1971-06-16

NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED

[Stage Direction]
Elmer M. MacKay, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Central Nova, introduced by the Hon. Robert L. Stanfield and Mr. Thomas M. Bell.

Mr. Speaker:: May I bring to the attention of the House the presence in the Speaker's gallery of a distinguished parliamentarian, the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs of Roumania who is also a member of the great National Assembly of that country, His Excellency Mr. Manescu.

It was only a few months ago that Mr. Manescu with kindness and generosity received in Bucharest a group of members of the House of Commons who were in Roumania on an official visit. I am pleased at this time to thank him and to thank his parliamentary colleagues for the very generous hospitality extended to us at that time.

I hope that the visit of His Excellency the Minister of External Affairs of Roumania will be both pleasant and profitable.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council) moved:: That on Monday, June 21 and 28, Tuesday 22 and 29, 1971, the ordinary hours of sitting shall be from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
8:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. provided, that in any such sitting
(a)	For the purposes of Standing Order 60 (6) (7) and (8), in relation to the consideration of the Order for Ways and Means (Budget), the hour for the interruption of proceedings shall be 5:45 p.m.
(b)	The order of business from 8:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. shall be the consideration of Government Orders, other than Ways and Means (Budget).
(c)	The consideration of Private Members' Business and the adjournment proceedings, if and when applicable shall be subject to the provisions of Standing Orders 15(5) and 40(7).


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Allan Joseph MacEachen: That, when Royal Assent is given to any bills on June 30, 1971, the House, shall adjourn and shall stand adjourned untU Tuesday, September 7, 1971, at 2:00 p.m., provided always that if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with Her Majesty's Government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and
That, in the event of Mr. Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
sfc *	*


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table copies in the two official languages of the budgetary papers and I ask for the consent of the House to have the papers printed as an appendix to today's Votes and Proceedings and also included as an appendix to Hansard of Friday, June 18, when I intend to present the budget. In order to facilitate that, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you as well to designate the appropriate order of the day for the budget presentation.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Increase in Canadian Exports TRADE

June 16, 1971



INCREASE IN CANADIAN EXPORTS-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

['There are some negative crows on the government side of the House.']
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasiings):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask unanimous consent of the House to move a motion under Standing Order 43 dealing with a matter of urgent public importance, specifically, that the increase in Canadian exports of 2.4 per cent during the first five months of this year, compared with the same period a year ago-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Baldwin:: That is your consent, George-they are giving consent.


George Harris Hees: -is far less than the rate of increase-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: -necessary to enable Canadian industry to absorb the yearly increase in the work force, thereby contributing materially to rising unemployment. I therefore move:
That the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce be required to appear before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs within the next week, to discuss the need for a massive trade drive to increase exports to a level which will cause unemployment to decrease, rather than increase as it has been doing steadily since the beginning of the year.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hast-ings.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion as proposed to the House under Standing Order 43 requires unanimous consent. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will recognize that there is not unanimous consent so that the motion cannot be put at this time.


George Harris Hees: That is not the way it sounded to me, Mr. Speaker.
* *
*



Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Farther down in the pecking order, Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 to ask the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion in a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I hear the catcalls already, Mr. Speaker; perhaps they are rising to the bait with applause for unanimous consent. This urgent matter concerns a report published in an American newspaper of international reputation and circulation. There are statements in this report which can reasonably be interpreted as reflecting with discredit upon the impartiality of Canada in discharging its role as a member of the International Commission for Supervision and Control in Viet Nam. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean):
That the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence forthwith inquire into Canada's role and activities on the International Commission for Supervision and Control in Viet Nam, with specific reference to the question whether the representative provided by Canada on that commission at any time acted upon instruction by the Canadian government at the request of a foreign head of state without consultation with or knowledge of the representatives provided by other nations on the commission; and that the Secretary of State for External Affairs immediately table in this House all Canadian papers and documents pertaining to the messages carried or communicated to the government of Hanoi by J. Blair Seaborn while a member of the commission.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Edmonton West. This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: What are you hiding?


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity and the motion cannot be put to the House at this time.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There are some negative crows on the government side of the House.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Goode: 1.	Does the Department of Transport intend (a) to acquire all of the buildings (i) in the Cora Brown and McDonald Road Subdivisions on Sea Island, British Columbia (ii) on Lancaster Road, Sea Island, necessary for roadway purposes and, if so, by what dates (b) to invoke expropriation proceedings after these dates?
2.	For each of the Cora Brown and the McDonald Road Subdivisions, during each of the years 1968, 1969, 1970 and 1971 to date (a) how many individual properties has the Department of Transport purchased (b) how many individual properties remain unpurchased (c) what was the total sum paid for the properties acquired (d) what was the square foot cost attributed to improvements (e) what was the cost attributable to land purchased?

June 16, 1971


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. (a) (i) The Department of Transport intends to acquire all of the properties in the Cora Brown Subdivision and in the McDonald Subdivision on Sea Island; and (ii) Twenty properties located in Blocks P and Q Lancaster Crescent, Sea Island, (b) The Cora Brown Subdivision and the McDonald Subdivision lie within an area designated as a requirement for long-range future development of the Vancouver International Airport. No date has yet been set for this requirement. Purchase is taking place on an 'offer by owner basis' to sell, the Crown's action being governed by availability of purchase funds-expropriation is not contemplated. There is a firm requirement for those properties located on Lancaster Crescent for the proposed access road system to the airport. The target date for completion of the acquisition of this property is December 31, 1971. Logic would dictate that an owner, failing to come to terms, would force the department to expropriate.
2.	(a, b, and c) To date individual properties purchased on the Cora Brown and McDonald Subdivisions total 89 at an expenditure of $2,519,743; 83 properties remain to be purchased, (d and e) Following is a year to year breakdown of acquisitions, square foot costs attributable to improvements, and attributed to land:
1968-	Cora Brown Subdivision
Thirty-eight properties purchased for total expenditure $1,033,893.00-average cost per square foot for improvements $12.29, cost attributable to land $362,600, based on land cost of $11,000 per one acre lot.
1969-	Cora Brown Subdivision
Twenty properties purchased for total expenditure $638,850-average cost per square foot for improvements $13.25, total attributable to land purchase $208,400. Price of land increased to $13,000 per acre lot in mid-year.
McDonald Subdivision
Five properties (vacant residential lots) acquired at total cost $42,800.
1970-	Cora Brown Subdivision
Seven properties acquired at total cost $239,000. Average cost for improvements $14.18, square foot, total cost attributable to land $95,400. Price of land adjusted to $17,700 per acre lot latter part of 1970.
McDonald Subdivision
Fourteen properties acquired including one vacant lot -total expenditure $418,650-average cost for improvements $13.46. Total attributable to land based upon $7,500 value for standard size residential lot and one half acre lots at $8,500, increasing to $8,800 for half acre lots at end of year $129,100.
1971-	To date Cora Brown Subdivision
Two properties acquired $45,700. Total cost attributable to land $26,700. Building cost $13.80 per square foot.
McDonald Subdivision
Three properties acquired $100,850. Average cost per square foot for improvements $15.92. Total attributable to land based upon $7,500 for a standard size residential lot $22,500.
Questions


CARGO TONNAGE HANDLED IN CANADIAN SEAPORTS, 1968-70 INCLUSIVE
Mr. Harding: 1.	What was the total cargo tonnage handled in the seaports of (a) Vancouver (b) Prince Rupert (c) Montreal (d) Halifax (e) Port Arthur-Fort William (f) Sept-Iles (including Pointe Marie) for the years 1968, 1969 and 1970?
2.	What was the total revenue received by and the cost to the government from the operation of each of the above ports for the same years?


Gérard Duquet: The Department of Transport advises
as follows: 1. Cargo Tonnage	1968	1969	1970(b) Prince Rupert	1,691,375	1,339,221	1,386,204(e) Lakehead (Port-Arthur-Fort William)	13,201,770	13,604,854	20,779,767(/) Sept-Iles (including Pointe Noire)	25,946,988	18,972,152	29,879,9782. Revenue	$	$	$Prince Rupert	27,345	23,482	21,235Lakehead (Port Arthur-Fort William)	571,565	548,528	575,420Sept-Iles (Including Pointe Noire)	274,391	310,960	337,766Operating Cost Prince Rupert	21,058	17,062	14,524*Lakehead (Port Arthur-Fort William)	496,292	563,669	635,929Sept-Iles (including Pointe Noire)	27,702	25,714	36,221
'Includes Depreciation and Interest as follows: 1968, $187,949; 1969, $237,351; 1970, $305,104.
The National Harbours Board advises as follows:
1968	1969	1970(a)	24,173,764	23,080,469	27,185,913(b)	N/A	N/A	N/A(c)	20,270,698	20,538,174	25,047,299Id)	9,938,916	10,553,997	11,577,000<0	N/A	N/A	N/A00	N/A	N/A	N/ATotal NHB Revenue	1968	1969	1970$	$	$(a)	6,135,479*	4,240,536	5,061,910f>)	N/A	N/A	N/A(c)	15,939,223	17,664,207	20,924,907(d)	2,167,281	2,850,854	2,992,791(e)	N/A	N/A	N/A00	N/A	N/A	N/A' (Including handling revenue in	1968 of $2,524,438)	tal NHB Expenses	1968	1969	1970$	$	$(a)	6,530,765*	5,119,326	6,081,351N/A	N/A	N/Ac)	19,311,769	20,663,140	21,800,034Id)	3,959,342	4,714,715	5,955,500N/A	N/A	N/A(	N/A	N/A	N/A
(Including handling expenses in 1968 of $2,524,585)

June 16, 1971
Questions


CHARGE FOR USE OF WHARF AT BERTHTER-EN-BAS, P.Q.
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Is a charge levied by the Department of Transport or the Canadian Transport Commission on users of the wharf at Ber-thier-en-bas, in Quebec and, if so (a) is this charge payable in respect of all goods and products such as timber, hay, straw, etc. (b) what is the rate charged?


Gérard Duquet: Yes, Department of Transport, (a) Yes. (b) Rate Schedule, Government Wharves Regulations authorized by Order in Council P.C. 1964-104, as amended by Order in Council P.C. 1968-2265 (Published in the Canada Gazette Part II, Volume 98, dated February 12, 1964 and Volume 102, dated December 25, 1968).


ACTIONS INSTITUTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 39, NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD ACT
Mr. Fortin: 1.	During the past five years, have any actions been instituted pursuant to Section 39 of the National Harbours Board Act and, if so, which ones?
2.	Is it the government's intention to clarify that Section?


Gérard Duquet: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1. Yes: Eleven (all of which, except the last mentioned, were in the Quebec Courts), brought by: (i) Jacques Cartier (City of); (ii) Langelier, J. et al.; (iii) Reliable Transport Ltd.; (iv) Montreal Stevedoring Corporation; (v) Lemieux, G.; (vi) Martineau, M.; (vii) Goldstein, E.; (viii) Latimer Motors Ltd.; (ix) Les Entrepreneurs Benta Ltee.; (x) Diamond Waterproofing Limited et al.; (xi) M.S. "PROCYON" (British Columbia).
2.	There is no requirement for clarification.


PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES-OPERATIONAL CATEGORY
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many employees are there in the Public Service in the Operational Category and, of these, how many in the national capital region are bilingual?
2.	How many employees is it estimated there will be in the Operational Category in the national capital region by 1975 and, of these, how many will be bilingual?
3.	What was the annual rate of turnover in the Operational Category by way of retirement, dismissal or resignation in the past five years?
4.	What is the estimated rate of turnover in the Operational Category by way of retirement, dismissal or resignation in the next five years?
5.	What is the government's target for bilingual employees in the Operational Category in the national capital region by 1975?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: 1.	As of September 1970, there were 83,262 employees in the Operational Category. The number of bilingual employees located in the national capital area is not presently available.* 1
'This data will not be available until after September 1, 1971.
2.	The number of employees in the Operational Category in the national capital region in 1975 will depend on policy and program decisions not yet made. In the four year period from 1966 to 1970 the number of employees of all categories in the national capital region increased by 14 per cent.
3.	1965-66, 11.4 per cent; 1966-67, 10.5 per cent; 196768, 7.5 per cent; 1968-69, 6.6 per cent; 1969-70, 7.9 per cent.
4.	We are in no position to estimate the market for employees of this category and, therefore, are unable to make any predictions.
5.	The target for bilingual employees in the Operational Category in the national capital region by 1975 will be 15 per cent of the strength of the category located in that region.


PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES-TECHNICAL CATEGORY
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many employees are there in the Public Service in the Technical Category and, of these, how many in the national capital region are bilingual?
2.	How many employees is it estimated there will be in the Technical Category in the national capital region by 1975 and, of these, how many will be bilingual?
3 What was the annual rate of turnover in the Technical Category by way of retirement, dismissal or resignation in the past five years?
4.	What is the estimated rate of turnover in the Technical Category by way of retirement, dismissal or resignation in the next five years?
5.	What is the government's target for bilingual employees in the Technical Category in the national capital region by 1975?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. As of September 1970, there were 17,742 employees in the Technical Category. The number of bilingual employees located in the national capital area is not presently available.1
2.	The number of employees in the Technical Category in the national capital region in 1975 will depend on policy and program decisions not yet made. In the four year period from 1966 to 1970 the number of employees in all categories in the national capital region increased by 14 per cent.
3.	1965-66, 7.5 per cent; 1966-67, 8.2 per cent; 1967-68, 8.0 per cent; 1968-69, 7.4 per cent; 1969-70, 6.7 per cent.
4.	We are in no position to estimate the market for employees of this category and, therefore, are unable to make any predictions.
5.	The target for bilingual employees in the Technical Category in the national capital region by 1975 will be 15 per cent of the strength of the category located in that region.
'This data will not be available until after September
1, 1971.

June 16, 1971


PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES-SCIENTIFIC AND PROFESSIONAL CATEGORY
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many employees are there in the Public Service in the Scientific and Professional Category and, of these, how many in the national capital region are bilingual?
2.	How many employees is it estimated there will be in the Scientific and Professional Category in the national capital region by 1975 and, of these, how many will be bilingual?
3.	What was the annual rate of turnover in the Scientific and Professional Category by way of retirement, dismissal or resignation in the past five years?
4.	What is the estimated rate of turnover in the Scientific and Professional Category by way of retirement, dismissal or resignation in the next five years?
5.	What is the government's target for bilingual employees in the Scientific and Professional Category in the national capital region by 1975?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.	As of September 1970, there were 15,456 employees in the Scientific and Professional Category. The number of bilingual employees located in the national capital area is not presently available.* 1 2 3 4 5 1
2.	The number of employees in the Scientific and Professional Category in the national capital region in 1975 will depend on policy and program decisions not yet made. In the four year period from 1966 to 1970 the number of employees in all categories in the national capital region increased by 14 per cent.
3.	1965-66, 12.0 per cent; 1966-67, 13.2 per cent; 196768, 10.5 per cent; 1968-69, 10.1 per cent; 1969-70, 13.5 per cent.
4.	We are in no position to estimate the market for employees of this category and, therefore, are unable to make any predictions.
5.	The target for bilingual employees in the Scientific and Professional Category in the national capital region by 1975 will be 15 per cent of the strength of the category located in that region.
'This data will not be available until after September
1, 1971.


PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES-ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT CATEGORY
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many employees are there in the Public Service in the Administrative Support Category and, of these, how many in the national capital region are bilingual?
2.	How many employees is it estimated there will be in the Administrative Support Category in the national capital region by 1975 and, of these, how many will be bilingual?
3.	What was the annual rate of turnover in the Administrative Support Category by way of retirement, dismissal or resignation in the past five years?
4.	What is the estimated rate of turnover in the Administrative Support Category by way of retirement, dismissal or resignation in the next five years?
5.	What is the government's target for bilingual employees in the Administrative Support Category in the national capital region by 1975?
Questions


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. As of September 1970, there were 52,690 employees in the Administrative Support Category. The number of bilingual employees located in the national capital area is not presently available.1
2.	The number of employees in the Administrative Support Category in the national capital region in 1975 will depend on policy and program decisions not yet made. In the four year period from 1966 to 1970, the number of employees in all categories in the national capital region increased by 14 per cent.
3.	1965-66, 15.6 per cent; 1966-67, 13.6 per cent; 196768, 13.4 per cent; 1968-69, 12.2 per cent; 1969-70, 9.3 per cent.
4.	We are in no position to estimate the market for employees of this category and, therefore, are unable to make any predictions.
5.	The target for bilingual employees in the Administrative Support Category in the national capital region by 1975 will be 35 per cent of the strength of the category located in that region.
1This data will not be available until after September 1, 1971.


PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES-ADMINISTRATIVE AND FOREIGN SERVICE CATEGORY
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many employees are there in the Public Service in the Administrative and Foreign Service Category and, of these, how many in the national capital region are bilingual?
2.	How many employees is it estimated there will be in the Administrative and Foreign Service Category in the national capital region by 1975 and, of these, how many will be bilingual?
3.	What was the annual rate of turnover in the Administrative and Foreign Service Category by way of retirement, dismissal or resignation in the past five years?
4.	What is the estimated rate of turnover in the Administrative and Foreign Service Category by way of retirement, dismissal or resignation in the next five years?
5.	What is the government's target for bilingual employees in the Administrative and Foreign Service Category in the national capital region by 1975?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. As of September 1970, there were 24,132 employees in the Administrative and Foreign Service Category. The number of bilingual employees located in the national capital area is not presently available.1
2.	The number of employees in the Administrative and Foreign Service Category in the national capital region in 1975 will depend on policy and program decisions not yet made. In the four year period from 1966 to 1970, the number of employees in all categories in the national capital region increased by 14 per cent.
3.	1965-66, 5.1 per cent; 1966-67, 4.3 per cent; 1967-68, 6.5 per cent; 1968-69, 6.5 per cent; 1969-70, 5.0 per cent.
'This data will not be available until after September
1, 1971.

June 16, 1971
Questions
4.	We are in no position to estimate the market for employees of this category and, therefore, are unable to make any predictions.
5.	The target for bilingual employees in the Administrative and Foreign Service Category in the national capital region by 1975 will be 50 per cent of the strength of the category located in that region.


PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES-EXECUTIVE CATEGORY
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many employees are there in the Public Service in the Executive Category and, of these, how many in the national capital region are bilingual?
2.	How many employees is it estimated there will be in the Executive Category in the national capital region by 1975 and, of these, how many will be bilingual?
3.	What was the annual rate of turnover in the Executive Category by way of retirement, dismissal or resignation in the past five years?
4.	What is the estimated rate of turnover in the Executive Category by way of retirement, dismissal or resignation in the next five years?
5.	What is the government's target for bilingual employees in the Executive Category in the national capital region by 1975?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. As of September 1970, there were 503 employees in the Executive Category. The number of bilingual employees located in the national capital area is not presently available.1
2.	The number of employees in the Executive Category in the national capital region in 1975 will depend on policy and program decisions not yet made. In the four year period from 1966-70 the number of employees in all categories in the national capital region increased by 14 per cent.
3.	1965-66, 7.5 per cent; 1966-67, 5.0 per cent; 1967-68, 6.6 per cent; 1968-69, 6.1 per cent; 1969-70, 5.9 per cent.
4.	We are in no position to estimate the market for employees of this category and, therefore, are unable to make any predictions.
5.	The target for bilingual employees in the Executive Category in the national capital region by 1975 will be 60 per cent of the strength of the category located in that region. 1 2 3
1 This data will not be available until after September
1, 1971.


RE-EXAMINATION OF PROGRAMMING BOARD REPORT, 1969, ON HARNESSING OF BAY OF FUNDY TIDES
Mr. Coates: 1.	What are the names of the individuals assigned by the federal government and the governments of the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to carry out the re-examination of the Programming Board Report of 1969 into the harnessing of the Bay of Fundy Tides for power?
2.	In each instance, what are their regular responsibilities?
3.	Were any or all of the persons in question involved in the preparation of the original Report?
4.	What were the terms of reference associated with the reexamination?
5.	On what date did the re-examination start and what is the estimated date for the re-examination to be completed?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: 1.-5. On April 7, 1971 letters were dispatched to the Premiers of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia outlining arrangements for the proposed federal-provincial review of the Atlantic Tidal Power Programming Board findings. The Premier of Nova Scotia has advised that these proposals require further consideration by his government and he undertook to convey that government's reaction upon his return from Europe in mid-May. It is not possible to provide the information requested in question No. 1,369 until the Premier of Nova Scotia advises as to his government's reaction concerning the proposals advanced for the federal-provincial review.


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT EXPENDITURES FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF LOCAL AIRPORTS, 1969-70 INCLUSIVE
Mr. Simpson: 1.	By year, 1966 to 1970 inclusive, how much has been expended by the Department of Transport in each province for the establishment of local airports?
2.	At what locations were these expenditures made?


Gérard Duquet: 1. By fiscal year the expenditures
are:
Province	1966-67	1967-68	1968-69	1969-70	1970-71$	$	$	$	$Newfoundland	Nil	NO	NO	Nil	NilNova Scotia	Nil	12,427	Nil	27,626	42,951New Brunswick Prince Edward	84,709	9,978	67,449	56,238	NilIsland	NO	Nil	Nil	NO	NOQuebec	Nil	2,187	198,228	199,092	134,769Ontario	NO	100,889	242,936	92,209	NilManitoba	NO	NO	NO	Nil	NilSaskatchewan	Nil	24,807	NO	3,748	66,477Alberta	NO	NO	120,247	3,753	NOBritish Columbia	NO	NO	25,000	21,894	231,106
2. Expenditures were made at the following locations: Liverpool, N.S.; Margaree, N.S.; Bathurst, N.B.; Woodstock, N.B.; Bromont, P.Q.; Chibougamau, P.Q.; Mani-waki, P.Q.; Dryden, Ont.; Elliot Lake, Ont.; Midland, Ont.; Biggar, Sask.; Eston, Sask.; Kindersley, Sask.; Unity, Sask.; Drumheller, Alta.; Edson, Alta.; Stettler, Alta.; Creston, B.C.; Fort St. James, B.C.; Golden, B.C.; Grand Forks, B.C.; and Merritt, B.C.


FROST-PROOF WAREHOUSES, PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Mr. McQuaid: 1.	Does the federal government have frost-proof warehouses in the Province of Prince Edward Island and, if so, are producers of perishable products entitled to priority in leasing space over owners or producers of non-perishable products?
2.	Are producers and shippers of potatoes entitled to any prb ority with respect to the renting of space in these warehouses?

June 16, 1971


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: 1. Yes, and the Department of Transport endeavours to give some preference to shippers of perishable products at ports in P.E.I. where frostproof transit sheds are located, but the general public and other shippers also have a right to request and be given the use of space in the sheds.
2. The Department of Transport endeavours to give some preference to shippers of potatoes when considering renting of space in the frost-proof transit sheds.


NUMBER OF INDIANS, ESKIMOS AND METIS HIRED BY PANARCTIC OILS LTD.
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,437
Mr. Yewchuk:: 1.	For each of the past three years, how many jobs have been provided by Panarctic Oils Ltd. to (a) Indians (b) Eskimos (c) Metis?
2.	During the past ten years, how many (a) Indians (b) Eskimos (c) Metis received training from the government to work in the oil industry in the North?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. 1968-69, 6 Eskimos; 1969-70, 6 Eskimos; 1970-71, 8 Eskimos.
2. From 1968-69 to 1970-71 inclusive, 80 residents of the Northwest Territories received training from the government in this regard. Statistics are not kept on an ethnic basis and no figures are available prior to 1968-69.


AMENDMENT OF MANPOWER RETRAINING REGULATIONS TO PROVIDE FOR &quot;IN-PLANT&quot; TRAINING
Mr. Robinson: Will the government advise if it is prepared to amend the regulations for Manpower re-training so that "in-plant training" can take place under the program?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Under Section 6 of the Adult Occupational Training Act the Department of Manpower and Immigration now participates in "in-plant training" through its Training-in-Industry Program. This program provides support for the employer's training of his employees, with special emphasis given to the prevention of lay-offs, and the training of new employees recruited from among the unemployed.


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would endeavour to obtain answers to question No. 933 of February 11 and question No. 1,013 of February 23.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Speaker, I have made a note of the numbers.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers Nos. 211 and 235 are acceptable to the government.
Motions for Papers


PUBLIC ORDER (TEMPORARY MEASURES) ACT-LETTER FROM QUEBEC PRIME MINISTER TO FEDERAL PRIME MINISTER
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 211-Mr. McCleave:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before the House a copy of a letter dated April 2, 1971, dealing with the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act from the Prime Minister of Quebec to the Prime Minister of Canada and the reply thereto.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 235-Mr. Douglas:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all letters, telegrams and other communications sent to the Government of the United States by the Department of External Affairs regarding the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and the ecological dangers arising from the transportation of oil by tanker from Valdez, Alaska to United States' ports on the Pacific Coast.
Motion agreed to.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Notices of Motions Nos. 200 and 237?


CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING ESTABLISHMENT OF FAR EAST YOUTH HOSTEL, CHARLOTTETOWN
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 200-Mr. Macquarrie:
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, memoranda, etc., between the Government of Canada or any agency or department thereof and the Government of Prince Edward Island, the City of Charlottetown or any other party or individual concerning the establishment of the Far East Hostel at Charlottetown in 1970.
Mr. Speaker:: Stand.


DAIRY COMMISSION CONTRACTS WITH COOPERATIVE AGRICOLE OF GRANBY AND VERMETTE ET FILS OF SAINT-AGAPIT
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 237-Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all contracts signed between the Canadian Dairy Commission and the Cooperative Agricole of Granby and between Vermette et Fils of Saint-Agapit for the storing of butter in the warehouses of these two companies, as well as the documents or bills concerning the payments made by the Canadian Dairy Commission to these two companies during the fiscal years 1969-70 and 1970-71 for storage of the butter.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, there are no contracts for butter storage between the Canadian Dairy Commission and the Cooperative Agricole of Granby and Vermette et Fils of Saint-Agapit. Payments to these firms for butter storage are at prevailing commercial storage rates. It has not been the practice to release financial details of individual firms as requested by the hon.

June 16, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
member, as this is considered to be confidential information. I understand that after discussions with the hon. member he is now prepared to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion withdrawn?


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion withdrawn.

Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining Notices of Motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Burton;: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw to the attention of the parliamentary secretary again two motions which I drew to his attention on June 2, two weeks ago. One was Motion No. 234 which, as I pointed out, is a relatively simple motion which replaced another motion I withdrew from the order paper after discussion with the department concerned. The other was Motion No. 232 which was approved on May 19 and the answer to which has not yet been tabled. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could look into these matters as soon as possible.


James Alexander Jerome: I will do so, Mr. Speaker.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, can the Secretary of State for External Affairs now say whether or not he will table copies of the messages transmitted from Washington to Hanoi in 1964 prior to the Gulf of Tonkin incident?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to make a statement on Mr. Seaborn's activities when he was a member of the International Control Commission. I should like to say now, however, that there were no messages in the sense that the United States instructed us to have any messages carried from them to Hanoi. Mr. Seaborn at all times was acting for Canada.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would the minister be prepared to table in the House copies of any directives to Mr. Seaborn from the government of Canada or correspondence
between Mr. Seaborn and the appropriate minister or Prime Minister of the time respecting this affair?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I have not yet examined the record, which is now being prepared for my examination, I find it difficult to answer the question specifically. It is my intention, however, to be as factual and as complete as possible. Whether the instructions are anywhere in writing or whether most of them are oral is the problem.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is difficult to understand why it takes the minister so long to make a statement which he agreed yesterday is important in terms of early clarification. When will the minister make a statement on this matter?


Mitchell William Sharp: I thought I had said tomorrow, Mr. Speaker. I thought that is how I began my answer. I intend to make my statement tomorrow.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: A supplementary question. If, as the minister has just old us, Mr. Blair Seaborn was not acting as an agent of the United States government, was he presenting a message from the United States on behalf of the government of Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. The activities of Mr. Seaborn were in accordance with Canadian policy which was to try to end the war in Viet Nam.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: I wonder if the minister could answer two questions when he makes his statement tomorrow. First, is there in writing any clear notification to the other members of the International Control Commission that the Canadian representative was acting in this manner and, second, have other Canadian representatives on the International Control Commission also carried such messages for any governments, including the government of the United States, to the North Vietnamese?


Mitchell William Sharp: My predecessor, the former Secretary of State for External Affairs, answered a question in the House in July, 1965, in which he gave an account of some of Mr. Seaborn's activities at that time. That is why I said yesterday that there has been no wish on our part to have any more mystery about this matter than is necessary. The answer to the second part of the hon. member's question is in the affirmative, yes. We have reason to believe that the Polish representative on the International Control Commission has acted in a similar capacity from time to time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question. Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs table copies of the messages conveyed by Mr. Seaborn in this matter regardless of whether Mr. Seaborn was acting on behalf of the government of Canada as the minister has said? In view of his assurance that he wishes to have everything on the table as much as possible, will the minister table these documents along with or prior to his statement in the House tomorrow?

June 16, 1971


Mitchell William Sharp: As I have said, one of the difficulties in complying with this request, which I think is reasonable-I am not disputing the right of the Leader of the Opposition to want all the facts-is that to a very large extent Mr. Seaborn was making oral representations, and all that we would have in this respect would be his report of what he had said rather than any written instructions.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have every confidence in the accuracy of such reports. Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs table Mr. Seaborn's messages as reported by him to the government of Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure I will be able to satisfy my hon. friend as to the contents of the representations that were made. I again say to my hon. friend that I am sure he realizes that in the messages that may have been sent by Mr. Seaborn, which I have not yet seen, there may be other matters which are still very secret.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Fundy-Royal: A supplementary question. Because some of the messages were verbal, will the minister speak to the chairman of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence and arrange for Mr. Seaborn to appear before that committee so that the record can indeed be perfectly clear and public?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am willing to consider this request, Mr. Speaker, but I think the House might wait to see the nature of my report before making a decision or even making a recommendation.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Portneuf wish to put a supplementary question?


Mr. Godin:: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs this question. In view of the fact Mr. Seaborn was acting at all times for the Canadian government and was carrying messages with reference to accelerating the bombing was it the policy of the Canadian government at that time that bombing should be accelerated or at least started?


Mitchell William Sharp: I think the hon. gentleman should wait for my report before he makes those assertions.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Will the minister's report tomorrow, since there were oral communications, disclose and set out whence the instructions came and if, in written or telex form, will those documents be tabled?


Mitchell William Sharp: I think the House will have to await my report to see whether it provides sufficient explanation. Perhaps I might make one point clear. Contrary to what has appeared in the papers-and we have protested this already-we received no note from the United States.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: In view of the reference made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to both oral and written messages, can he say whether the messages delivered by Mr. Seaborn to North Viet Nam were written messages of the United States, or whether he was putting them in his own words?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Seaborn was acting at all times on behalf of the Canadian government in an effort to promote a dialogue between the United States and Hanoi, something which I hope all members of the House will agree was a most commendable activity. I only wish it had succeeded.


An hon. Member:: Somebody blew the whistle on you.



THE BUDGET


Mr. Max Sallsman (Waierloo):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Can the minister inform the House whether the Dominion Bureau of Statistics has pre-released the unemployment statistics for the information of the Department of Finance in order to facilitate the preparation of the budget?


Edgar John Benson: Not to my
knowledge, Mr. Speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Can the Minister of Finance tell us, without disclosing any facts, whether two budgets are being prepared for reading in the House depending on the situation disclosed on Thursday with reference to the number of unemployed?


Edgar John Benson: There might be half a dozen budgets but I shall only present one.


Gerald William Baldwin: Table the rest.



WELFARE


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister.
As for the past few months, in spite of an increase in the cost of living, most of the disabled persons in the province of Quebec have suffered reductions of the pension granted them by the provincial Department of Health and Welfare, could the hon. minister tell us whether this action is taken by Quebec only, or whether the federal government, which contributes 50 per cent of such pensions, has agreed to these reductions?


Mitchell William Sharp: My
understanding is that these decisions are made by the provincial authorities.

June 16, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry POLLUTION



GREAT LAKES-AMOUNT AND NATURE OF FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO ONTARIO FOR CLEAN-UP

Mr. Mac T. McCuicheon (Lamblon-Kent):: May I ask
the Minister of the Environment when a decision will be made regarding the amount and nature of federal assistance to the province of Ontario in cleaning up the Great Lakes?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: The
amount is being negotiated between the government of Canada and the government of Ontario over the next few weeks.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Is the federal government considering the provision of grants or will the assistance extended to the province in connection with this $300 million project be in the form of loans?


John (Jack) Davis: The precise nature of this assistance is also under negotiation with the province.



ALLEGED OVERPUBLICIZING OF DANGER-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: have a related question for the Minister of the Environment, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that many authorities on this subject say that the danger of pollution is being overpublicized, that it is not as severe as was first thought, is there any intention on the part of the government to cut back in connection with projects of this kind? Does the minister support the idea that pollution is not nearly the serious problem it was once thought to be?


John (Jack) Davis: problem which can be measured in terms of billions of dollars in the opinion of many people who are very competent on the subject impresses me as being a serious one.


Donald MacInnis: I would then ask the minister why he made the statement that he did not believe what he read about dying lakes and sickening seas, because most of it was poppycock written by novices who were reaching for headlines? That is a direct quotation from a statement by the minister and I should like to have an explanation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Muir:: Come on! Wake up!


John (Jack) Davis: It sounds like an interesting quotation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Davis: I really do not think I am the source, but I will look it up and try to track it down.


Donald MacInnis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order refers to the ruling you have made in the House on other occasions that ministers are not allowed to ask backbenchers in the opposition for answers to questions they themselves cannot answer.


Mr. Speaker:: The ruling still stands even when the hon. member is a frontbencher.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Arnold Peiers (Timiskaming):: I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Would the hon. gentleman make a brief statement on the reported hospitalization in Montreal of four Was-wanipi Indians suffering from suspected mercury poisoning associated with the effluent of a Domtar chlor-alkali plant at Lebel-sur-Quevillon near Matagami in northern Quebec?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am unable to report to the House on that mishap. I will enquire and inform the member as soon as possible.


William Arnold Peters: Could the Minister of the Environment report to the House whether or not this Domtar plant was included in his department's survey of plants using mercury, and whether this plant has made any attempt to meet or has met the standards set by his department?


John (Jack) Davis: Domtar's plant was one of those covered by our survey. I believe it has met the standards we have laid down. However, I will check this out.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-SASKATCHEWAN GOVERNMENT PROTEST CONCERNING GRANT TO NEWSPAPER, &quot;PRAIRIE FIRE&quot;

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: My question is for the Secretary of State but in his absence perhaps it can be handled by the parliamentary secretary. Has the Department of the Secretary of State received a protest from the government of Saskatchewan about the Opportunities for Youth program providing a $7,000 grant to the underground newspaper Prairie Fire which, according to the premier of Saskatchewan, is operated by a militant minority of socialists, Maoists and left-wingers? If so, does the minister intend to make inquiries and a statement on this matter?


Mr. James Hugh Faulkner (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: I can say we have received a variety of protests. As to the second part of the question, I would like to consult with the Secretary of State with a view to providing an answer later.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Can the parliamentary secretary indicate whether the Opportunities for Youth program will provide grants to other newspapers, such as the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, the Globe and Mail and the Winnipeg Free Press, to hire young people?

June 16, 1971


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to remind hon. members that we shall be spending most of the day considering these very matters and I wonder whether we should take up too much of the question period by inquiring about individual projects under this very interesting program. The hon. member for Peace River seems intent on asking a supplementary question and he will be recognized for that purpose.


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of clarification and possibly shortening the debate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-GRANT TO PROJECT WHERE MARIJUANA ALLEGED TO BE GROWN

Gerald William Baldwin: I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary a question in respect of a statement he made in answer to a question I asked him last Monday regarding a project in British Columbia when he said that no funds have yet reached that project and the project is now suspended. Would the parliamentary secretary be prepared to complement that statement by saying that a cheque for half the amount was in fact sent out but that payment was stopped when the circumstances were discovered?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, the question, as I understood it, was whether the project had received any money and my answer was no. I would have wished that that part of the dialogue between the hon. member for Peace River and myself had appeared on the CBC national news last night.


Mr. Speaker:: Again I suggest to hon. members that I am not at all sure whether the debate will be shortened by these questions. My impression is that it will continue until pretty close to six o'clock. In any event, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Brandon-Souris.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary arises from the question asked by the hon. member for Peace River. Have all payments on legitimate projects under the Opportunities for Youth program been stopped till such time as the situation can be clarified, or have payments already been made?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to get the details but my understanding is that some initial cheques have gone out. The vast majority are now at the final stage of contractual signing and cheques will go out.



DRIVE TO INCREASE EXPORTS AND PROVIDE EMPLOYMENT

George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the increase in exports during 24171-9
Inquiries of the Ministry
the first five months of this year is only 2.4 per cent over the same period a year ago, which is less than one quarter of the minimum rate of increase of at least 10 per cent that is necessary to enable Canadian industry to provide jobs for our expanding work force, is the government giving consideration to commencing a massive trade drive to bring our exports at least up to a level where we can start to decrease unemployment instead of continually increase it?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as former ministers of trade and commerce I know my hon. friend will agree that we only wish that we had been able to attain the tremendous records of recent years in regard to exports and trade surpluses.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister did not, of course, answer my question at all. What I asked him was: In view of the facts I have given, is the government or is it not considering a massive trade drive now?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River.


George Harris Hees: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings on a point of order.


George Harris Hees: Is it your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that it is satisfactory for a minister to give us a completely erroneous answer or no answer at all? Have we not the right to ask the minister for an answer? I ask the minister to give me an answer now.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think the records that have been recently established show how successful the government has been in promoting exports and that no such trade-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member will realize that my ruling was that there is now debate which is being sponsored by both the minister and the hon. member. That is why I thought I should recognize the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River.


George Harris Hees: What I do recognize, Mr. Speaker, is that the present minister is driving a once good government department into the ground by his inactivity.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Robert Borrie (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I realize there is some confusion between Prince George-Peace River and Prince Edward-Hastings. I have

June 16, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Would the minister advise the House if and when proceedings will be taken by his department to examine the advisability of deporting the two American youths who were charged and found guilty last week in Prince George of growing marijuana?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to take a look at the individual cases. In the ordinary course where convictions occur in the case of landed immigrants or persons visiting this country the individual case is examined from the point of view of whether proceedings should be taken.



BROADCASTING


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Acting Prime Minister. Is the government going to take a position on the application to the Canadian Radio-Television Commission by two contraceptive manufacturers to advertise their products on radio and television?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to take that question as notice.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Was the Minister of the Environment stating government policy yesterday when he indicated that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion will be making incentive grants to non-polluting industries?


Mitchell William Sharp: Well, I hope that is government policy, yes, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If this is government policy may I ask whether the Department of Regional Economic Expansion was carrying it out when it made a $48,000 grant, as announced yesterday in a press release, to a cigarette manufacturer in Montreal?


Mitchell William Sharp: This is a different kind of pollution, Mr. Speaker.



HIGHWAYS


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that crossings on abandoned Canadian National Railways lines are a hazard to road and highway construction and improvement, will the government take the necessary measures to have the rails removed on the road right of way where such a request is justified?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would think that the hon. member's question is the type of question that ought to be placed on the order paper, or it is perhaps a representation to the minister and the hon. member has to assume that it will be taken into account. If it is a matter of urgency it could well be considered at the time of adjournment, but I suggest to the hon. member that his question is in the form of a submission which he has to assume, from the reaction of the minister, will be taken into consideration.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could answer a question put to me yesterday by the hon. member for Simcoe North.


Mr. Speaker:: If there is no supplementary to the question just raised by the hon. member, the Chair will recognize the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Mitchell William Sharp: The hon. member for Simcoe North asked me yesterday about nurses who might be needed in Pakistan and the movement of medical supplies for the refugees in India. The answer is that the co-ordination of medical supplies and personnel has been entrusted to the World Health Organization under the over-all supervision of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. No request for medical personnel has been received. In response to our inquiries we have been informed that the number of medical personnel is sufficient to meet immediate needs.
With regard to medical supplies, a priority requirement has been for antibiotics, including penicillin. Part of the Canadian government contribution has been channeled through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and through the Canadian Red Cross to meet this need.


EAST PAKISTAN-REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING CHARGES OF GENOCIDE
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the government made any official contact with the High Commissioner for Pakistan respecting the very serious charges of genocide made by a Pakistani journalist who very recently fled that country?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not made representations directly to the High Commissioner here nor to the government of Pakistan. The High Commissioner and the government of Pakistan have, of course, denied these charges.
[Mr. Borrie.l
June 16, 1971


EAST PAKISTAN-GOVERNMENT INITIATIVE TO ACHIEVE POLITICAL SOLUTION
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the government as an individual country taken any initiative at the United Nations, either with the Secretary General or through the Security Council, pressing for a political solution to this agonizing situation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, all of us are pressing for a political solution. It is the only possible way of dealing with the present situation. Unless there is a political settlement in Pakistan the refugees are going to remain in India and continue to be a thorn in the side of peace, if I may put it in that way. Therefore we are all working with everything at our command and using every possible means of impressing on the Pakistan government the need for a settlement, one that is democratic and made under civilian control.


GOVERNMENT POSITION RESPECTING NEGATIVE INCOME TAX FORMULA
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compion):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
Could he tell the House whether he approves the negative tax formula suggested by many authorities as a method to assure a better distribution of the purchasing power? Does the minister believe that it would be a desirable means to stimulate the economy?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking the minister to give an opinion and I do not think that the question can be phrased in such a way. It could perhaps be put on the order paper.


Henry P. Latulippe: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
PAKISTAN-GOVERNMENT POSITION RESPECTING	[English]


DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE
Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister has promised to make a full statement on this matter soon. I would like to ask him whether he would include in his statement the position of the government regarding present and future development assistance to Pakistan and its distribution as between East and West Pakistan.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are studying this question now. There is a meeting of the aid consortium on Pakistan at the beginning of next week. I hope that by about next Wednesday I will be able to make a statement on matters including the one reused by the hon. member.
Perhaps I might also add that today the Minister of National Defence has offered two Hercules planes for the immediate transport of supplies including some of the ambulances which have been donated by the Ontario government. These Hercules planes will be leaving tomorrow morning directly for Pakistan.


EAST PAKISTAN-TYPE OF POLITICAL SOLUTION SOUGHT
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, would it be fair to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs precisely what type of political solution is being sought to this problem?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if you will permit a short answer, the preferred settlement, of course, would be one in which those individuals who have been elected pursuant to the recent election in Pakistan should be given the responsibility of governing Pakistan, particularly East Pakistan.


ISSUANCE BY TRAVEL AGENCIES OF BROCHURES ADVERTISING SERVICE WITHOUT APPROVAL-FARE REDUCTION FOR PERSONS UNDER 25
Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that Air Canada has publicly stated it accepts no responsibility for a travel brochure now circulating in Europe which invites Europeans to visit the best of Canada, namely from Quebec in the east to Vancouver in the west, would the minister say if it is the policy of our national airline, Air Canada, to permit travel wholesalers to produce advertising brochures involving its service and bearing the company's official insignia without the contents of such brochures having first been approved by Air Canada?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would have to make an inquiry concerning what the legal position is in terms of private advertisers selling air services but I will be glad to get an answer to that. In so far as what is the best part of Canada is concerned, I am sure my hon. friend and I would agree that the farther east one goes the better it becomes.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport whether the government has instructed or requested Air Canada to reduce transatlantic air fares for people in the under age 25 group?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Speaker, no such instructions have been issued. There is what I suppose one might describe as a price war in effect in respect of transatlantic flights and I understand from Air Canada that they are examining the matter. As yet they have not made any formal approach to the government with regard to steps which might be required by the government to change the existing fare structure.
6776

June 16, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry IMMIGRATION


TORONTO-WAITING PERIOD BEFORE UNITED STATES CITIZENS CAN OBTAIN WORK PERMITS
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the impending strike at the Toronto Star and the possibility of the importation of strikebreakers, what is the waiting period for United States workers and students before they can obtain work permits for employment in the city of Toronto?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me this question has a familiar ring. I have the impression the hon. member asked a similar question yesterday and there were procedural difficulties, but it might be simpler to allow the minister to answer rather than have the question asked every day.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the ordinary practice is for a person coming into this country as a visitor or in some other such capacity to be required to obtain written permission before taking employment. In respect of very special jobs this is not difficult. In other cases there is a referral to the Canada Manpower Centre to see whether there is a shortage of that kind of worker in Canada. But in the case of a strike as far as manpower is concerned no referral would ordinarily be made.


FINANCE
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Finance.
Last week, I pointed out to the right hon. Prime Minister that Quebec had lost $300 million in federal grants under the fiscal arrangements legislation at the postgraduate level. I should like to ask the hon. minister whether he is ready to answer this question since the Prime Minister was going to bring it to his attention.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I must assume that the program referred to by the Quebec Minister of Education, under which, according to press reports, he claims Quebec has lost $300 million, is the federal post-secondary education fiscal transfer program authorized under Part II of the Fiscal Arrangements Act. Generally speaking, under these arrangements the federal government transfers to the provinces fiscal resources equal to 50 per cent of post-secondary education operation costs. Three provinces, Newfoundland, Prince Eaward Island and New Brunswick are on a 1967 per capita basis of $15 which has been escalated since that time at the national annual rate of growth of postsecondary operating costs.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the minister but it seems to me this kind of question, as appears from the answer, should normally be placed on the order paper.


OVERSEAS STUDENT EXCHANGE PROGRAM-APPLICATIONS RECEIVED AND APPROVED
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration a question about the student exchange program between Canada and certain European countries. Can the minister now say how many Canadian students have been placed abroad, as opposed to the figure of 1,500 he indicated to me a week or two ago, out of a prospective total of some 3,000? Also, can he tell me how many students from European countries have been placed in employment in Canada under this program?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the figure I gave the Leader of the Opposition the other day was in relation to the known job offers made to students by host countries. This figure as of June 11 stood at 1,865. I would want to look at the up to date figure in respect of the incoming movement of students and furnish it to the hon. gentleman.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. member for Fraser Valley West has a supplementary question to the previous question once removed.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question deals with immigration. However, it does not relate to the matter of strikebreakers raised by the hon. member for Broadview. In view of the report that yet another group of Canadian peformers and entertainers has been denied access to the United States because of United States immigration laws, can the minister tell the House whether he has recently approached the United States authorities to try to obtain for Canadian entertainers who desire to entertain in the United States treatment equal to that accorded United States entertainers who wish to come into Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: Not very recently, Mr. Speaker. This subject was a matter of discussion between the two governments without very much progress being made in terms of access into the United States for our performers. We are in the process of reviewing our policy in respect of access into that country for people from other countries.


Mark Willson Rose: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. This is a very serious problem. Every time we ask this question we get the same answer. In view of the apparent reluctance or perhaps even down right refusal by the United States to authorize at least a reciprocal arrangement in this vital cultural area, is the minister prepared to take
June 16, 1971

Inquiries of the Ministry
a strong stand on this matter and make real representa- two new ferries on the Tormentine service before the tions and not the kind we hear from-	tourist season reaches its peak?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is now making a speech. The hon. member for Gander-Twillin-gate. Order. The hon. member for Fraser Valley West is rising on a point of order.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, my question was probably a little discursive. I admit that. The essence of the question is, is the minister prepared to make strong representations on this matter and when will he do it?


Otto Emil Lang: We have made strong representations. Alternatives are now being looked at.
* [DOT] *


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):: I have a question for my friend, the Minister of Labour. Has the minister's department been involved in an effort to resolve the labour dispute between Alcan and the St. Lawrence Workers Protective Union, which has gone on since April 19, 1971, or is the department planning to become involved?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: We do not
plan to get involved and we are not involved in it because the dispute falls under provincial jurisdiction.


John Howard Lundrigan: Perhaps the minister, in co-operation with the Minister of National Health and Welfare, can answer this question. Has the minister's department been requested to contribute to the fund for disabled miners or the families of deceased miners at St. Lawrence which was recommended by the Royal Commission on Radiation which was set up over two years ago?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I will have investigations made in my department to see whether such a request has been received. At the same time, I will take the liberty of checking with the Department of National Health and Welfare and will report back to the hon. member on an appropriate occasion in the House.


TRANSPORT
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Is his department taking urgent measures to carry out needed modifications of the


Donald Campbell Jamieson: assume that the question has reference to the recent [DOT]checks which were made with regard to safety adjustments and so on, and the answer is yes.


John Angus MacLean: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I have another matter in mind about which there have been a great many complaints. I refer to the lack of escalators or elevators in the ships which means that tourists of all ages have to climb 41 steps to get to the washrooms.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There does not seem to be any urgency to this question. It might be placed on the order paper.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


INDUSTRY
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Could he tell the House whether he had any discussions with Chemcell officials about the fate of hundreds of workers who are in danger of being laid off at the Montmagny plant?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the department has had conversations with the employers and employees involved in the hope of arriving at the usual kind of manpower assessment agreement under our consultative services which may lead to the maximum of transfers and alternative employment being found for the employees involved.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Would the minister tell this House whether the negotiations over the problem I have just raised suggest that satisfactory results will obtain for the workers?


Otto Emil Lang: The object of each of these exercises is to put forward the maximum of effort with the co-operation of the provincial government as well as our own and the employers and employees. Every effort is made to find suitable solutions for the individuals involved.
June 16, 1971

Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE


NEGOTIATION OF FLOOR PRICE AGREEMENT WITH UNITED
Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: My question is for the
Acting Prime Minister. In view of the decision of the United States to export wheat and a great number of other commodities to the U.S.S.R. and Red China, is it the intention of the government to seek a firm floor price agreement with the United States with respect to wheat and other relevant commodities?


Otto Emil Lang: It has been our objective throughout the discussions regarding international wheat movement to obtain firm pricing arrangements in the agreements in order to provide for orderly marketing in the world and we will continue to do this. At the same time we will continue to cultivate the good will of our major customers such as the U.S.S.R. and China in every way.


Mr. Speaker:: We have just about reached the end of the question period, but the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Kootenay West for one question before calling orders of the day.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: My question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the fact that the proposed James Bay project will affect several Indian reserves in that area, has the Quebec government been in touch with the minister regarding the dislocation of native groups which will take place, and what was the outcome of these discussions?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I did myself get in touch with the government of Quebec in this regard, but I failed to be advised as to the projects before they were launched; the problem was referred to the tripartite committee made up of representatives from the Quebec Indians, from the federal government and from the provincial government.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question period has expired. It is only with difficulty that I could allow the hon. member to ask a supplementary when I did not allow the hon. member for Spadina an opportunity to do so. Perhaps both hon. members could be given that opportunity tomorrow on a priority basis.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Joliette on a question of privilege.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, since you interrupted the hon. Minister of Finance as he was answering a question which I suggest is very important, may I ask Your Honour whether his prepared answer could be recorded in Hansard for the information of all members?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I was under the impression that the hon. minister had completed the answer that he intended to give to the House. If I am wrong in this assumption, the further details that were not given to the House could perhaps be made available to the member concerned by the hon. minister.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: That this House, emphasizing that the need for a dynamic, imaginative, well organized plan for the needs of young Canadians in this period of high unemployment was long foreseen, deplores the misuse and mismanagement of the Opportunities for Youth program which has crushed the hopes and failed the needs of Canadian youth.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in speaking on this motion proposed to the House this afternoon, I hope we shall have an opportunity to obtain more information from the government benches with regard to this important program which has rapidly become a most controversial one. It is indeed unfortunate that the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), the man primarily responsible for this program, is not in the House this afternoon to give a clear explanation of the nature of many of the difficulties connected with this program.
I suppose it is really typical of the situation in which we have found ourselves for many months. When people were prepared to ask questions of the minister, he either was not here or the answers he was prepared to give had nothing much to do with the questions that were put. Presumably, the excuse for the minister's absence this afternoon is the fact that he is participating in some way in the constitutional conference in Victoria. One would think, having watched the negotations prior to this conference, that all that was really required was for the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the premier of Quebec to take another midnight walk in Outremont. However, if there is some reason for the Secretary of State to be in Victoria today, we wish him well and we hope that his presence there will contribute substantially to the out-

June 16, 1971

come of that conference. It is quite possible that he will be much more useful there than he would be here, if past experience is any guide in this matter.
The principal problem, both for the general public and the members of this House, is to get any clear cut information on the mysterious events in the Opportunities for Youth program. As hon. members may recall, a few days ago I mentioned the fact that it was absolutely impossible to get any answer from the minister to various letters and telegrams. On April 16, I wrote the minister a letter with regard to the program. On May 25, I sent him a telegram asking why I received no answer to the letter. On June 2, I wrote him again. On June 3, I wrote him once more, and finally on June 9, I sent another telegram. All these went unanswered until this morning. Perhaps it is a little more than coincidental that this morning, after exactly two months, a letter arrived on my desk from the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) in reply to the various letters and telegrams I sent him, and in reply to questions that I had put to him here in this House on successive occasions.
His letter did not come from Victoria; it came from Ottawa. But one might have thought it came from Victoria because it was dated June 9, and today is June 16. This week my province joined in the assured mail delivery program inaugurated across the country by the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote), which assures next day delivery from one major centre to another major centre. It is great to get assured mail delivery across the country, but I wonder if Your Honour or the Postmaster General would check on the assurance of delivery between the Centre Block and the West Block of Parliament, and find out why a letter on this important matter should take a full week to arrive. Even the most archaic form of transportation existing between those two buildings should have been able to facilitate faster transportation than one week for that communication. But perhaps that is typical.
Not too many days ago the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), dealing with statistics that are being gathered by the DBS, said they were not using the mail service in rural areas because they simply could not count on it. Maybe that is the reason much of the elaborate public relations material being foisted on the public with respect to the Opportunities for Youth program is being handled by that well known firm of MacLarens rather than by Information Canada. Perhaps the minister responsible can tell us later in this debate why it is that Information Canada is considered an ineffective instrument to convey information about the operations of Opportunities for Youth to the general public. These are just a few of the questions that many people in this House, and in the Press Gallery, have with respect to the program.
Perhaps the most obvious question that can be put at this time is why are we bothering to have a debate when obviously the money allotted for the program has been allocated, when the program is already implemented, when it seems that little can be done at this point to deal with many of the inadequacies, inconsistencies and mismanagement of the program. Mr. Speaker, I think we
Opportunities for Youth Program would not be doing our job as representatives of the Canadian people if we failed to register the strongest possible protest in this chamber about the misleading and disorganized operation that has directly and indirectly affected hundreds of thousands of Canadian young people. It will not be good enough for the Secretary of State, his parliamentary secretary, or other ministers to say, "Blame it on the press, they love to find scandals", or, "blame it on the opposition, they always love to criticize anyway." It will not be good enough for these kinds of second rate responses to come from government benches with respect to a program that has been, and I believe still is heralded as the flag ship of the government's program to alleviate the massive problem of student unemployment in 1971.
I suppose the word has gone out to find some scapegoats. If the scapegoats are in the Press Gallery because they do their job too well, or in the opposition because they dare to raise responsible criticisms about many inadequacies and shortcomings, that may get the government safely off the hook. I would say that all of us in this House are excited about the possibilities of many worthwhile projects that have been accepted. The imagination that has been fired in the minds of young people, and their enthusiasm about doing creative things in their own communities, should excite and enthuse every Canadian.
We are told that roughly 2,400 such projects have been accepted. It is not possible, and we certainly cannot do it in today's debate, to look at each of these in turn, and to judge its adequacy. But we do know already that some of these projects are of a dubious character, and we want to be told much more clearly than we have been in the past what criteria have been used for the acceptance and rejection of projects. If 2,400 projects have been accepted, then nearly 11,000 others have been rejected, and from personal knowledge I know that many are projects that would excite and fire the imagination of any person, no matter how dull his vision might be. I am concerned about what we have done in playing fast and loose with the enthusiasm and ambitions of youth. I am sure members of the House would not want to see this kind of program, rather than enthuse and inspire young people, effectively disillusion them and make them greatly cynical, really before they have had a chance to get out and to work full-time in their own occupations.
Since it took office, the government has talked a great deal about such things as participation and consultation. I recall that in the last election campaign the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) ran under the banner of "Come work with me." What we have seen in the past six months would not encourage any person concerned with young people, or young people themselves, to believe the government was living up to that kind of slogan.
Hon. members will recall that a few months ago the Canadian Council on Social Development called a special conference on summer opportunities for youth and transient youth. It was a conference at which provincial representatives, representatives of various youth organizations, and of the federal government would gather together. The conference was planned for early this year.

June 16, 1971
Opportunities for Youth Program Shortly before the conference was to be held, the federal government indicated it was not yet ready to discuss its plans with regard to young people for this summer. So, the Canadian Council on Social Development willingly deferred the conference until early March.
Within a few days of that postponed date in early March, the government indicated to the Council that it would not participate and, secondly, that it would not lend financial support, effectively torpedoing that national conference on Canadian youth. That is the extent to which the government is prepared to move out beyond its own borders and discuss realistically the many problems related to youth, summer employment, summer travel and so on. It must have demanded a considerable amount of courage, even on the part of this government to scuttle effectively that kind of conference not once but twice.
I suspect the reason the government was not prepared to participate in the conference in early March was that it had nothing useful to say, and it wanted as few people as possible to know that fact. But the government has said it was consulting with the provinces, that in all of these matters it was going to have the fullest kind of consultation with each and every province. It must seem strange that many of the provinces, whom we were told were consulted, are now so publicly asking the same kinds of questions and making the same kind of criticisms as members have been asking and making in this House for many weeks. The government spoke of broad consultation in the preparation of youth programs with provincial governments. We see the results of that kind of consultation. There is no youth hostel in Montreal at the moment and there are complaints from various provinces about projects that have not been funded. There is the whole question of whether the federal government should be supporting the legal and now illegal hitchhiking that has been encouraged. It is very clear, Mr. Speaker, that what consultation means to this government is some kind of form letter or notification. What they need is a first hand understanding of the very meaning of consultation itself.
It has grown increasingly obvious, as this program has unfolded, that this government has real problems in understanding young people. I do not know where most of their information comes from. I do not know with whom they have entered into consultation, but their information does not seem to have much bearing on the young people of this country. Further, their obvious inability to understand the regional character of this country, its indigenous concerns and aspirations, makes me wonder whether they can see 50 yards beyond their bureaucratic desks. Much of what this government has attempted to do and say about young people shows an arrogance that is not at all appealing or encouraging to those who believe that there is a productive and creative role for young people to play with authorities, federal, provincial or municipal. In the months ahead, Mr. Speaker, I think this government will have to find a good deal

many answers with regard to its so-called understanding and consultation with and about youth.
What kind of consultation has existed with regard to projects that have been rejected, for instance? As early as last May 11, before a final decision had been reached on acceptance of any program, I asked the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) the following question, which appears at page 5681 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the minister has now acknowledged that the vast majority of projects will not be accepted under the Opportunities for Youth program-
That is when he indicated there were well over 10,000 projects.
-will he indicate whether steps are being taken to consult with other bodies including municipal and provincial governments and independent agencies such as universities and industries to determine whether some of the more imaginative and important programs can even yet be implemented with their assistance?
That was five weeks ago, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State replied:
Mr. Speaker, I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Egmont talk about that in his reply to my statement on motions-
I had mentioned this earlier when I spoke on motions that day.
-and I am now to hear him raise the matter again in a question, because it has been established for weeks-I had the opportunity to mention it many times-that the secretariat of Opportunities for Youth would not consider a refusal as final-
That is as clear as it can be. He said to us that day that Opportunities for Youth would not consider a refusal as final but would rather try, as it is already doing with regard to projects that it cannot finance entirely, to find other sources of financing and other ways of implementing such projects through private industry or the various levels of government. What kind of sham and hollow answer is that, Mr. Speaker, when all across the country individuals who have submitted programs are receiving a form letter headed "Regarding", which gives the name and the number of the project and then states that 2,400 projects have been accepted. The last paragraph, which is a real humdinger, reads as follows:
We have learned much of the ambition, needs and concerns of Canadian youth through this first Opportunities for Youth program and our analysis of your proposal has contributed to this evaluation.
I realize that it will be of small consolation to you to be assured that your efforts have not gone without benefit. But I wish nevertheless to thank you for your interest and your contribution in responding to Opportunities for Youth.
That is the kind of activity in which the government will be engaged with regard to assisting worthy projects to be financed, either by private enterprise, industry, universities or other levels of government. One does not like to make judgments about the honesty of individuals in this chamber, Mr. Speaker, so I shall refrain and let the facts speak for themselves. A government that believes in meaningful consultation? Nonsense! A government that is willing to take the vast majority of projects which it can not fund and actively try to negotiate
June 16, 1971

with other agencies, other industries, other governments? Nonsense!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I desperately hope that when I resume my seat, Mr. Speaker, the minister or the parliamentary secretary will reply to some of these charges and indicate that there are now hundreds of projects being actively negotiated. Perhaps I have only been in touch with a small number and have not heard of all of them. Perhaps that will happen, and if it does I will be the first to rise in my place and apologize for misconstruing what the government and its agency is doing with respect to the program.
A few days ago in response to criticism, the Secretary of State said that quite obviously one of the difficulties they faced was that they were dealing with a crash program.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What a crash!


An hon. Member:: Yes, a crash to the ground.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Never has a minister been so damned out of his own mouth, Mr. Speaker, as when he used the term "crash program". It may well be that the Secretary of State will live to regret its use. Certainly, the minister was not overstating the fact when he described the Opportunities for Youth program as a crash program.
I mentioned earlier that it was only at the very last minute that people were eventually brought together to work on this program. I want to make it very clear, Mr. Speaker, that in voicing this criticism I am not necessarily criticizing individual members of the staff although I think there are some inadequacies there. In general, though, the people who started to work at a late date on this program have worked long hours and have tried their best to pull together the shambles handed to them by the Secretary of State. We are faced with a situation, Mr. Speaker, in which no amount of good will and no amount of human energy could have saved this government from its original mismanagement.
The Secretary of state is not here today but perhaps one of his spokesmen can reply when I ask, if indeed this program was a last minute, crash program, why was it so?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Because he was writing a book.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Perhaps he was writing another book. I have no knowledge of that but it seems to be a popular pastime.


Gerald William Baldwin: He was probably correcting the first one.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: If he was writing a book it seems to me that his first responsibility was to exercise the duties of his ministry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Opportunities for Youth Program


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I have nothing against his ability to write, indeed, he writes extremely well, but let's not have him do it on government time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear hear!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Why, Mr. Speaker, were we faced with such a last minute slapdash approach to such an important section of our society? Did the minister not have enough staff?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: People should read some of the stories in our newspapers.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I have been struck by the fact that ministries, including the Prime Minister's office, are under no limitation with respect to hiring additional staff whenever necessary. Surely, no one was holding the minister's hands and saying, "We are sorry Gerard but we cannot give you the kind of staff you need for that kind of program" Nobody would take such a suggestion seriously. Did the government not know what was happening? Did they not know that there would be problems concerning student unemployment this summer? If they did not know, they were among the most select group in this country, because for months we had been told about student unemployment pending this summer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: If the situation was a mystery, it must have been a mystery even for those who work for the government. I do not think that it can be said that the minister did not have enough staff. I do not really believe it was a case of the government not knowing. In the final analysis, it is clear they did not care.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Surely, the charge that they did not care is most shocking. They did not care about one of our most important resources-I was about to use another word but I think I will stick to resources. Our young people are really much more than a resource. They are the generation on which the future of this country must be built, and the government did not care about them. It was not good enough for the Secretary of State to say, even inadvertently, "You know, we were dealing with a kind of crash program." That answer is not good enough for this House and it is not good enough for the young people of this country.
Because this has been a crash program, the kind of incompetence connected with it almost defies the imagination. Chaos would be too mild a description for the obvious manifestations of the Opportunities for Youth program. Requests have not been answered. Telephones have not been answered. Letters have not been answered and people have not been able to get in touch with offices. These things are obvious indications of utter and total mismanagement.
I said a moment ago that it would not be entirely fair to criticize those who came from outside the government

June 16, 1971
Opportunities for Youth Program service to administer the plan. It would not be fair to blame them for the shortcomings of the program. They tried to put together what they could in a short space of time. I think the press has been overly preoccupied with mismanagement in the department or agency responsible for the Opportunities for Youth program and has failed to recognize that the basic mismanagement stems from the minister's own office.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Paproski:: Resign.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: The real problem does not stem from the fact that a group of young people are trying to save the minister's bacon. The real problem stems from the fact that the minister seems incompetent to save his own bacon. This debate is important. If, in future, there are to be introduced effective youth programs, the minister's office must be effectively reorganized, especially if we are ever to expect any kind of reasonable or rational approach to the young people of this country, either with regard to summer employment or any other aspect.


Gerald William Baldwin: The minister presides over the ministry of chaos.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: When assessing blame for mismanagement and incompetence, we must not stop at the organizers of the Opportunities for Youth program; we must stop at the minister's desk. One of the problems encountered has been that of lack of criteria. I have said much of this before and do not want to repeat myself. It is obvious that the individual whims of project co-ordinators determine whether projects will be accepted. Only when projects are compatible with the personal predilections of project co-ordinators are they accepted. Certainly, nothing has done more to bring disillusionment and frustration to many young people with regard to many worth-while projects which have been submitted by them.
I do not want to talk too long because I know other hon. members wish to participate in the debate. I wish to make a few suggestions which I think ought to be considered if we are ever to introduce adequate programs for Canadian youth in future. Obviously, we must have a clearer picture, both of the problems and possibilities with regard to summer employment.


John James Greene: Clearer than those words.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I think the Minister of
Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) said that we must be clearer. I agree.


John James Greene: This is a speech in a fog.


Gerald William Baldwin: The minister is not out of the fog.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: The ministry, including the Secretary of State and others, must be clear about these matters. I submit that we need a special parliamentary committee to scrutinize many questions regarding youth in this country. Obviously, we need a thorough and
objective evaluation of the summer Opportunities for Youth program and other programs which this government has initiated. I have not said anything about other badly organized programs that could do with effective parliamentary scrutiny. I think Parliament ought to establish a special committee on youth to look at the whole question of federal programs for youth, summer employment, the criteria and format to be followed with regard to these programs, and so on.
We should also examine the question of the increasing amount of travel engaged in by youth. In my province, we have gone through a most distressing period of hostility having to do with youth hostels. An examination of that question would contribute more to our understanding of youth and could effectively facilitate the movement of young people in this country. I think youth travel is most important, because through travelling young people can gain a better understanding of the different regions of this nation.
There are increasing problems having to do with education and education costs which are related to summer employment and which must be looked at in a broad perspective. We must look at the long term opportunities for youth. We must learn to listen and to consult with responsible groups, agencies and organizations. There must be an opportunity to publicly evaluate these matters, to reflect on them and to propose answers with respect to them. At least, we must make some tentative commitments in areas where young people and adults can reach an understanding. We must do that if we are not again to be the victims of haphazard planning and too little, coming too late. I think it is extremely important for this House to appoint a committee which can be seized of the consideration of such matters as I have alluded to, then in succeeding years the possibilities of imaginative Opportunities for Youth programs can be effectively realized.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, in my contribution to the debate this afternoon, I have no intention of damning the whole Opportunities for Youth program. Undoubtedly, there have been many fine, original well conceived and useful projects brought forward by students, and many of these will be approved. Some of them have been approved. Undoubtedly, another great number will be ill conceived and wasteful as a result of the haste in which this program was launched. It seems to me, regardless of the validity of any of the projects, that the Opportunities for Youth program is really a hasty stop-gap, a cork hastily shoved in in a vain attempt to plug a torrent of enforced idleness on the part of our young people.
The Opportunities for Youth program, regardless of its good and bad aspects, cannot be separated from the tragedy of the general unemployment in Canada today. I suppose "tragedy" is too weak a word, because "tragedy" often implies some mishap or accident causing concern or sorrow. Yet the millions of idle, restless and resentful people are no accident. It is the direct legacy of a monstrous act of premeditated social vengeance, as a result of which we pension off the kids at 21 and sentence old men

June 16, 1971

to the treadmill until they are tired and beaten at 65. I think we need to re-examine this type of social order.


John James Greene: Now, the hon. member is talking about tired old men.


Mark Willson Rose: We are driving families apart because the kids are left idle while often both parents are slaving for bread. Second, we are driving our communities apart because the working poor are becoming increasingly hostile to having their tax burdens increased to support welfare rolls that have tripled over the past three years, certainly in my constituency. We are driving our country apart because of the increasing regional and racial disparity that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has failed to solve.
This is not a new trick. It is an old Liberal trick of playing off the angers and fears of one group in our society against another. It is the divide and conquer strategy. I must admit that it has worked extremely well for half a century.


Mr. Boulanger:: That is the socialist way of life.


Mark Willson Rose: If the hon. member would like to ask a question, I would be quite willing to answer it. If the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) wishes to ask a question, I invite him to take the floor. If not, may I tell him that the next time I am looking for a boy soprano for my choir, I will call on him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mark Willson Rose: Let us get down to a few specifics. In the work force age group from 14 to 24, on May 15 there were 281,000 unemployed young people out of a total of 2,068,000, a ratio of 13.6 per cent, over double that of a-dults. There are no later figures available, but the new figures will be out tomorrow. Many of these kids have been unable to find jobs and will not find jobs this summer. They are strung out along the highways. I drove from Ottawa to the west coast last week and I saw hundreds of them. If young adults stay at home, they are a drag on their parents. Often the parents cannot afford to keep them. If they leave home, most will need some kind of social assistance.
There is another large group of people who have never registered for work and therefore do not appear in most unemployment statistics. These are the ones in schools. The community response to education is becoming increasingly resentful. People who cannot afford to keep their own bodies and souls together are looking very critically at increased educational costs. These are the kinds of attitudes building up as a result of our unemployment. It will take years for these resentments and hostilities to disappear. The government will undoubtedly counter that the $68 million package under Opportunities for Youth is a good thing and, therefore, they should be congratulated.
There are 1.8 million students available for work this summer. If you divide the $68 million youth package at a
Opportunities for Youth Program,
$1,000 per student we find that only 68,000 jobs can be provided, or 4 per cent of the student demand. This $68 million will look after approximately 4 per cent of the total student demand. Surely, the government which created the job scarcity in the first place should not expect too much in the way of congratulations for this. It is somewhat like congratulating a careless motorist for offering you a bandaid after he has run you down with his car and broken your leg.
The Opportunities for Youth Program or, as it is called by some people, hush money for kids, has received a great deal of publicity and fanfare. But I wonder how much new money there really is in the package. I raised this question because I am concerned that there may not be a substantial amount of new money in the particular package or, if there is, whether it has come from slashing some existing youth programs. In short, is it the updated version of the old shell game? I wish to quote from a March 15 press release of the Minister of National Defence:
Between 6,000 and 8,000 young people will be accepted for special militia training and another 3,000 to 4,000 will be hired for a range of civilian employment.
When I checked with the Department of National Defence the other day about a particular problem, I found out that this is not the case at all. The total number of cadets or young people who served last summer was 8,000. Of those, 2,000 have this year been subtracted, not added, for leadership training. Additionally, 1,000 have been subtracted from this program because of a new program involving sea cadets. Instead of 8,000 plus 4,000 we have 8,000 minus 3,000. The result has been disappointment for a lot of New Westminster regional cadets who planned to spend their summer at Wainwright. Instead of seven weeks, as had been anticipated and for which they planned all winter, they are bitterly disappointed to find that they will now be going for one week only on a revolving basis. In order to go, they worked diligently to improve their qualifications and training levels.
Another case makes me wonder how much new money is actually to be spent on this Opportunities for Youth Program. A couple of weeks ago, I received a letter from the University of British Columbia. It concerns a UBC student who worked last year with customs and excise and was promised her job back again this summer. This letter was written on her behalf and I quote from it:
The interesting thing about this case is that when she called up the government offices to find out what had gone wrong she was told by a friend there that their (customs and excise) normal summer money for hiring students had been cut this year and transferred to the Opportunities for Youth Program.
I do not know whether the allegation is true, but this is representative of the kind of public relations developing. It is taking money from one pocket and putting it into another. It would therefore be nice to have some answers to some of these questions which are causing concern. I hope the representative of the minister will provide us with some answers.

June 16, 1971
Opportunities for Youth Program
I mentioned that communities are being driven apart by the growing welfare rolls contributed to by the number of young people unemployed and the fact that even with the Opportunities for Youth program, there is really not enough to take care of the needs. There is a growing resentment on the part of the working poor against supporting welfare programs. We hear increasingly strident cries about bums on welfare. This situation is often aided and abetted by some demagogic politicians. Work for welfare schemes are increasingly tantalizing, and would be amusing if they were not so tragic. If we can supply a person with employment after he has been forced to go on public assistance, why can we not supply that person with a job before he is forced to take this step so degrading to human dignity?
The latest case is the Surrey strawberry harvest. Part of this area is in the constituency which I represent. The Surrey municipal council has voted to deny social assistance to 349 employable recipients as of June 1. These people will be told to either pick strawberries or starve. I remind hon. members that this is not California or Texas where cheap wetback labour is used to subsidize a fruit and vegetable business. This is right here in Canada. The point is not whether this proposal is legal, it is not, and under the Canada Assistance Plan the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro), if he showed some intestinal fortitude, could cut off the 50 per cent federal contribution because of this violation. The point is that in my opinion, this move by the Surrey Council, which is supported by the majority of Surrey residents, because it is grappling with its frustrations over mounting welfare costs, would never have been attempted under other circumstances. They would not get public support. The result of this deliberate policy of unemployment has been to divide the community and force the working poor to attack another deprived group.
I should like, now, to repeat some of the things I and other speakers have said about the Opportunities for Youth program and also to ask a number of questions which I believe to be germane. There has been considerable criticism directed toward the administration of the program. Attention has been called to the delay in disseminating application forms. The original announcement was made on March 16 but I found from my own investigation that by March 23 the appropriate forms had still lot reached the New Westminster manpower office, so groups in my area were unable to apply as early as they wished. This is an example of extremely sloppy administration or else of a very hastily conceived program. We have heard and read about the delay in granting approval. There was, of course, a flood of applications, a mountain of applications-the money allotted could have been spent ten times over, we have been told.
So there was delay in evaluating submitted project applications. I can fully sympathize with the office staff who have been so overloaded. A better system should be worked out in future years. Then again, groups have found great difficulty about obtaining appointments with
approving bodies to see or talk to anyone in the office. I
can say that Members of Parliament have experienced great difficulty in getting information from the local office. The whole thing adds up to a whopping mess. I do not lay the blame on the shoulders of those who are working in the various offices and struggling with the heavy workload. The delay in sending out cheques in respect of projects already approved has caused difficulty and delay also.
All responsibility for this frustration and chaos can be laid squarely at the door of the cabinet. Why was the announcement delayed until March 15? After all, the program depended upon the imagination and initiative and innovative qualities of the students themselves. Why was it not announced in December? One can only guess. Was provincial approval withheld? Was the government afraid it would have another CYC on its hands? Anyway, this announcement delay was the principal cause in my view of all the difficulties which followed and responsibility for it has to be laid squarely before the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) and the cabinet.
Regardless of the competence or incompetence of the office dealing with the program, the difficulties of the staff have been multiplied by the pressure under which they have been obliged to work, the mountains of applications flowing in because of the late announcement coupled with an inhumanely early closing deadline. The prime responsibility for poor administration, poor public relations work and indifferent communications rests with the government. There is no escaping blame for this. We are seeing here another example of the government's mismanagement, of an ad hoc approach and of general bungling. The beneficiaries have been the young people of Canada-the beneficiaries of the bungling, that is.
Second, I should like to know whose fatheaded decision it was that, in order to be approved, all projects had to be entirely student-conceived, that they had to be of short duration, forming no part of an existing or ongoing program operated by a municipal government, or an agency or organization with competence and experience in working with youth, such as the YMCA. I am only guessing about the criteria used when assessing these applications. I have never seen them published. Everything seems to operate in the dark. No reason for rejecting an application is given. Applicants receive a polite "No" and often not even that. But the restrictions I have mentioned appear to constitute a basic defect in the program. Why could not at least some of the funds available, possibly half, have been used to extend the work of agencies which normally employ youth. This would have been an eminently sensible move and one likely to lead to a much more efficient use of the funds available. Surely, the government has had sufficient experience with the CYC to have learned the value of some structure, of some assurance that there would be responsibility and accountability.
I shall not discuss individual projects at this time, though I have seen some interesting examples, including that of the application by three students for a grant of $3,000 in order to study techniques in group meditation. I

June 16, 1971

realize this may sound funny. I suppose it could be a useful undertaking, but it is one which does not go down well with the average Joe on the green chain or digging in a ditch. Joe does not have much time to meditate, and I suppose he is not much interested in finding out what is the most effective technique. To date, anyway, the Opportunities for Youth program has received some most unfavourable publicity. However, I intend to follow the advice of the article which appeared in the Globe and Mail on June 14 and "conserve my energies until the summer is over", until all the facts are known, and the program can be accurately and fairly assessed. The Globe suggests, in its article, that though heavy artillery will be absolutely necessary by the end of the summer, only popguns should be used now. In concluding my popgun speech, may I express the hope that the experiences of this summer will teach us to develop better methods and programs for the future.


Mr. Real Caouetie (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, it is not customary that I congratulate Progressive Conservative members for their attitude or the motions which they usually submit to the House. Today, however, part of their motion reads as follows:
... deplores the misuse and mismanagement of the Opportunities for Youth program which has crushed the hopes and failed the needs of Canadian youth.
This motion is perfectly in order, perfectly appropriate and should be moved, I think, at this stage when practically all projects submitted to the Department of the Secretary of State have been either accepted or rejected. I must add that since I became aware of all that has happened since the Department of the Secretary of State announced the implementation of the Opportunities for Youth program, I do not hesitate for a moment to say that I seldom saw a department administered by a minister as incompetent as the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier).
When we ask questions, we are being answered in an arrogant manner. We can hardly get an answer. If you place a call at his office, you will be told that the person responsible cannot be reached. This morning, for instance, at 9:45, I called at the Department of Secretary of State and asked to speak to Mr. Hugh Doyle. I wanted to know the names of people participating in various projects accepted in northwestern Quebec. I wanted to get the names of these young people and I expressed the wish to get these names before two o'clock this afternoon. They did not think advisable to call me back, Mr. Speaker, to tell me that this list could not be provided. They are afraid. The member who spoke before me was wondering on what criteria projects were accepted or rejected. No one can find out.
With respect to my area and some others, I would suggest that the Secretary of State of Canada, with taxes paid by the Canadian people, helps maintain socialist, communist and separatist organizations in the province of Quebec. I will give concrete examples. Yesterday, I promised to name names next Monday, but the Conserva-
Opportunities for Youth Program
tives have afforded me the opportunity of giving those names today. You will see how interesting they are.
I have received a list dated June 7 from Mr. Doyle. At my request, he informed me of projects that were accepted for northwestern Quebec.
The first project is from Jean-Pierre Marquis, Social Development Council, 139 Perreault Street, Rouyn, in the total amount of $40,290.30, which includes three different projects. The first project is "Consommation Co-op (200-265A)"; the second: "Indiens blancs du Nord-Ouest", almost a carbon copy of "Negres blancs d'Amerique" written by Vallieres who was in jail until yesterday and released through no fault of mine, believe me; the third project is "Dossiers Informations (200-265(1)". Jean-Pierre Marquis is employed by the Social Development Council which is now receiving federal subsidies and received them even before the advent of the Opportunities for Youth program. Five or six of the directors are paid by the Department of the Secretary of State to make trouble in northwestern Quebec. This is a group of avowed separatists having among them a certain individual whose name must be on the list I could not get my hands on today.
A certain Jacques Spooner, who is not a student but the representative of the North-West Quebec Teaching Association, an authentic revolutionary, is trying through television station CKRN to reach the heart of the population but instead of doing this he makes them sick, which is not the same thing and he does so thanks to the taxes paid by the Canadian citizens.
Mr. Speaker, $40,290.30 is not much. Those projects were not recommended by the Rouyn-Noranda city council. None of the projects proposed by the Rouyn-Noranda council have been accepted. Among those accepted were projects proposed by the old Company of Young Canadians, which is infiltrated with socialists and communists. But that is not all.
Project No. 200-265(7) is entitled "Imagination liberee". What does that mean? Nobody knows. The Secretary of State does not know either. Let us ask him in the House. He will answer us arrogantly as usual, showing his incompetence. It is not the first time that the Secretary of State proves to himself and to the nation that he is incompetent. When he was a journalist, he was incompetent. He never was able to get elected for his own merit; he had to join the Liberals, although he never had been a liberal in his life, to get the title he has now.
Who is responsible for the "Imagination liberee" project? Lise Marshall, 139 Perreault Street in Rouyn. Mr. Jean-Pierre Marquis, of the Social Development Council, lives at the same address. Her name is not "Social Development" but Lise Marshall. The "Imagination liberee" project has received $11,450. That is enough to liberate your imagination, $11,000! It is very liberating! This is awfully strong on the part of the Secretary of State. Nice going!
Mr. Doyle sent me another list this morning. I had asked him for a list of those who form these groups. I asked if I could have that list for 2 o'clock this afternoon,

June 16, 1971
Opportunities for Youth Program it was 9.45 in the morning. There is chaos at the Department of the Secretary of State. Nobody knows, nobody is able to give an answer.
And hon. members are afraid to give names, because nobody knows what is going on. How did the Secretary of State Department recently recommend grants of about $100,000 to people who strive to destroy the country instead of building it?
Certain telecasts in Rouyn contain information and publicity of a most dubious character.
As to the project "Animation culturelle au nord-ouest quebecois", bearing No. 265-4, $3,629 has been allotted to it. Who is responsible for it? Claire Le Rouse, 139 Perreault Street, Rouyn. Still the same address.
Another project is entitled "Ateliers de creativite pour enfants". I do not know whether it is a workshop to create children or to allow children to create something, but it is project No. 265-12. Who is responsible? Madeleine Charlebois who gets a salary of $6,500 and lives at 139 Perreault Street in Rouyn.
Mr. Speaker, I am not against the fact that large payments are made to help students. In fact, some worthwhile projects have been accepted. But they directly concern the students, not trouble makers who try to rouse children against their parents, workers against management, social classes against one another, as do Jean-Pierre Marquis, Jacques Spooner-and others of the same caliber.
Mr. Speaker, some of the projects submitted by students of Rouyn CEGEP and the University of Quebec are praiseworthy. "Campus de Rouyn" and "Campus du Nord-Ouest quebecois" are examples of commendable projects.
Some $8,250 will be spent on making an inventory of the natural resources of Duffault lake. The project is headed by Henri-Paul Marchand, of the University of Quebec in Trois-Rivieres. It is called "Campus du Nord-Ouest." That is commendable!
Another young people's group, the Association scien-tifique d'astronautique of the CEGEP in Rouyn, numbers 17 students! They are not spoil-sports or agitators but real students who need help during the summer months. That is the real purpose of the Opportunities for youth program, and not bribing, after having paid them, those who would destroy the country instead of building it, those you see on television who oppose the closing down of mines in the northwest, who try to stir people in an attempt to rouse them one against the other, saying the mines are closing down.
It is obvious that when you run out of ore, you close down. It is not the only region where plants are shut down. In fact, a textile factory is being closed down in the Montmagny constituency. It is not a mine, but production could go on in the textile field.
At Canadair 5,000 men were laid off not on account of a lack of materials for planes but because there are no contracts. As for us, in the northwest, even if we had
more contracts for the extraction of gold or copper in the Noranda mine, it is impossible because there is none anymore.
Mr. Speaker, it is pitiful to see these people from the northwest always talking about the worst part of the situation while we do have huge possibilities. Some students this year will bring in reports and make suggestions for boosting the economy in northwestern Quebec. But they are not like Marquis and that organization of the Social Development Council, at 139 Perreault Street, in Rouyn.
Mr. Speaker, this is not all. The minister recently asked me in writing whether I would accept to present personally the cheques to those who made a request. I answered to the minister: Surely Sir. He wanted to give me an opportunity to meet my electors. It is precisely the gang that I can never meet when I am in my constituency. They run away. However, to obtain the cheque, they will have to come and see me, at least they will accept me. In this way, I will meet them face to face and I will repeat them exactly what I have just said. If not, they could read Hansard tomorrow because that will be recorded. They will know exactly what I think.
Mr. Speaker, I will go and give them their cheques-


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Postmaster General):: Do not
delay them too long.


David Réal Caouette: No. I shall invite the Postmaster General to come with me. It may be the only useful thing he will have accomplished in his life since he has been in politics.


An hon. Member:: Send them by mail.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, when I hear the frog in a paddling-pool, I always have to answer when going to get it.
Once more, I am not only saying the Secretary of State is incompetent, I say he is not in his place, that he would resign and give his place to someone who would see at least what is happening in his department and ensure that we get answers.
I am an elected Member of Parliament, and not a highly paid civil servant. I am paid, but I am elected, which justifies my indemnity. I called a civil servant on the telephone, a Mr. Maquis. I left my telephone number for at least a week, in order that he might call me back. He never had the time to do it. I say so to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner). He runs away. The lady secretary, however, answers very nicely.
Last week, I had occasion to speak twice to Mr. Doyle, who was very polite and said he was prepared to help us but what prevents him from supplying me with a list of the people who are members of these organizations?
That is why I say that the Secretary of State Department is badly managed and that the Secretary of State should resign forthwith. I am not the only one to think

June 16, 1971

so. Yesterday, the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle)-I am sorry he is not here-spoke the following words:
Someone also accused us of saying that certain political parties were in a bad shape. But from what we heard today, I believe that if they are not in bad shape, at least they show symptoms of a severe and imminent disease. We were also told that the founder of Social Credit was an engineer and an economist. I could say: Watch out, he has not built the Eiffel tower-
Nor did the hon. member for Hull build it. I continue the quotation.
-but rather a house of cards which could last a long time provided no one blows on it since it could crumble in a flash.
This is what the hon. member for Hull said to the House. I have met him about 15 minutes before entering the House and he said that he was absolutely dissatisfied with the performance of the Secretary of State. He said: It is time to change him. I myself am asking for his resignation, and the hon. member for Hull comes to the House and says: Creditistes are not the ones who have designed the Eiffel tower. How intelligent! There is a doctor reasoning thus. Creditistes are not ill, but the doctor is, you can rest assured of that.
Mr. Speaker, I am not in the habit of repeating what I am told behind the curtains, but in such a case it is about time someone spoke.


Prosper Boulanger: That is not very nice!
Mr. Caouette Even the hon. member for Mercier says it is not nice. If I were to repeat everything he told me for the past three years, I feel that he would have his money's worth this afternoon. But I will not say a word. I am even willing to go with him to the corner store to buy the hot pants he promised to the ladies of Trois-Rivieres during the by-election campaign, because I am not convinced that he would have enough good taste to choose the right colour.


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order!


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the hon. member for Mercier rising a question of privilege?


Prosper Boulanger: This should be a question of privilege, but I will raise a point of order. First, the platitude flung by the Social Credit whip (Mr. Rondeau) is so ridiculous and childish that if the hon. member for Temiscamingue repeats it as a truth he is really dishonest. That is what I wanted to say.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mercier has no reason to raise a point of order. He may have been elected some time ago, but he cannot understand the Standing Orders because he is never in the House. He gets elected and, after that, we do not see him anymore. Therefore, he does not know the Standing Orders, he does not know what is a point of order, and he does not know what is a question of privilege. In fact, he does not know
Opportunities for Youth Program
anything about any of that. He agrees with me, because he is nodding assent.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to attack the hon. member for Mercier, but, as he promised in Trois-Rivieres, I am ready to go with him to the first available store-because I am afraid that he might make a mistake in the colors- to buy the hot pants that he promised during the by-election.


Mr. Gerard Laniel (Deputy Speaker):: Order. I regret that I must interrupt the hon. member, but his time has now expired.


Prosper Boulanger: It is enough!


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), unavoidably as members know, his very able parliamentary secretary will, later in this debate, deal with some of the points raised by hon. members. However, I should like to speak about the matter referred to in the resolution of the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald). I must say I am rather disappointed with his remarks. He has in the past, and did today, speak highly of the very imaginative concept of the Opportunities for Youth program, but his message today seemed to be that of the usual opposition day spokesman-too little, too late, not done well enough. That is a familiar refrain. I am disappointed that today as usual we waited in vain for his ideas and those of his party.
As far as the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) is concerned, it was difficult to understand why, on one hand, we were being accused of too much haste, and on the other hand, of too much delay. Surely, he cannot have it both ways. But I appreciated his willingness to wait for an assessment of this program, which of course was never promised to be a safe, secure program without danger of error or surprise.
The hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) ran out of material after reading his list, and seemed then to have to get into the defence of Social Credit and of hot pants. We have not heard very much of value from the opposition, I am afraid and one wonders why they chose to spend today on this subject without giving us more than they have, particularly when the Secretary of State earlier undertook to make a statement on this subject at the end of this week. I believe he will be doing so as promised.
The government was aware and concerned about the unemployment situation which would be facing many Canadian students this summer. It was estimated that some 989,000 students returning to secondary and post secondary institutions next fall would be seeking summer employment, an increase of 54,000 over 1970, and that some 20 per cent of them might very well be unsuccessful in their attempts to obtain employment. It vas anticipated also that a large number of the remain-

June 16, 1971
Opportunities for Youth Program ing students not seeking employment, as well as those who would have been unsuccessful in finding paid jobs, would be looking for useful, productive ways in which to spend their holiday period. Therefore, the problem facing the government was to provide jobs as well as worthwhile activities for a large segment of the student population during the summer of 1971. In doing so, the necessity was recognized for overcoming regional disparities in opportunities for students and for ensuring emphasis on jobs for post secondary students, including those who would be entering universities and colleges.
Among the specific programs formulated by the government to give employment to students during the summer are the federal public service hiring program, militia, cadet and civilian training courses sponsored by the Department of National Defence, the international student summer employment exchange under the Department of Manpower and Immigration, grants and research studies under the sponsorship of the Department of National Health and Welfare, including educational grants for student athletes, a study of athletic facilities across Canada, and a series of research positions in the area of the current problem of the non-medical use of drugs. Projects in the areas of travel and exchange include projects for group travel within the domestic, international and federal-provincial young voyageurs programs of the Department of the Secretary of State, as well as a program of exchange carried out in conjunction with Association France-Canada.
The department also is responding to the increased interest of young people in individual travel in all parts of the country not by providing a network of youth hostels but by responding to local initiative and offering financial assistance to local organizations across the country. In addition, a program of roadside travel information kiosks has been offered where there is local interest in such information centres.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Tell us about that program.


Mr. Sfanbury:: The Department of the Secretary of State is also sponsoring $1.5 million worth of grants for 2,500 post secondary students to take second language training to improve their knowledge of either English or French. This program has been co-ordinated through the secretariat of the Council of Ministers of Education of Canada, implemented by provincial departments of education.
In addition, the 390 Canada manpower centres, including 50 university centres and 110 special student centres, are informing students regarding jobs activities in both the private and public sectors. Special student employment centres are largely manned by students themselves. In addition, the Department of Manpower and Immigration is again sponsoring the "hire a student" advertising campaign aimed at involving the participation of the private sector in student summer employment.
The range of programs which I have touched upon constitutes an expenditure of some $42.8 million, and these have meant or will mean the creation of more than 70,000 jobs for students, which does not include activity

programs on which grants are given to individuals, for instance, for language training.
The Opportunities for Youth program, which is the specific concern of the House at this time, involves the expenditure of some $25 million. Taking all programs together, the government summer '71 program amounts to a total expenditure of about $67.8 million, an amount-and I should like to stress this in view of the accusation contained in the resolution that the government has not responded to the needs of youth-more than double the level of government spending on such programs in the summer of 1970.
The objectives in the development of the new Opportunities for Youth program were twofold. First, it was the government's wish to make it possible for citizen groups, voluntary organizations, and especially young people themselves, to develop opportunities for the employment and participation of young Canadians during the summer of 1971. Second, it was our desire to find an imaginative and rational procedure for dealing with all proposals from outside the public service and the private commercial sector that would encourage the development of opportunities for employment and participation of young people.
In the statement to the House announcing the summer student employment and activities program on March 16 last, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) emphasized the government's desire, in accepting its obligation as a major employer, to provide as many temporary jobs as possible but to avoid make-work activities which contribute little to the national wellbeing either now or in the future. As well, the Prime Minister noted at that time:
However desirable the goal of summer employment for students may be, it must not be pursued in a fashion that reduces the opportunities of employment for those persons who are in or are entering the permanent Canadian labour force. Ideally, one of the results of properly designed programs of summer employment and student activity should be the avoidance of competition for permanent jobs with adults. The programs which the government proposes, and in which it needs and is seeking the co-operation of other levels of government and the private sector, have been drawn up with this in mind.
The resolution today accuses the government of not responding to the needs and desires of youth. The most cursory examination of the basic tenets of the Opportunities for Youth program would reveal that the program is designed on the premise that young people should have the opportunity to become aware of projects that need to be done, to define creatively their own roles in these projects and to participate in as wide a variety of activities and new services to the community as possible.
I have emphasized, among other things, the wish of the government to ensure that the opportunities for employment created under the summer '71 program in general and opportunities for youth in particular take account, as carefully as possible, of the regional differences in student employment needs throughout the summer. The interdepartmental committee responsible for administering the Opportunities for Youth fund established a series of regional allocations for the fund based on three factors: first, the percentage of students in a given region

June 16, 1971

and by regions I refer to the maritime provinces, the province of Quebec, the province of Ontario, the prairie provinces, the Northwest Territories, the province of B.C. and the Yukon territory-with little prospect of summer employment, and second, the absolute numbers of such students in each region. The third consideration in such regional allocation of funds was the level of other existing summer job opportunities for students in either private or governmental sectors.
It is not my intention at this time to go into details on the final results of such allocations of money because the Secretary of State, as has been indicated to the House by his parliamentary secretary, will be making a statement on motions when the final list of approved projects appears, which I expect will be this Friday.
I referred to the responsibilities of the interdepartmental committee for the over-all administration of the fund. This committee also established a number of guidelines for the evaluation of project proposals received under the program. Most important, any acceptable proposal had to contain clear evidence of two things: first, the involvement of youth in formulating, administering and evaluating the project, and second, the creation of new benefits to the community or communities involved. Both of these lines of emphasis are quite clearly set out in the notes prepared for program applicants provided with Opportunities for Youth application forms.
The notes to project applicants also indicated that projects would be selected on the basis of the number of jobs created and their costs. Applicants were advised that emphasis of the program is on jobs and activities for students continuing their education beyond secondary school.
Guidelines used by the project analysts and the review committee to which they report were to the effect that a cost of no more than $1,000 for post-secondary students and $800 for secondary students for three month paid jobs on projects should be the objective. Furthermore, projects were assessed to determine the ratio of postsecondary to secondary students, and a ratio of at least four to one is the desired objective.
Project applicants were also advised to obtain as much help as possible from other groups and organizations able to provide materials and services needed for their activities. This was done to encourage applicants to obtain a wider, in fact the widest possible community involvement in their projects. This directive was also intended to further the general emphasis on economy in a project.
The notes to applicants stressed that there would be no allowance for capital costs of any kind. The guideline used by project analysts and the review committee was to the effect that the total salaries paid to students should not be less than 80 per cent of the total cost of the project itself including overhead administration, training and other costs.
I have referred to analysts and a review committee. I should like to explain briefly the process of evaluation
Opportunities for Youth Program
which all submissions have undergone. The evaluation personnel, most of whom are young people themselves from outside of the regular public service, have been divided into groups for appropriate regions-Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario, Prairies and Northwest Territories, and British Columbia and the Yukon. Project analysts were assigned to each of these regions.
It is the responsibility of the analyst to examine a project and supporting documents, to assess it on the basis of its precision, liability, and potential for achievement of its objectives, within the criteria which I have just described. Some projects fully met the criteria; others met them only partially, and others not at all. On the basis of the analyst's evaluation, which in the case of submissions determined to fall within the program criteria and warranting further investigation, including contacts with the proponents and agencies, government bodies and community groups, a decision was made by the analyst either not to proceed further with the project or to recommend it to a committee composed of the director of the program, the national co-ordinator of the program, the regional director and other project analysts.
This review committee considered the recommendations of the individual project analysts and accepted, rejected or modified them. In cases in which the discussions of the review committee resulted in a decision to recommend a project for approval, this decision was communicated to the designated representative of the provincial government concerned. All provincial governments were consulted, and all were invited to send a representative to be involved in the necessary liaison work.
After discussions at this level, the recommendations of the review committee proceeded for acceptance or rejection either to the Assistant Under-Secretary of State for projects to a value of $10,000, the Under Secretary of State for projects in a range from $10,000 to $50,000, or to the interdepartmental committee and then to the Secretary of State in the case of projects whose total recommended value of support exceeded $50,000. Following such approval project proponents would be notified by telegram. A contract would then be sent to the group concerned, who would complete it and return it to the Opportunities for Youth secretariat.
Upon signature of the contract by the appropriate departmental officials, a cheque is requisitioned in the names of two project co-ordinators in trust for the project, and sent to them. Such payment is a partial one, amounting to a maximum of 50 per cent of the total project grant for projects under $10,000, and a diminishing percentage in the case of higher grants. Further assistance will not be given to projects until we are assured that a project is indeed achieving its objectives. In this interim evaluation, as well I might add as in the initial examination of the projects submission, local liaison officers of the Department of the Secretary of State will be maintaining contact with the project applicants.
The responsibilities of the field officers are to maintain clear lines of communication and to assist in realization

June 16, 1971
Opportunities for Youth Program
of the approved goals of the project, to maintain information and offer assistance on the financial arrangement of projects. To assist them, they will be hiring temporarily some 65 field officers, most of them post-graduate students. Once the initial payment on a project is made, further payments during the course of the work will require itemized statements for items in the approved budget. The final payment will be made when project administrators send in their final project report, and payments for at least 5 per cent of their budget must await this final stage.
Project administrators are reminded that Opportunities for Youth is using public money and that all claims are subject to audit. All projects over $25,000 and at least 10 per cent of those of lesser value will be subject to an audit undertaken by the Department of Supply and Services. In the case of projects which over the summer are seen to be failing in their objectives, inquiries will be made and problems resolved, or further funds reduced or curtailed altogether.
Having outlined to the House the nature and intent of the government's actions in establishing these summer 1971 programs, and the Opportunities for Youth program in particular, I would like to speak to the particular charges contained in the motion before the House, and to reply to sweeping charges made outside the House by some people. The government has been charged with misuse of the Opportunities for Youth Program, Mr. Speaker. The program was designed to respond to the initiative of young Canadians themselves. It has done just that, and in the process created more than 31,000 paid jobs for those same young Canadians who will be working on some 2,400 projects.
Yesterday I heard a report that the Progressive Conservative house leader had suggested that his examination of lists of projects had led him to the conclusion that they were written in an overly glowing fashion, and that most of the projects were nonsense. However, he hastened to assure his audience that Opportunities for Youth is basically a sound idea, as his colleague has also done today. By statements like this, the opposition is in effect telling more than 30,000 young people who will be working on more than 2,400 projects that their efforts are useless and not appreciated.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I love being quoted by members on the government side, but they should at least quote me correctly. I hope the minister will do so. I said that a very substantial number of the programs were stupid, and some of them were insane and nonsensical. That is something of course that can be easily proven.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, no doubt the hon. member will want to specify and the Secretary of State will no doubt want to look into his suggestions as to how this program could be improved, but I have not heard those suggestions today.
The fact remains that the Official Opposition has tarred these young people generally with the same brush, and suggested that each one of these Opportunities for Youth

project personnel is to be suspected of foolishness and wastefulness. Such statements amount to telling a group in Fredericton, who will record the memoirs of veterans of World War I and place the material in archives for the use of students, and a group in Kamouraska organizing activities in old people's homes, and a group in Pembroke that will be helped to publish a weekly bilingual newspaper for that area, and a group in Winnipeg conducting a pilot project in day-time recreation and learning activities for children of working parents, and a group in Saskatoon that is aiding a community service bureau with family budgeting education and rehabilitative counselling, and a YMCA sponsored group in Calgary that will help organize a program for slow learners who need to develop social and physical skills, and a group involved with the British Columbia Human Rights Council to compile a profile of ethnic communities in B.C.-I could go on for some time, Mr. Speaker-that they are engaged in nonsensical activities, that their employment is worthless, and that they have no business formulating such ideas and getting paid for putting them into practice.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thought I had driven that home even to the minister. I thought even he was capable of comprehension. We did not make any such statement at all and I hope the minister will try to stay with the facts.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. In the opinion of the Chair, this is not a point of order but a question of debate. Knowing that the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) regularly participates in
debates, he will get a chance to make these points later this afternoon. The hon. minister has the floor.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: If I was unfair to the hon. gentleman I certainly apologize, if he did not say these things but only implied them-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis) rises on a point of order.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, it is always in order for a
member to call attention to the fact that some other hon. member is reflecting unfairly on a situation. Unless the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) singled out the programs mentioned or referred to them as not acceptable programs, then any member of the House may raise a point of order and take exception to the insinuations being made by the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Standing Orders of the House are quite clear. Hon .members are allowed to correct statements and clarify some point. Once it is done, I do not see hon. members can get up continually while another hon .member is making a speech and try to correct a statement of another hon. member. This can be done by hon .members making their
June 16, 1971

own speeches. The Chair tries to be as lenient as possible but that was the second time the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) had raised this point. He made the point the previous time and the Chair did not object then, but the second time the Chair thought this was becoming a matter of debate.


Donald MacInnis: Further on the point of order-


An hon. Member:: There is no point of order.


Donald MacInnis: Am I to understand from the ruling of the Chair that ministers are now allowed to impute motives, because when he is referring to a number of projects-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member is debating or questioning the decision which the Chair has rendered. The Chair has recognized the hon. minister, who had the floor.


Donald MacInnis: On a point of order, which I do not think even the Chair could ignore, the minister is reading from a prepared text. It is against the rules to read a speech in this House. Furthermore, I ask again, through the Chair, whether or not the minister is allowed to impute motives?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. On the first point of order, the Chair is of the opinion that it is well taken but the hon. member also knows that the rule is not very easy to apply because hon. members are entitled to refer to notes. It is very difficult for the Chair to judge when an hon. member who is speaking is referring to notes in front of him, although as I said before such points of order benefit hon. members because they more or less remind hon. members of that rule. It also gives every other participant in the debate an opportunity to keep that point in mind.
On the second point of order, the Chair heard the point raised by the hon. member on the question of motives. If the hon. member wishes to specify the motive, the Chair will take it under advisement.


Donald MacInnis: I shall accept your invitation and specify the motive, Mr. Speaker. Unless the hon. member for Peace River gave a blanket disapproval of all these projects, the minister cannot single out a few and infer that the hon. member for Peace River has singled them out as not being desirable projects. If the minister, in referring to these projects, is trying to imply that the hon. member for Peace River has disapproved of them, then he is imputing motives.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: That may be in the
mind of the hon. member, but the Chair still feels that this is a question of debate and will recognize the hon. minister.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I certainly hasten to accept the assurance of the hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Baldwin) that he does not denounce the projects of the Opportunites for Youth program in a blanket fashion-
Opportunities for Youth Program


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Richard J. Stanbury: -and that he was referring only to one unfounded allegation yesterday.


An hon. Member:: Unfounded?


An hon. Member:: It was unfounded.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I welcome this assurance, and I certainly want to apologize to him if I had the mistaken impression that he thought this program was not an imaginative, efficient and very worth-while one.
The government could simply have increased jobs in the public service and the militia and there would have been no Opportunities for Youth program-no errors, no difficulties, no risks and no tremendous exploration of an idea that has not been tried anywhere else in the world. Or we could have given grants to the amount of $25 million to projects that would have been controlled by existing organizations. Inevitably, some of the students who would have been thus employed would have run afoul of the law over a three-month period, or some would not have done their job satisfactorily and nothing more would have been heard about it.
Instead, Mr. Speaker, the government opted to go directly to youth with an imaginative program. This program is a response to the interests and directions of young Canadians as expressed by young Canadians. In a program such as this, some problems are bound to occur. We expect them. It is a new program. With 2,400 projects from coast to coast and more than 31,000 young people employed, we can expect to have differences of opinion about some of the activities supported. However, in order to have as many views as possible on projects, officials of each provincial government, as I have said, Mr. Speaker, were consulted in advance of projects receiving final approval. A verification mechanism which I have described has been established whereby projects will be reviewed in the communities involved.
Certainly, there have been more projects than we have been able to approve. Certainly, many groups are disappointed that they cannot share in this program. Allocations made on a regional and subregional basis do not guarantee that every city and town will receive tangible employment benefits from Opportunities for Youth. And certainly, many of the projects that did not receive approval could have been approved if even more funds were available. I have already emphasized that the summer 1971 program involved a doubling of expenditures over the 1970's summer funding, and members are well aware of the two-thirds augmentation in the Opportunities for Youth budget itself on the urging of the opposition. Certainly, there have been communications difficulties, delays and inconveniences. The Secretary of State admits this.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Does the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) wish to ask a question?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the minister a question. He suggests that I did not
June 16, 1971

Opportunities for Youth Program
raise anything specific in my speech. I wonder if he could answer one specific matter that was in it and that is, in terms of other sponsorship, whether it be provincial government or industry or whatever, what success has there been and what projects will be funded in that way?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I think the hon. parliamentary secretary will be pleased to deal with that question, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State has certainly had that kind of participation very much in mind. As I was saying, there have been communications difficulties. Cheques are being requisitioned as contracts are returned and processed. Up to the present time, some 1,500 contracts have been returned by project groups, and 600 cheques have been requisitioned and 800 more will be by the end of the week. However, as is to be expected, with the many security precautions that must be followed when dealing with public moneys, there is an unavoidable time lag between receipt of a completed contract and issuance of a cheque. I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that banks and companies have been very good about making advance payments to groups once assured that money is coming. In some cases, the bank or company is being compensated directly.
We all know, Mr. Speaker, that allocation of resources is a continuing problem that any democracy must face. We all know how easy it is for groups and individuals to make serious charges and gain headlines for doing so, and that such charges of unfairness, mismanagement and failure will continue to be made-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the minister, but his time has expired. The Chair allowed the minister a couple of extra minutes to make up for time taken up with points of order.


An hon. Member:: Continue.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it seems strange to me that an opposition which wanted information should have taken up so much time with interruptions. I wonder whether they really want this information or whether they want to try to make political hay out of an imaginary situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair does not intend to get caught in the middle of the debate. The opposition did not say that the minister's time had expired. The Chair said that. If any member of the House wishes the minister to continue his remarks, it will be necessary to obtain the unanimous consent to the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, may I say, Mr. Speaker, that if the minister promises to give us facts

instead of giving us the sort of propaganda that he has given, he may continue.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Does the House give its unanimous consent for the minister to continue his remarks?


Gerald William Baldwin: Only if we have that assurance, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I will gladly give the assurance that my facts will be at least as reliable as those given yesterday by the House Leader of the Official Opposition.


An hon. Member:: Is that good enough?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, am I to gather that the opposition does not want to hear facts?


Gerald William Baldwin: We want to hear facts, not propaganda.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Is
there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John James Greene: Truth will come out, Mr. Speaker.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Stanbury) claimed a moment ago that he was deprived of time because members of the opposition interrupted him. May I remind the minister that he was interrupted because he made some very misleading statements in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: He made some very misleading statements which in no way responded to the tenor of the motion I had brought before the House this afternoon. I, as one member, very much resent his continuing to make that representation-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair doubts seriously whether the hon. member's point constitutes a question of privilege. It seems more like a point of debate. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Lisgar.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, may I raise a question of privilege. I am glad to have the opportunity of raising this question of privilege because, after making his last statement, even the hon. member for Egmont had to wink at me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They are just a pair of consenting adults.
June 16, 1971


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Surely, Mr. Speaker, when a member rises in the House on a question of privilege, the Chair owes it to that member to rule whether or not the question of privilege is valid. I suggest that Your Honour ought to rule on whether or not the minister's question of privilege was proper.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I remind the hon. member that it is not always easy for the Chair to pass judgment on points of privilege. The Chair tries, as far as possible, to apply the rules of the House. I think some hon. members on the opposite side of the House felt that the minister had not raised a question of privilege. I do not know. The Chair at that moment felt that those remarks had been judged according to the mood of the House.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the appropriate parliamentary procedure is with respect to winks. It has been difficult to wink at what the minister has been doing. However, for the sake of letting us get on with the business of the House, I will gladly wink on this occasion and hope that one wink is sufficient.


Mr. Jack Muria (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to participate in this debate. I listened to the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Stanbury) and did not hear him say anything new. In other words, I do not think he refuted any of the charges made by the official opposition this afternoon.


An hon. Member:: What are the charges?


Jack Burnett Murta: If I am to fall into one of the categories the minister mentioned at the beginning of his speech, it is only because my remarks, I believe, will be to the point. They have a direct bearing on the subject we are discussing this afternoon. The Opportunities for Youth program has been the subject of widespread speculation and discussion throughout the country, and I think it is only appropriate that we devote at least one day of debate to it here in the House of Commons.
I would like to say at the outset that this program is the greatest political sham I have ever seen. It seems to me to be typical of an ill-advised, ill-informed, callous Liberal government. A member of the government might ask why we are pressing debate on this topic today, and I can only say that it is our deep concern over the project and the unemployment situation as a whole which brought us to do so. Youth unemployment is a very important issue, an issue which must be discussed on a year-round basis and not just before crisis situations such as those which arose last April. This is not a once-a-year dilemma to be forgotten in the hope that it will not happen again. The government has told us that the crisis situation has been overcome this year and that we should devote our debate to something else. I say to the government that the crisis is not over, that youth unemployment is not a temporary problem, that the Opportunities for Youth program has not lived up to expectations and that the government must be blamed not only for its lack
Opportunities for Youth Program of foresight but also for its lack of planning and imagination.
We do not intend to let the government forget its responsibilities, Mr. Speaker. We do not intend to keep silent until next April, when the government will surely find itself facing another summer of high unemployment. And we do not intend to let the government forget the Opportunities for Youth fiasco into which it has forced the youth of this country.
I, for one, am amazed at the government's general attitude in facing this problem. When will they realize that they cannot go on meeting issues like this on a day-to-day basis? Meeting them requires long-range planning and an examination of past mistakes. If and when a program is organized for next year, I hope the government will remember its experience this year with the Opportunities for Youth program. The taxpayer can ill afford to fund projects such as this which cannot be judged to be a success. Instead, it can be judged to be a failure. I am sure that the taxpayer would gladly foot the bill for programs which attempt to solve youth unemployment problems. The taxpayer cannot be expected to tolerate projects such as Opportunities for Youth if they are not taken seriously, even by the government which has introduced them. Mr. Speaker, the government could not have taken the problem of youth unemployment seriously. On the other hand, if it took the problem seriously, it should have acted much sooner. I can only say, Mr. Speaker, that I hope the government will take the problem of youth and student unemployment more seriously in the future.
I feel that it is my duty to point out the mistakes in the program because the government refuses to recognize them. The greatest shortcoming in the Opportunities for Youth Program is poor administration. Civil servants cannot be totally blamed because they lacked the proper facilities and personnel. The problem is the result of late notice and the failure of the government to realize the response there would be from the unemployed students. They had no idea of the number of students facing unemployment or they would have been prepared for a larger number of applications than they apparently expected. The consequences of the late announcement of the program have already been pointed out by previous speakers. The short notice before the deadline for the formulation of projects resulted in hasty organization. It was very difficult for the students to put together a viable program which would meet the unknown criteria which were so necessary for acceptance.
I want to emphasize the lack of regard the government has had for what may be called a critical situation in the rural parts of Canada. I am not familiar with the situation outside of the Prairies, but from the information I have been able to gather in Manitoba, there was a general lack of regard for the areas outside of the urban centres. In my own constituency, the information was not made available until four days before the deadline. Even with this disadvantage, at least eight projects were submitted from Lisgar but as of yet none have been

June 16, 1971
Opportunities for Youth Program
acknowledged. I am not saying that any of these programs necessarily met the criteria, but I am concerned at the lack of equal opportunity to which the rural areas have been subjected. There was absolutely no provision made for notification and the disclosure of information.
There were many other administrative problems. Despite the official policy, the impression was created that the deadline would be extended. Very few people knew exactly when the deadline was. The Manpower offices did not have the information simply because it was not given to them. There were, of course, no representatives of Opportunities for Youth in western Canada. They were all in Ottawa. Apparently the offices in Ottawa were in a state of chaos. Phone calls went unanswered as well as letters of inquiry. Officials were often not in their offices and information was simply impossible to obtain. Probably the most crucial information necessary was the least obtainable; that is the very criterion necessary for acceptance of one's program. Once again, I must repeat that the office staff must not be blamed. It seems that they have tried their best under an impossible situation. I can only say that the government must be blamed for not recognizing the situation as it really existed.
In one instance of which I am aware, several commerce students from the University of Manitoba, on extremely short notice, managed to formulate a program for Opportunities for Youth. Needless to say, their project was rejected. However, they did not receive formal notification. One of the students had to telephone several times from Winnipeg at his own expense to be told that the project was unacceptable. The object of the project was very intriguing in itself. It was to teach native people who were living in Winnipeg business practice and accounting. Some citizen in Winnipeg had generously donated $10,000 in equipment to set up a business organization to be run by Indian people after they had been trained by the commerce students. However, it was this connection with private enterprise which was the fatal blow to the project. It seems to me that this project was worthwhile in its intent, Mr. Speaker, but because of a lack of flexibility and an arbitrary policy, it was doomed.
I also know of projects at Berens River and Fort Alexander which involved native people which were also dismissed summarily. Probably one of the greatest complaints that I have received, Mr. Speaker, has been that many projects were rejected for no given reason. Financing seemed to be taken into account instead of the merit of the project. One project in Winnipeg apparently allotted approximately $135,000 for wages, but absolutely no funds for administration. The province of Manitoba had to step in to make up the difference. The general feeling among those who submitted projects was that there should have been an opportunity for personal representations to the selection committee on the merits of the projects. Many people felt that their particular project had merit and that it met the necessary requirements, yet was dismissed without reason. There is a good reason for the fact that the number of projects which came in this year was so great the minister's office could not
handle them, but these recommendations or suggestions should be taken into account for a youth program for another year.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I received an inquiry from an organization in my constituency about the status of a submission it had made. They had received no notification on whether their program was accepted or rejected. My office was in contact with the Opportunities for Youth office, but no information could be obtained. We were assured that 99 per cent of those accepted had received notification, but there was no estimate of the number of rejections yet to be mailed. At least these people are entitled to a reply. I know for a fact that the organization from my constituency to which I am referring was still counting on an acceptance of their proposal on June 11. My office had to contact these people and tell them that in all likelihood their plan was rejected.
The Canadian people should know, Mr. Speaker, how these funds are going to be allotted. According to some official in the Opportunities for Youth office, that information is classified. No figures would be given on the basis of a province by province breakdown. Such an attitude only breeds suspicion. It certainly raises my suspicions. Could it be that the funds were not distributed equally throughout the country? This is something which comes to mind, and I can only say that this is what has happened, unless the parliamentary secretary is able to allay my fears. I challenge the government to make these figures public and dispel my fears. Otherwise, as far as I am concerned, these accusations must be taken seriously.
I am also doubtful as to whether or not enough care was taken in the selection of projects. We read newspaper articles on political patronage in the distribution of funds at McGill University, charges of misappropriation of funds in Toronto, and even a project in B.C. where $9,000 was granted but is being used for growing marijuana. I, personally, have heard of one case in Toronto where a project was accepted but is being supported by funds from both the Opportunities for Youth Program and the Ontario government.
There was much wrong with the Opportunities for Youth program. It failed to provide the cash needed to finance further education. In fact, many students who find it necessary to earn and save over $1,000 during the summer, such as those students from the rural areas, were disqualified and had to try for higher paying jobs. There was no selection on the basis of need. Many people who have received funds are not in need of money. I can only say that this hastily conceived program missed the point, which is to provide hard cash through rewarding work, money which is necessary for thousands of students if they wish to continue their education.
I suggest to the government that it begin planning for next year now. Promotion of any programs such as this in the future should begin well in advance of their implementation. Perhaps the funds should be allotted to
fMr. Murta.]
June 16, 1971

the provinces for disbursal; the provinces are better equipped to face local situations, and the communications problems which have plagued this project would be eliminated. In closing, I ask the government to be realistic in its appraisal of this program and to make changes for the future are required. At stake is the future of thousands of unemployed youths and millions of the taxpayers' dollars. Surely, in these circumstances the government will soon wake up to the realization that the steps it has taken to assist the youth of this country have been far from adequate; they could be more rightly termed ridiculous. The experience of this year should be considered as an important lesson. I can only hope the government will learn from its mistakes.


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker-


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Here comes a pack of nothing.


James Hugh Faulkner: I think the description which has just been gratuitously offered before I have uttered even a word could be more accurately applied to what we have had to endure from members on the other side this afternoon.
I should like to sum up my general objection to and criticism of this motion today by saying that every single rumour which has been spread about Opportunities for Youth, every suggestion of mismanagement, has been leaped on, unchecked and unverified by the opposition, and reiterated in this House as fact. The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) who has just spoken used strong terms and I have the impression that what he had to say was founded upon certain fears, fears which are totally unsubstantiated, but fears which are nevertheless present in his mind. Had he said, without an expression of fear, that he would like to see a regional breakdown in connection with the funds so far allocated, that would have been a proper position to take. But opposition speakers have been implying from the beginning that there are grounds for fear. The charges by Alderman Crombie, unsubstantiated and unverified, were made the subject of a motion for adjournment. This is the sort of thing that worries me, coming from those who had, I assumed, supported the program in principle until today.
The hon. member for Lisgar says he hopes the government will take seriously his recommendations for the improvement of the plan. Of course, we will. Of course, we shall make the changes which experience recommends. That is not a novel suggestion. It has already been made by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) and others.
I wish to review the motion before us. It does not deal with specific projects. It is a blanket condemnation. It deplores the misuse and mismanagement of the Opportunities for Youth program. Three months ago there was no program. There were no personnel, there were no funds. It was a totally new concept which the Secretary of State and this government brought before the Parliament of Canada and the Canadian people. It was
Opportunities for Youth Program imaginative in design, bold in its belief that something could be organized by young people to meet their needs. It was a unique effort on behalf of the government to respond to the willingness of thousands of young people to do things in their community, for their country, which they felt was worthwhile. We felt that something of a positive nature could be achieved in communities across Canada with the financial help of the federal government. In the beginning the opposition was entirely with us. Members opposite supported the concept. They realized we were contemplating an exciting departure and they supported the idea as bold and creative venture in a new type of relationship between young people and the federal government. Three months later some 2,400 projects have been approved in principle. Some 30,000 people will be active across the country. Yet at this point what we are considering is a motion of censure, a motion of no confidence when I would have thought we should have received a motion of praise, a motion of support.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Hugh Faulkner: I am prepared to acknowledge that there will be difficulties. This comes as no surprise, of course. But we should not lose sight of the fact that it is not the individual project which is important; it is the general principle which is embodied in the program.


Steve Eugene Paproski: It does not matter how much money you spend.


James Hugh Faulkner: Who did the work in setting up this scheme? It was not the career civil servants, people trained for years in the public service. It was carried out in large measure by a group of young people who were recruited to work on the program and assess the various projects submitted. Of the total team which was at work in Ottawa, numbering at its peak something like 100, only five or six were career civil servants. The rest were young people who, I had assumed until now, had the support of this House in their efforts to get the program launched. They have worked colossal hours under what we all confess to have been extraordinarily difficult circumstances and within a very tight time frame. They gave every bit of energy and devotion which was asked of them. I would think that in terms of their performance they deserve a great deal better from us than to have the whole thing called into question at this stage and a motion set down by the official opposition deploring the misuse and mismanagement of the program.


Steve Eugene Paproski: It is the government, not the youth. You are worse than Pelletier.


James Hugh Faulkner: No one in this House and, I am sure, no one across the country will be surprised if among 2,400 projects there are not certain failures. No one will be astonished if among 30,000 workers in the field there are certain failures to meet the commitments of the contract. But we have given an assurance to the House that where there are misgivings about specific projects we will check them out. In this we shall need the support and help of

June 16, 1971
Opportunities for Youth Program the opposition. We have no illusions but we think it is unfair, as well as premature, to judge the total program on the basis of one or two predictions of failure on the part of people who are invariably prepared to assume the worst. It is this dimension of the attack on Opportunities for Youth which I personally resent most as one who is involved in this program. I think it is the sort of thing which the young people themselves will resent the most. In my view it is a great mistake to blow up these failures, to look on them as typical of what is going on while failing to recognize that thousands of young people will be working in a meaningful and responsible way, aided by public funds. I am disturbed, in short, by the imbalance which this type of approach creates. It is exactly this for which I hope the opposition, and particularly the official opposition will be held accountable.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You did the same thing with the Company of Young Canadians.


James Hugh Faulkner: What we are faced with today, Mr. Speaker, is a blanket condemnation of the total program. The motion deplores the misuse and mismanagement of the Opportunities for Youth program. It is not a selective indictment. It does not cite particular programs. It does not deal with specifics. It is a blanket indictment.
It is particularly surprising that the motion is moved by the hon. member for Egmont, because I am prepared to give him his due and to say that at the beginning of the program he was one of those who most vigorously supported it.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Supported the idea of it.


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I would make this suggestion to the House, that before members of the House get involved in selecting specific projects as failures- acknowledging that there may have been legitimate examples of this-and before parading them before the House as proven failures, I think in fairness to those involved the charges should be checked out. One of the most fundamental principles in this House is that facts should be verified before charges are paraded in the House and allegations made against people. That is one of the most fundamental principles of politics.
Not only does this principle protect a politician who is prepared to make a charge; it also protects the integrity of those who are not here in this House to defend themselves. I am not simply being critical of members of the House; I am equally critical of those people outside the House who have seen fit to secure for themselves an unusual amount of publicity by questioning individual projects about which, when you talk to them privately, they do not have much to say.
The hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald), who was the keynote speaker on this particular motion, the lead-off man for the Progressive Conservative party, spoke for something like 20 to 30 minutes in response to the motion that I have cited several times. What were the
charges of misuse and mismanagement? What were the specifics that were brought before this House, and corroborated as proof positive that there has been misuse and mismanagement of the program? I listened to him carefully, as I always do, but the only note I have is that at one point in his remarks he said that there were certain "questionable projects". He then went on with an even more "devastating" criticism and accused the government of being somewhat "slapdash."
When he had exhausted that battery of artillery, Mr. Speaker, he had to rely upon the oldest possible criticism of the Liberal government, namely that there has been a degree of arrogance in the way we presented the program. That was the sum and substance of the criticisms that were levelled by the official opposition in support of a blanket condemnation of a program that most of us feel in principle, in thrust and in purpose is one of the most valuable we have produced in this country. The hon. member knows perfectly well that the charges that he has made would not stand up for 30 seconds before an impartial tribunal of 12 honest men, good and true.
If the hon. member for Egmont, and his distinguished colleague from Edmonton, have specific charges to make, then it seems to me that what they should do is this. We who understand the program appreciate that perhaps it was set up rather too quickly, and that may be a fair criticism to make of it. Nevertheless, the program was set up with the best will and intentions in the world in order to mobilize some of the most dedicated people in this country. Therefore, it seems to me that in fairness what we should do is to start keeping our criticisms to ourselves until we discover whether some legitimate criticisms can be made, and then we can deal with them.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


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


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I very much resent the remarks of the parliamentary secretary, who knows only too well the number of specific criticisms I have indeed conveyed to the minister, as well as to the parliamentary secretary, but, to which as yet I have received no detailed reply. I have waited patiently for a reply for the very reason he has outlined, namely not to endanger the overall good effect of the program. I resent the deliberate misleading of this House by the hon. member's suggestion that no detailed criticism has been made.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member may have a grievance or grievances, but I suggest he has no question of privilege.


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to misrepresent the position of the hon. member for Egmont but I certainly do not remember receiving anything that specifically called into question certain projects. I know what his basic beef is, and I think it may be a legitimate one. Although he may call into question the distribution of projects, in fairness both to him and to myself I must

June 16, 1971

say that I never remember his calling into question specific projects that he thought should not be proceeded with. He may have sent a letter indicating this to the Secretary of State and not sent me a copy. This is the kind of thing I am talking about, and it is what worries me about some of the charges that have been mooted.
The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) referred to the project at Prince George. The hon. member knows perfectly well that that project has been cancelled and I am rather surprised that he has resurrected it at this stage several days later. Although he may not have been aware of this, the matter was mentioned in the House; and it was also mentioned by the House Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Baldwin) as his achievement on national television. Therefore, I am rather surprised that even now the hon. member is talking in those terms.
So I suggest that what we are confronted with here today is this form of blanket charge, and I am wondering what are the motives behind it. I do not want to impute motives, but what might have been some of the thinking behind this? It seems to me, without being overly severe, that there is a certain measure of politics involved in what we are dealing with today.


Mr. Crouse:: In no way.


James Hugh Faulkner: I do not want to be unfair.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is being unfair.


James Hugh Faulkner: It seems strangely to smack of the old and discredited type of politics that I thought we had long overcome in this House. Because what appears to be happening is that these projects are being attacked on the basis that if you can get at these projects you are really getting at the government. I suggest that perhaps the sacrificial lamb in this whole process will prove to be not the government-because the government will not rise or fall on the success of a particular program, despite the fondest hopes of the official opposition-


Steve Eugene Paproski: It is the one million votes you are after at the next election.


James Hugh Faulkner: But perhaps it will be this particular program that may rise or fall in face of the type of concerted attack that has been levelled against it.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Just like Pelletier.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Egmont is seeking the floor.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could assist the parliamentary secretary.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the hon. member for Egmont indicate to the Chair why he is seeking the floor?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, could I raise the tone of the debate by asking the parliamentary secretary a question on a specific matter of great importance?
Opportunities for Youth Program


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member may ask a question if the parliamentary secretary is prepared to answer it.


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to answer a question when I am through. I am not going to take up too much time because other hon. members who want to support the program are waiting to speak.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is about a specific matter.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The parliamentary secretary has the floor.


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, without trying to-


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Does the parliamentary
secretary not want to answer my question?


James Hugh Faulkner: I can only judge from the sensitivity of the hon. member for Egmont that perhaps I have come reasonably close to the truth. He is showing more agitation now than when he made his earlier address. I would say to the hon. member for Egmont, and to those who at the beginning expressed support for this program, that they should start to sort out their priorities. If they still feel that the principle of the program is sound and that there is a role in Canada for an Opportunities for Youth program, and if they really believe that the federal government has a role to play in advancing these kinds of projects which are conceived, administered and finally evaluated by our young people, then they are making a grave mistake, I think, by playing politics with this issue and not supporting it, despite the differences. The difficulties we can deal with.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I rise on a question of privilege Mr. Speaker. I very much take issue with the affront of the parliamentary secretary in misinterpreting the remarks I made today as being in any way associated with the playing of politics.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member
for Egmont may not agree with the parliamentary secretary, but it is a matter of debate.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to state my
question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member for Egmont
feels the Chair is not seized of his question of privilege, the Chair will allow him to present it.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to make very clear that the whole program concerning employment for students is much too important for me or anyone else on this side of the House to play politics with

June 16, 1971
Opportunities for Youth Program it. I resent the repeated innuendos of the parliamentary secretary and the Minister without Portfolio in that regard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Hugh Faulkner: Well, Mr. Speaker, on that note I will become far more conciliatory if it is the position of hon. members opposite that they will not play politics with the Opportunities for Youth program, in view of our commitment to work with them on projects about which they may have doubts. I shall certainly cease the line of argument I thought was not terribly offensive but which apparently has touched a sore point.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I could go on to say that we are under no illusion that the success or failure of the Opportunities for Youth program will be determined simply by the young people themselves. If this program is to work it must be apparent to all of us that it will involve the full and total co-operation of all Members of Parliament regardless of party, city councillors, the public at large, and of course the young people. Where there are shortcomings and where there are doubts expressed by Members of Parliament and others, we will attempt to deal with those, but on the broad principle or on the broad purpose behind the program we need the support of all members of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Hugh Faulkner: We have gone through this debate this afternoon and, in some measure, I hope it has helped to clear the air. I now hope we might proceed to work together, undistracted by obvious political differences-


An hon. Member:: You did not have to say that.


James Hugh Faulkner: I am simply accepting the offer made by the hon. member for Egmont, and I hope he was speaking for you as well. I hope that we can all work together, undeterred by individual failures, to ensure that those 30,000 who are fortunate enough to have their projects approved will complete a summer which makes sense to them, makes sense to their community and is a meaningful test of the principle behind the Opportunities for Youth program.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, I interrupt the parliamentary secretary to advise him his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the wish of the House that the parliamentary secretary continue?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Mr. Speaker, in the short period of time I intend to utilize I shall try to be calm, reasonable and collected, but it will be damned difficult. It has been a very trying and very discouraging experience for me, with my Irish background, to see what has been happening to $25 million of the
taxpayer's money. Right at the outset, I wish to say that the parliamentary secretary and the Minister without Portfolio were extremely touchy today.


Mr. Mahoney:: Oh, boy! There is an expert opinion.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: I tried to listen carefully-


An hon. Member:: You were not here, were you?


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Yes, I have been here all afternoon. I want to say to hon. members opposite that we do not criticize or resent either the youth program or the youth.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: What we do resent is the ineptitude in the Department of Secretary of State.


An hon. Member:: That is putting it mildly.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: I do not believe ever in history has any department of government abdicated its responsibilities to such an extent. This department must be directed either by inexperienced misfits or by people who are maliciously trying to destroy the moral fibre of our youth. It is easy to blame the government, but I do not blame the government because it has been explained that time was short, that it was a crash program and that as a consequence there was no time in which to obtain qualified people. This I accept, but I say I am grateful that among the people the government did get was Mr. Cam Mackie who has a fine reputation. No one here will really know how bad this program might have been had it not been for the services of Mr. Mackie. I am the first to admit he is surely trying, but I shall go further and say that the past president of the Student Liberals and the son of a cabinet minister who are in this department and directing it are trying, too. Yes, they are very trying.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the hon. member?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The minister may ask a question only with the consent of the hon. member.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to entertain the minister's question when I am finished. I am sure he can keep it in mind until then. I am concerned about the lack of answers coming to the young people. The Globe and Mail refers to a video tape project here in Ottawa. According to the Globe and Mail, the project was approved on May 1 and unless action has been taken today these people have not yet received a penny. The summer is slipping by in idleness and six weeks have passed since this project was approved. This is what I am complaining about. In the same issue of the Globe and Mail it is reported that the Elizabeth Fry officials were assured by phone that their grant had been approved. Ten students were conned into not taking jobs on the basis of this money being expected. Two of them turned down forestry jobs. I am not here merely to criticize the program. I criticize the lack of action by the department.
[Mr. MacDonald (Egmont) .1
June 16, 1971

If government members resent this type of thing, then methinks they do protest too much.
What are the criteria for acceptance of programs? I submit that there never has been a clear definition of the criteria. On one occasion the government said that the regional unemployment situation was to be used as a measure. Another time, in answer to a question, we were told that the financial need of the student has not been used as a specific criterion for approval. Is there an equal division of money among the provinces on a per capita basis according to the number that will be employed? I do not think so. Ontario has 34.78 per cent of the population of Canada. I thank the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Stanbury) because this information came from his department today in answer to a simple telephone call. So far, this province has received $3.43 million out of the $14 million that has been spent, so it is definitely not allocated on a per capita basis because other provinces have received considerably more.
Why has the idea of profit making been so arbitrarily dismissed? Surely, there are some ventures in which this could and would provide a healthy motivation. Who in his right mind would suggest that none of these projects should be profit oriented? Who says that industry could not stand the competition? Who says that industry would not welcome competition in worthwhile projects? Industry has offered to co-operate, and later I will cite some examples. I thought the programs should have been designed to supply opportunities so that in the fall students would have a few bucks in their hot little hands to give the registrar at a university. But no, this program evidently, from the evidence that I can gather, is designed for self expression. That is the thrust of this program.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but it being five forty-five o'clock, it is my duty, pursuant to section (10) of Standing Order 58, to interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of all business of supply now before the House, including and bill or bills based thereon.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That Vote 25, in the amount of $1,976,000 of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs for program expenditures of the Prices and Incomes Commission, for the fiscal years ending March 31, 1972 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.
Division


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen: Mr. Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is as follows:
Mr. Drury, seconded by Mr. MacEachen moves that Vote 1, in the amount of $3,568,500 of the Senate for program expenditures-
Order, please. Is the hon. member seeking the floor?


Roch La Salle: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I should like to know if my vote was duly registered.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's vote was registered. The officers of the Chair assured themselves of that, with the yeas. After the intervention of the hon. member to indicate his concern, hon. members might allow the Chair to put the question again.
Mr. Drury, seconded by Mr. MacEachen moves that Vote 1, in the amount of $3,568,500 of the Senate for program expenditures including an allowance in lieu of residence to the Speaker of the Senate, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1972 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member lor Joliette.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Joliette was on his feet and the Chair was concerned.
Business of the Home
service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1972, be read the first time and printed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. Drury thereupon moved that Bill C-249, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1972, be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Honey in the Chair.
Russell Clayton Honey: Shall clause 2 carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 6 inclusive agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall the schedule carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
On the schedule:


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I wish to indicate that votes Nos. 5 and 10 respecting the Solicitor General are to be agreed to on division.


Mr. Bell:: We want no more Bonaventure fiascos.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I support the motion. [English]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair had not asked those opposed to the motion to rise. The Chair will now ask those opposed to the motion-


Some hon. Members:: No, no, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I beg your pardon. We will continue.
After the taking of the vote:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1972, except those Votes concurred in this day, and less amounts voted in Interim Supply, be concurred in.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division. Motion agreed to.
Mr. Drury thereupon moved that Bill C-249, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Russell Clayton Honey: Shall I report the bill?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Bill reported.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, in order that we may know what opportunities there will be for parliamentarians to make their contributions, may I ask the President of the

June 16, 1971
Business of the House
Privy Council to indicate what we will be doing tomorrow?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to indicate to the House that tomorrow we will begin with the further consideration of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, followed by the Post Office bill, and on Friday pilotage, advance payments and other items that still remain.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being after six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning pursuant to the order made on Wednesday, June 2, 1971.
At 6.21 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.

Thursday, June 17, 1971