on November 27, 1961, concerning the Prime Minister's visit to Newfoundland:
(Text):
It was a fast moving visit billed as non-political, but with the intensive hand-shaking activity associated with an election campaign.
(Translation):
It seems to me that, before any statements were made on projects of such a wide scope, the premiers of the different provinces should have been informed and asked to meet in Ottawa. And since the item is already on the agenda of the premiers' conference to be held this summer, I believe it would be advisable to wait in order to know what they will decide and whether or not they have positive suggestions to make to the government of Canada.
However, to sum up, I think that the research work to be done in this field should be started without delay. Also, that the government should act as a negotiating or rather a co-ordinating agent of some kind and that the provinces should be approached to find out how the premiers of our different provinces feel about this development project.
As regards research, I do not believe this would affect the rights or the jurisdiction of the provinces.
As for the project itself, I am of the opinion that the provinces should be consulted and that we should await their decisions.
I am convinced that, since this project is for the good of the country and in the public interest, all the premiers will cooperate with the federal government.
(Text):


Howard Russell MacEwan: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make just a few remarks on this resolution which has been placed on the order paper by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). I have listened to the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Brassard) and as far as hon. members on the other side of the chamber are concerned, I think it can all be boiled down to the fact that they are disappointed that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) has again stolen a march on them.
Reference was made a short time ago-I believe by the hon. member for Timiskaming-to the grid system which has been set up in the maritime provinces between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. This grid system is most important to that area of the country. There is in my constituency a thermal plant, which of course uses coal, in the town of Trenton in Nova Scotia.
Just as an example of what a grid, even between two provinces, can do was shown in

the summer of 1960 when the province of New Brunswick was suffering from a lack of water and therefore could not use its hydro plants. At that time the plant in my area was able to supply a considerable amount of power to the province of New Brunswick. A grid system means a great deal to the receiving end and also to the transmitting end.
I recall attending a ceremony in 1960 in the constituency of the hon. member for Colchester-Hants (Mr. Kennedy) when the switch was pulled on the grid system which had been set up and is now maintained in an area known as lower Onslow in the county of Colchester.
Hon. members may ask, "Why is it important to your area?" I would point out that there are three coal mines in my area, the MacBean mine in Thorburn, the Drummond mine in Westville and the Greenwood mine in Greenwood. The thermal plant which transmits this power consumes a great deal of the coal from the Greenwood and Drummond mines and some from the MacBean mine. In fact it has been a godsend to the latter two mines because the coal they have is not of the best quality but can be burned in a thermal plant.
To give hon. members some idea of what this means to an area I wish to quote a few figures. This project was brought about by the introduction of the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act, which was introduced by this government in 1957 as another forward step. The following figures were given by the then minister of mines and technical surveys last year when I asked him a question in the house. To the end of 1961, the following amounts had been paid. Subventions, $2.12 million; on transmission lines, $4.22 million, and for the Trenton plant, in my area, $2.86 million. For the year 1961, the estimates showed subventions amounting to approximately $1.7 million, $6.3 million for the building of transmission lines and for the completion of the addition to the plant in my area, $363,000. This is just between two provinces. The introduction of a national grid would not only help my own area but it would also help Cape Breton island inasmuch as a thermal plant could be constructed there and power sent to other provinces.
The situation in the province of Quebec was dealt with by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Brassard) and I do not think I need go into that question. For coal mining areas, for those areas in particular which were indicated by the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Horner) and, as well, for those which can supply waterpower, I think this would represent a most forward looking step on the part of the present government. I am sure

Request for Establishment of Power Grid
the necessary research will be undertaken by the government and by the national research council in co-operation with the provinces for the benefit not only of the maritimes but of all other areas in this country. As I have stated, the Prime Minister brought this project forward and it is one which must disappoint those who sit on the other side of the house.


Mr. A. E. Robinson (Bruce):: After I have made a few remarks about this motion I am satisfied the house will know that this government has not only been giving a great deal of attention to research into power development in this country, but has been doing something about it.
As the house probably knows, power in Ontario is the responsibility of the HydroElectric Power Commission. In the years since the commission was appointed or originated it has accomplished a very good job in the province of Ontario, not only in peacetime but in wartime. It has kept up with the increasing demand for power. The growth of the demand for power over the last number of years has been rapid, and the economists tell us that it will gain momentum as the years go by. The larger the population grows the more power will be used in line with the mode of living we have at the present time. Some economists predict a more rapid rate of growth than others but I think we can be satisfied that the growth will be rapid. The estimated increase for the demand for power in the province of Ontario over the next 20 years is between 5 per cent and 6 per cent per year. This means that the province of Ontario in 20 years' time will be required to double the supply of power that is needed today. Water sources of power in Ontario are, as the previous speaker has mentioned, about at an end. There are small sources up in the northern part of the province which will eventually be tapped but it is uneconomic at the present time to transport the power over the distance which would be involved. If the demand for increased power in the next 20 years were supplied from thermal sources it would mean an added cost, in coal, of some $300 million. No doubt a large amount of this coal would come from the United States, though some, of course, would come from Canada. According to this estimate it would cost $300 million a year to supply that amount of thermal power.
A short while ago the atomic energy board of Canada along with the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario agreed to erect an atomic power plant in the county of Bruce. Why they chose Bruce, I am not too sure; it is not because of the geniality of the hon. member who represents that constituency,
I know that. I suppose it is because we have the facilities required by such an important undertaking. The atomic power plant which is under construction at the present time is being built at Douglas point on lake Huron. The unit which is now under construction is expected to be completed by late 1964 or early 1965. The unit will produce 200,000 kilowatts. It is planned that in 1963 a second unit will be built in along with the first unit. That second unit is expected to produce another 200,000 kilowatts. There is talk at the present time of joining a third unit to the other two. The facilities are there.
Reverting to this question of the demand for power in 20 years time, I might point out that if this extra power were supplied by atomic energy it would mean there would be $150 million worth of uranium used per year to supply this plant. Coupled with the $300 million that would be spent on coal, this comes to a considerable sum. Power from this plant, when the plant comes into operation, will go into the hydroelectric power commission grid. I am sure it will not only supply the future industrial needs of our locality in Bruce but will make a contribution to supplying the needs of the rest of Ontario.
At this time I feel a national grid is something to which we can look forward but many of these bridges will have to be crossed before it will be feasible. If our population continues to grow on the basis of predictions, I am satisfied that such a grid will become a reality some time in the future.
(Translation):


Mr. J. N. Tremblay (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I do not usually take part in debates on private members' bills. But when I heard the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Brassard) a while ago, I felt I should intervene. After studying the resolution proposed by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), I agree with my colleague from Lapointe that this measure would infringe upon the autonomy of the provinces.
Along with my colleague from Lapointe, I believe that the development of natural resources comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces and that any action in this regard must be initiated by provincial authorities. The hon. member for Lapointe pointed out that the federal government's intervention is justified in such a field, with the required consent and co-operation of provincial authorities.
I should not want to quarrel with him to no purpose on this matter, but it seems to me that he is at variance with some members of his party who were once influential. 1 refer
426	HOUSE OF
Request for Establishment of Power Grid in particular to the former member for Stormont, the present member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), who, not so long ago, that is last October 16, stated that the federal Liberal party is of the opinion that the joint programs should be abandoned. I therefore wonder how the hon. member for Lapointe can reconcile such an attitude with his party's general policy.
Perhaps he would like to know my views on that subject? He knows full well what my stand is concerning any question related to provincial autonomy.
I have often said in the house that any measure introduced by the central government which infringes upon provincial jurisdiction should be abandoned. Of course, it is not always easy to drop long standing programs but we must uphold the principle that the federal government should give up any measure which is prejudicial to provincial sovereignty, as determined by the British North America Act.
That is why I feel the hon. member for Lapointe must be in an uneasy position in that respect. I noticed the precautions he used, first saying that he recognized the provinces' sovereignty and jurisdiction in matters involving the development of natural resources, but that, on the other hand, he saw the possibility for the central government's intervention in matters involving natural resources, as long as the previous discussions had taken place between provincial authorities and the central government. It seems to me that this caution comes from a perfect knowledge of the present attitude of the Quebec government which, while saying that joint projects should be done away with, as did the premier of the province in 1960, at the federal-provincial conference in Ottawa, throws itself wholeheartedly, so to speak, into joint projects. Thus, it would appear that the careful attitude shown by the member for Lapointe is dictated by political and electoral considerations. I hope that he will soon explain matters. For my part, Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I have said about the measure introduced by the member for Timis-kaming. I do not see how he can reconcile the well known and recognized theory that development of natural resources comes under provincial jurisdiction with the project he is submitting to the house today.
I am not saying anything new when I say that relations between provincial governments and the central government have now reached a turning point, a kind of crossroads, and that we will soon have to do some new thinking about all the problems of our confederation, the problem of the various fields


of jurisdiction attributed to the central government and to the various provincial governments.
That is why it seems to me that any new action aiming at joining all the provinces through joint plans must be analysed with very special care. In fact, those joint plans, all those subtle and often occult links should not limit provincial sovereignty.
As far as the province of Quebec is concerned, a province which has always been staunchly autonomist for the last 15 or 16 years, it is easy to say that it intends-and I think all Conservative members from the province of Quebec share the same intention -to prevent any action being taken that would encroach upon that provincial sovereignty and jeopardize the over-all powers and exclusive rights which have been imparted to the provinces by the constitution of this country.
(Text):


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard on a point of order?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. gentleman wish to be heard on a point of order arising out of what was said by the hon. member for Roberval?
(Translation):


Augustin Brassard: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. member for Roberval added to what I said.
All I said about the central government in connection with that project is that it should see to it that surveys be made, and should play the part of a co-ordinator in setting up the national power grid.


Jean-Noël Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the point of order, I would like to point out to the hon. member for Lapointe that he indicated, very clearly, that if we were to proceed in the way suggested by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), we should have to do it by means of joint projects.


Augustin Brassard: I did not say anything about joint projects in my speech.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Hon. members apparently wish to continue the debate beyond the hour.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the house leader would indicate what the government intends to proceed with tomorrow?


Mr. Churchill:: The program as outlined, Mr. Speaker, providing for continuation of

debate on the supplementary estimates on the winter works program, which I presume the house will complete tomorrow because I am sure everyone is anxious to get on with the resolutions in the name of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. They are num-
Business of the House bers 13, 14, 15 and 16 on today's order paper and the first one deals with pensions under the Old Age Security Act.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 1, 1982