1973-02-07

PRIVILEGE


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising from certain comments by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) last evening during the debate, as recorded in Hansard on page 1024 on yesterday's proceedings. I would have raised the matter last night except that I was not listening intently at the moment he made these comments and, in fact, was not then using the translation equipment available. When the words were brought to my attention later I chose to wait until I could confirm them by reading Hansard today.
I do protest, through you, Sir, the use of certain words found in the following passage:
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I would not like to pass this opportunity to say to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) that he is incompetent and irresponsible and that he is deliberately misleading the House.
I would disagree but would not argue in terms of parliamentary usage with the use of the words "incompetent and irresponsible" but I most certainly do protest the words "he is deliberately misleading the House", which I on no occasion have done or would consider doing.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. minister has given notice of his intention to raise a question of privilege. The hon. minister and the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) and their colleagues know that some expressions are deemed out of order in parliament, particularly if they are offensive and likely to give rise to debates and discussions not in keeping with parliamentary tradition. Of course sometimes, during a debate, some hon. members are prone to using expressions which not only go beyond their thought but may seem offensive to those involved. That is the opinion of the hon. minister. I must, however, point out to him that an objection of one hon. member to terms used by another is rather a point of order than a point of privilege. Usage is quite clear in this respect. A member can rise on a point of order concerning offensive language. There is no doubt that the language the minister has mentioned is out of order. I refer hon. members to citations 155, 156 and the following of the fourth edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms. Citation 156 reads in part as follows:
The proper time for interference is when the offensive expressions are uttered, and not afterwards; and it may take place, either on the Speaker's voluntary motion, or on the call to order of the member assailed, or'of some other member, or the general call of the House.
In any event, I shall have to study the words in question, and have a look at Hansard, after which I shall decide whether or not I should intervene. However, knowing the hon. member for Lotbiniere and his respect for the rules of this House, I am sure he is not of those who, normally, would use offensive language or words which could be considered as such by the hon. member to whom they are addressed.
I thank the minister for having brought this matter to my attention. I shall study it at the first opportunity.



MR. LAMBERT (BELLECHASSE)-AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS OF RIDING REDISTRIBUTION COMMISSION

Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question of privilege concerning the revision of electoral boundaries which has followed the census of Quebec in 1971.
The federal electoral boundaries commission for Quebec has published a notice that public hearings would be held in various locations in the province to hear representations from those interested.
Mr. Speaker, I consider that an hon. member is certainly interested in stating before this commission his viewpoint and that of his constituents. To do this properly it would only be normal that he be acquainted with the records of the commission and briefs submitted during the previous revision which has ended in the establishment of the electoral map which has been in force since 1968.
In fact, although elected by the people, a member cannot have access to the documents of the commission, which in my view denies him his privileges. I feel that if we expect a member to keep the people informed he should be able to delve into the major reasons warranting changes made in 1968 so as to be able to appreciate adequately the changes proposed by the commission.
For that purpose, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin):
Than an Order of the House be given to the federal electoral boundaries commission in Quebec to make available to the members of the House the documents of the said commission since 1965.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Bellechasse has also given notice that he wanted to raise a question of privilege at the beginning of this sitting. I very seriously considered the point at issue and unfortunately I had to conclude that it is not essentially a question of privilege. I must say that I had some doubts in this connection and that I have given this motion a more serious and thorough consideration than I usually do under other circumstances because I thought that perhaps it was a borderline case which was perhaps a real question of privilege.

February 7, 1973
North Viet Nam
But after examining the motion moved by the hon. member, I think it is a substantive motion. The hon. member suggests that certain documents should be made available to members but the Standing Orders prescribe a procedure to be followed in such circumstances. The hon. member wants to move a motion for production of documents, a motion which could be in order, debated and voted on. It could even be carried unanimously by the House if the hon. member could convince his colleagues that this is a matter of interest to all of them.
In that sense, may I be allowed to suggest to the hon. member that his motion is a substantive one and that it should be moved as a motion for production of documents under the Standing Orders of the House.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary oi State ior External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the government has decided to recognize North Viet Nam, the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam. I am pleased to announce that last night the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) sent messages expressing his satisfaction at the signing of the Paris agreements to the Prime Minister of the Republic of Viet Nam, which Canada already recognizes as the sole legal government of South Viet Nam, and to the Premier of the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam. The message to the Premier of the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam, Pham Van Dong, and my statement today constitute our act of recognition of his government.
The effect of this decision is that Canada now accords equal status to the government of the Republic of Viet Nam and the government of the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam, which should facilitate the work of our delegation to the new International Commission for Control and Supervision. It is not our intention, at present, to establish diplomatic relations with either.


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) has seen fit not to inform us of his statement before 1.55, which obviously makes more difficult the reply of the official opposition. I hope that this does not reflect the consideration given to the question by the minister.
Mr. Speaker, the decision of which we have just been informed by the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) represents for our party a step which should facilitate the Canadian participation in the control

commission in Viet Nam and make it more consistent with its role.
I think it is just and reasonable that our country entertain balanced relationships on the matter of the cease fire between North and South Viet Nam.

It is also appropriate, particularly in view of the need that Canada must face in the area of reconstruction of both Viet Nams, that we maintain relations with Hanoi and Saigon. Our country has long established the practice of recognizing countries of differing political ideology and regime in order to foster a more productive international climate in terms of peace and co-operation. As has been the case with the recognition of other countries, this particular recognition must not be seen as an acceptance, either implicit or otherwise, of the political practices or philosophy of the country involved.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: Now that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has addressed himself to one of the outstanding matters concerning our continued role in Viet Nam, my colleagues await his decision to allow parliament to establish its views clearly and concisely by allowing the Viet Nam resolution to be brought back before the House for a clear and forthright vote by members of all parties. The country and those who are serving us overseas have the right to hear and see that vote.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would have liked to have a little notice so that I could have collected my thoughts on this subject in order to make the few brief remarks the rules permit me to make. However, I have no hesitation whatever in warmly welcoming the statement that has been made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp).
There are probably very few in this House who are sympathetic toward the political system and the ideology of North Viet Nam. There are also probably very few of us who are not aware of the fact that the people of that country are energetic, efficient and, some people would say, a heroic people who have suffered much. In our view, it is of the utmost importance that, in the period of reconstruction, in the period of pacification, in what we hope is a new era of peace in southeast Asia, Canada should be represented. I say once again that we warmly welcome this announcement and we believe it will be welcomed by the people of Canada.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, pursuant to Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that in all of the provinces participating in DREE programs the joint planning committees are standing in abeyance, reportedly not to be reconvened nor replaced, in view of the impending major policy announcement to the premiers of the
February 7, 1973

Atlantic region, scheduled for February 26, and in view of the fact that some of the consultants retained by DREE for formulating policies may have no contracts nor clearance under the Official Secrets Act, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie):
That the Standing Committee on Regional Development be immediately convened and the above matters investigated thoroughly.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's proposed motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. The motion cannot be put.


IMPOSITION BY UNITED STATES OF COUNTERVAILING
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. This motion arises out of the revelation yesterday that the Michelin Tire Corporation is going to receive $150 million in assistance to build two plants in the United States and the further revelation yesterday that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) has not yet moved on behalf of the government of Canada to protest the levying of a special countervailing duty against tires exported from Canada by Michelin. I therefore ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez):
That this House instructs the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to protest as soon as possible to GATT the American decision imposing a 6.6 per cent countervailing duty on Michelin tires exported from Canada to the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put.


MANPOWER
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I ask leave to move a motion on a very urgent matter, namely unemployment in Quebec. In this respect I wish that the House would consider the reason for the undue delay in implementing the numerous local initiative projects that have been submitted by people
Grain Movement
who are expecting a favourable reply from the department concerned which would reduce this serious unemployment problem.
Consequently, I wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That a special debate be held in the near future following an agreement between the House leaders so that the House can consider the problems of delays in accepting local initiative projects and the implications of this program on the distressing state of unemployment in Quebec particularly.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion proposed by the hon. member for Rimouski cannot be put without unanimous consent by this House.
Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimity. The motion cannot be put.
IEnglish]


Mr. Marshall:: Mr. Speaker, this is really a point of order. I had intended today to seek unanimous consent to move a motion that the basic rate of pensions be referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. I see that the minister has given notice of a motion to this effect. We would agree that this motion be put today rather than on Monday, with unanimous consent.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Meadow Lake.


MOVEMENT BY RAILWAYS-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, in view of reports from Saskatchewan that many grain elevators in the province are filled to capacity and that no trains have passed on certain railroad lines to collect the grain since November 29, which appears to represent an effective abandonment of service on certain railway lines, I ask the unanimous consent of the House under Standing Order 43 to move the following motion, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave):
That this House instruct the government to refer the matter of grain movement for immediate consideration by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and that the committee report to the House within one week.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put.

February 7, 1973
Order Paper Questions IMMIGRATION ACT


REMOVAL OF BAN ON ADMISSION OF PERSONS WITH HISTORY OF EPILEPSY
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-139, to amend the Immigration Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, in line with efforts on the part of many members for a number of years to secure the entry of certain people to this country as landed immigrants, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Immigration Act so as to remove the ban on persons with a history of epilepsy from being admitted as immigrants to Canada, thus complying with the desire of the former minister of manpower and immigration when he announced last autumn that this would be achieved during the present session.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Haliburton: 1.	When was the subsidization program for bait freezers discontinued and for what reason?
2.	Has a decision been taken to reinstate this program?
3.	What is the present state of the program?
4.	How many bait freezers are there in the constituency of South Western Nova and how many of these are subsidized?
5.	How many bait freezers are owned by (a) fish processing plants and which ones (b) associations controlled by fishermen and which ones?


Mr. William Rompkey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: 1. The subsidization program for bait freezers was discontinued on March 31, 1969 as a result of reduced bait needs of local fishermen caused by the decline in small boat inshore long-line fishing and the move to trawler operations for groundfish.
2.	No.
3.	The program is presently suspended.
4.	Of the 64 plants in the constituency of South Western Nova which have bait freezing capability, 22 bait units have been subsidized.
5.	(a) 57, G.K. Blades & Sons Ltd., Gunning Cove; Cape Ann Seafoods (E.C. Crowell), Port Latour; Fred Hopkins Ltd., Baccaro; James Stoddard, East Baccaro; B.C. Packers Ltd., Clark's Harbour C.S.I.; Sable Fish Packers Ltd., Clark's Harbour C.S.I.; E.C. Nickerson & Sons Ltd., Clark's Harbour C.S.I.; Stoddard's Fisheries Ltd., Clark's Harbour C.S.I.; F.E. Cunningham & Sons Ltd., Clark's Harbour C.S.I.; C.A. Nickerson Ltd., Clark's Harbour

C.S.I.; Etheron Nickerson Fisheries Ltd., Clark's Harbour C.S.I.; Charles & Robert Blades Ltd., Clark's Harbour C.S.I.; Joe E. Nickerson, West Head C.S.I.; Island Lobster Company Ltd., Clark's Harbour C.S.I.; Cape Lobster Ltd., Clark's Harbour C.S.I.; John C. Nickerson, Clark's Harbour; J. & J. Fisheries, Clark's Harbour; Woods Harbour Fisheries, Woods Harbour; James Wood Fisheries Ltd., Woods Harbour; Malone Brothers Ltd., Woods Harbour; Neil E. Nickerson Fisheries Ltd., Woods Harbour; Hopkins & Devine Fisheries Ltd., Woods Harbour; E.G.O. Fisheries Ltd., Woods Harbour; Clifford Greenwood, Shag Harbour; Howard Waybret, Shag Harbour; St. Clair Shand Fisheries Ltd., Shag Harbour; R.I. Smith Fisheries Ltd., Shag Harbour; Shag Harbour Fisheries Ltd., Shag Harbour; William C. Nickerson Fisheries Ltd., Crowell P.O.; Alpheus Hall, Bear Point; Clifford Hopkins, Bear Point; Cove Lobster Co. Ltd., Doctor's Cove; Stoney Island Fisheries Ltd., Stoney Island; Leroy L. Quinlan & Sons Ltd., Stoney Island (McGray's P.O.); Arthur Atkinson Fisheries Ltd., Newellton; G.M. Newell Fisheries Ltd., Newellton; Oscar Smith Fisheries Ltd., Shag Harbour; Charles E. Leblanc, Wedgeport; Leblanc Fisheries Ltd. (Alfred C. Leblanc), Wedgeport; Wedgeport Seafoods Ltd., Wedgeport; Chester C. Leblanc, Wedgeport; Maritime Packers Ltd., (National Sea Products), John's Island; Argyle Fish Products Ltd., Lower Argyle; D'Entremont Fisheries Ltd., Lower West Pubnico; Inshore Fisheries Ltd., Middle West Pubnico; Mitchell Atkinson Ltd., Middle West Pubnico; Walter D. Surette, Lower West Pubnico; East Side Fisheries Ltd., Lower East Pubnico; A.D. Cunningham & Son Ltd., Pubnico; Roderick S. Murphy, Little River Harbour; Bonda Foods Limited, Yarmouth; Amos Brannan & Sons Ltd., Yarmouth; L. Sweeney Fisheries Ltd., Yarmouth; Wilfrid Koritem Ltd., Yarmouth; I.M.O. Foods Ltd., Yarmouth; Atwood Brothers Ltd., Yarmouth Bar; Pinkney's Point Fisheries Ltd., Pinkney's Point; (b) 7, Woods Harbour Fishermen's Co-op Ltd., Woods Harbour; St. Michael's Coop Ltd., Wedgeport; United Maritime Fishermen Ltd., Lower Argyle; De La Tour Coop Society Ltd., Lower West Pubnico; Pubnico Coop. Association Ltd., Middle East Pubnico; Cape Fourchu Coop Ltd., Yarmouth Bar; Pinkney's Point Coop Ltd., Pinkney's Point.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Department of Supply and Services on publicity and/or information in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72?
2.	What were the names and addresses of firms or individuals who received these contracts, what amounts of money were spent in each case and what was the purpose of each contract?
3.	What contracts for publicity and/or information were awarded in the current fiscal year, what are the names and addresses of contractees, what are the amounts of money involved in each case and what is the purpose of each contract?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1. 1968-69, The DSS was not established until April 1, 1969; 1969-70, Nil; 1970-71, $28,823; 1971-72, Nil.
2.	For the fiscal year 1970-71: A contract for publicity was awarded to Gordon Hill Advertising Limited to carry out special advertising in Canadian daily newspapers to
February 7, 1973

inform government cheque recipients of a change in the format of the cheques.
3.	Nil.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	As of December 15, 1972 (a) how many applications for disability pensions had been received by the Canadian Pension Commission (b) how many applications for appeal of decisions made by the Canadian Pension Commission on applications for disability pensions had been received by the commission (c) how many applications for disability pensions (i) had completed statements of case prepared for adjudication by the commission (ii) had been refused by the commission (iii) had been approved, either wholly or partially, by the commission (d) how many applications for appeal of decisions had been decided by the Canadian Pension Commission?
2.	What is the total number of cases either under appeal or not yet decided upon by the commission as of December 30, 1972?
3.	Is the government intending to increase the number of support staff for the commission to speed up the adjudication and preparation for adjudication of applications or appeals of decisions and, if so, on what date?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Statistics shown in the following answers cover the period from March 30, 1971, the effective date of the extensive amendments to the Pension Act, to December 24, 1972, the cut off date for preparation of monthly pension statistical returns. 1. (a) On March 30, 1971 there were 2,497 applications for disability pension before the commission. This included approximately 900 Appeal Board applications which had been pending and which were held for consideration as first applications under the more liberal provisions of the revised Pension Act. Between March 30, 1971 and December 24, 1972 an additional 15,412 applications for disability pensions were received; (b) Between March 30, 1971 and December 24, 1972, the commission received 2,108 applications for appeal of decisions on applications for entitlement to disability pensions; (c) (i) Statements of case are required only in respect bf applications for appeal to Entitlement Boards of the commission. 1,515 applications for disability pension which had been turned down in whole or in part have had Statements of Case prepared for consideration by Entitlement Boards; (ii) Between March 30, 1971 and December 24, 1972, 7,515 applications for disability pension were refused by the commission at the first level. (See Note); (iii) Between March 30, 1971 and December 24, 1972 4,422 applications for disability pensions were approved by the commission, either wholly or partially, at the first level. (See Note); Note: the number of applications shown as refused in (c) (ii) above and approved in (c) (iii) above are totals of decisions tabulated separately in respect of periods of service in World War I, World War II, Korea and Peacetime Service. Some applicants had claims in respect of more than one period of service, (d) Between March 30, 1971 and December 24, 1972, 576 applications for appeal of entitlement decisions were decided by Entitlement Boards of the commission. Of this number 244 were wholly or partially allowed and 332 were disallowed. In addition 257 appeals on quantum of awards were decided as a result of personal appearances before
Order Paper Questions
two Commissioners under section 67 of the Pension Act. Of these 111 were wholly or partially allowed and 146 were disallowed.
2.	As of December 24, 1972 there were 9,591 applications for disability pension awaiting a decision of the Commission at the first level. In addition there were 1,532 appeals to Entitlement Boards of the commission not yet decided on. Of these 1,532 cases, 382 have been heard or are listed for hearings in the near future; 557 are awaiting certification by the applicant or his representative that he is ready to proceed with the hearing; and 593 are awaiting preparation of Statements of Case.
3.	An increase in the support staff of the commission has been approved. The additional staff is being hired and trained as rapidly as possible on a priority basis.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to give active consideration to issuing, where it has the authority to do so, instructions which would permit constituents to call the Ottawa office of a Member of Parliament toll free?
2.	Is the government doing so now?
3.	What would be required to effect such a decision, in the way of authorization?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Insofar as the Department of Communications is concerned: 1. The matter as to whether or not the government intends to issue instructions that would provide for constituents to call the Ottawa office of a Member of Parliament toll free is one for consideration by the Committee on Internal Economy and approval by the Speaker of the House of Commons since it is within their purview and responsibility.
2.	See above.
3.	The Sergeant-at-Arms would be required to authorize the Government Telecommunications Agency to provide the necessary leased telecommunications services on a reimbursable basis, including nominal overhead charges, in order to provide for constituents to call the Ottawa office of an M. P. toll free.


Mr. Gilbert: How many properties were acquired by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation under Section 8 of the National Housing Act for every hundred mortgaged loans insured by CMHC, in each of the past five calendar years, distributed according to family income groups of the borrower ($1,000 interval with no cutoff)?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: See following table. Data on family income of borrowers at the time of mortgage foreclosure are not available.

February 7, 1973
Order Paper Questions
Number of Claims Paid by the Mortgage Insurance Fund, 1967-71 NHA Section 8
Approved Lenders (Sec. 6)	CMHC (Sec. 58)	TotalNo. of Loans No. of Claims No. of Loans No. of Claims No. of Loans No. of Claims Year	Outstanding1	Paid	Outstanding1	Paid	Outstanding1	Paid1967	
265,312	113	206,247	235	471,559	3481968	
276,948	28	216,428	131	493,376	1591969	
280,983	41	228,427	135	509,410	1761970	
300,470	57	241,020	98	541,490	1551971	
345,862	116	247,488	94	593,350	210
'As at December 31st.


Mr. Forrestall: By region in Canada, what was the strontium 90 level at the end of (a) January 1970 (b) January 1971 (c) January 1972?
guages. The plaque in question containing the Coat of Arms was inadvertently reported as a unilingual sign and removed, (b) It was later determined that this plaque should not have been reported as a unilingual sign.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. The strontium 90 levels, in units of picocuries per litre of milk, are as follows:
January	January	January1970	1971	1972British Columbia	8.0	7.2	5.9Prairie Provinces	8.2	6.6	6.9Ontario	7.4	8.0	7.6Quebec	8.1	8.4	8.3Maritime Provinces	10.7	9.7	9.7Newfoundland	16.0	11.8	14.0


Mr. Caouette (Charlevoix): What were the costs of (a) construction of the airport at Forest-velle (b) maintenance of the airport since its opening (c) repairs and improvements since that date?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: (a) Construction cost, excluding land purchase, of the airport at Forestville was $469,000; (b) The airport is maintained by the municipality and received an average of $4,000 per year in operating subsidies from 1961 to 1969 inclusive. It ceased to be eligible in 1970 when Class II service was discontinued; (c) Improvement has been made in the form of an NDB building at a cost of $11,000; (NDB: Non-directional beacon).


Mr. Cossit: Was the Canadian Coat of Arms removed from the main wall of the Canada Customs Office at the Port of Johnstown, Ontario, at some point prior to October 30, 1972 and, if so (a) what was the source of the instructions to the Collector of Customs to make this removal (b) for what reason were such instructions later reversed?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: Yes, it was removed at the Bridge Customs Office, Johnstown, Ontario. (Port of Prescott), (a) During 1971-72 a survey was taken to determine what unilingual identity signs were in existence in order that the Department could plan a program for conversion to both official lan-
[Mr. Basford.J


Mr. Cossitt: Was a photograph of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip placed on the main wall of the Canada Customs Office at the Port of Johnstown, Ontario, shortly after October 30,1972 and, if so, what was the source of the instructions to the Collector of Customs in this regard?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Yes. Photographs of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip are listed in the Department of Supply and Services catalogue for issue to departmental requisitioning officers on an as required basis. The Collector of Customs and Excise at Prescott, Ontario, within his authority, requisitioned for this photograph to be displayed in the Bridge Customs Office at Johnstown, Ontario. No specific instructions were given to the Collector concerning this matter.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	(a) How many collective agreements have been signed by the Department of National Defence and the General Trades and Labourers group of the Union of National Defence Employees in the past four years that involved any retroactive payments of wages (b) on what date were the agreements signed (c) what were the effective and expiry dates?
2.	How many workers affected by the collective agreements received retroactive pay back to the effective date of the collective agreements?
3.	How many persons affected by these agreements received retroactive pay for a period less than their full period of employment covered in the agreement, because they were designated new personnel according to the Public Service Staff Relations Act, and obliged to serve six months before eligibility for this entitlement?
4.	How many persons hired before the expiry date of the former agreements were laid off within a 30 day period prior to the effective date of the renewal agreements, and rehired within a 30 day period after the effective date of the renewal agreements and were thus excluded from receipt of retroactive wages for the first six months of their employment covered by the renewal agree-
February 7, 1973

ment and to how many such persons did this happen on more than one occasion?
5.	What is the total retroactive wages lost by persons covered by collective agreements in DND and as a result of such lay-offs occurring within 30 days prior to the expiry date of their collective agreements and rehired within 30 days after the effective date of the renewal agreement?


Hon. lames Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: 1.	(a) No collective agreements have been signed between the Department of National Defence and the Union of National Defence Employees in the past four years. However, three collective agreements were entered into between the Treasury Board and the Public Service Alliance of Canada on behalf of the General Labour and Trades bargaining unit.
(b)
Date Signed
(c)
Effective Date Expiry Date
September 27, 68 March 12, 71 October 31, 72
October 1, 66 September 30, 68 November 23, 71
September 30, 68 November 23, 71 November 24, 74
2,	3, 4 and 5. This information is not readily available and in view of the continuing heavy commitments and workload of the Departmental Personnel Officers, additional staff would be required in a large number of field units to compile the requested information. The department does not have the resources that would be required to employ such additional staff.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	How many collective agreements have been entered into by the Department of National Defence and the General Trades and Labourers group of the Union of National Defence Employees in the past four years, and in each case (a) on what date were they signed (b) how much time had elapsed between the signing date and the effective date of the renewal agreement?
2.	By trade classification (a) how many of those employed by DND were affected by each of these agreements (b) how many persons in the bargaining unit were laid off within a 30 day period prior to the date the agreements were signed (c) how many such persons were rehired within a 30 day period after the signing of the agreements?
3.	Were all persons as described in Part 2(c) granted full retroactive pay for the period worked under the renewal collective agreement and, if not, (a) how many (b) for what reasons?
4.	What was the total retroactive pay lost by persons so employed, laid off and subsequently rehired as defined above?
5.	Have any persons as described in Part 2(c) lost retroactive pay on more than one occasion in the past four years as a result of being so laid off and subsequently rehired after the signing of the renewal agreement and, if so (a) how many by trade classification (b) on how many occasions?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1.	No collective agreements have been entered into between the Department of National Defence and the General Labour and Trades group of the Union of National Defence Employees in the past four years. However, three collective agreements were entered into between the Treasury Board and the Public Service Alliance of
Order Paper Questions
Canada on behalf of the General Labour and Trades bargaining unit.
(a)
Date Signed September 27, 68 March 12, 71 October 31, 72
(b)
Effective Date October 1, 66 September 30, 68 November 30, 71
2,	3, 4 and 5. This information is not readily available and in view of the continuing heavy commitments and workload of the Departmental Personnel Officers, additional staff would be required in a large number of field units to compile the requested information. The department does not have the resources that would be required to employ such additional staff.


Mr. Carter: 1.	Has the Department of the Environment or any other department undertaken studies into the distribution and abundance of caplin off the Canadian East Coast and, if so, what was the result of the study and are further studies into this matter planned?
2.	Was a promotional demonstration carried out in 1972 in the USA and this country by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to determine the acceptability of caplin as a marketable food fish and, if so, what was the result of the demonstration and will further demonstrations be undertaken?


Mr. lohn M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Department of the Environment and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce as follows: 1. Yes, results of the 1972 survey by Federal Fisheries indicate that offshore caplin resources are distributed throughout the Grand Banks fishing area during late winter and early spring, and off Labrador in early winter. Experimental fishing on the Grand Banks produced catch rates between 30-50 tons per set (midwater trawling and purse seining). Estimates are that at least half a million tons of caplin can be harvested from the offshore stocks annually. It is planned to continue caplin explorations during 1973.
2. A promotional demonstration was carried out in the United States, in 1972 by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce with results indicating that caplin has potential as a food fish. Depending on the supply situation, further demonstrations will be considered.


Mr. Wagner: 1.	On what date was Mr. Ivan Head appointed to the Prime Minister's office?
2.	What is his position and what are his duties?
3.	Since assuming his post, how many countries has he visited in the performance of the duties of his office and on what dates?
4.	With what national leaders of ministerial rank did he hold discussions?
5.	On how many occasions did Mr. Head visit the United Nations in the performance of the duties of his office?

February 7, 1973
Order Paper Questions
6.	Upon his return from such missions is it usual for Mr. Head to report to the Secretary of State for External Affairs?
7.	What External Affairs officers accompanied him on visits referred to in Parts 3 and 5?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: 1. September 1, 1968.
2. Special Assistant to the Prime Minister. To assist the Prime Minister in the preparation of public statements; to offer such advice and assistance on policy matters and to undertake such assignments as may be requested of him by the Prime Minister.
3 and 4. The following list excludes visits made by Mr. Head in circumstances of a non-inter-governmental nature. Nigeria, October 1968, Head of the Federal Military Government, General Yakubu Gowon. Great Britain, January 1969, accompanying the Prime Minister to the Commonwealth Prime Minister's Conference. Italy, January 1969, accompanying Prime Minister. U.S.A., March 1969, accompanying Prime Minister. Nigeria, June 1969, Head of the Federal Military Government, General Yakubu Gowon. Tanzania, June 1969, President Julius Nyerere. U.S.A., September, 1969. Nigeria, December,
1969,	Head of the Federal Military Government, General Yakubu Gowon. U.S.A., March, 1970. New Zealand, May,
1970,	accompanying Prime Minister. Australia, May, 1970, accompanying Prime Minister. Malaysia, May, 1970, accompanying Prime Minister. Singapore, May, 1970, accompanying Prime Minister. Japan, May, 1970, accompanying Prime Minister. USSR, June, 1970. Sweden, June,
1970.	Great Britain, July, 1970. U.S.A., August, 1970. U.S.A., November, 1970. Tanzania, December, 1970, President Julius Nyerere. Zambia, December, 1970, President Kenneth Kaunda. Pakistan, January, 1971, accompanying Prime Minister. India, January, 1971, accompanying Prime Minister. Singapore, January, 1971, accompanying Prime Minister to Commonwealth Conference. Indonesia, January, 1971, accompanying Prime Minister. Ceylon, January, 1971, accompanying Prime Minister. Iran, January, 1971, accompanying Prime Minister. USSR, May,
1971,	accompanying Prime Minister. U.S.A., December,
1971,	accompanying Prime Minister. Tanzania, January,
1972,	President Julius Nyerere. Zambia, January, 1972, President Kenneth Kaunda. Nigeria, February, 1972, Head of the Federal Military Government, General Yakabu Gowon. Jamaica, August, 1972, Prime Minister Michael Manley. U.S.A., November, 1972. Great Britain, December, 1972, accompanying Prime Minister.
5.	November, 1968 (with Prime Minister): November, 1969 (with Prime Minister): July, 1970: June, 1972.
6.	Mr. Head reports to the Prime Minister during and on his return from these missions. Copies of these reports are made available concurrently to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and discussions with that Minister follow Mr. Head's return.
7.	This answer refers only to those visits listed in parts 3 and 5 when Mr. Head was not accompanying the Prime Minister. In every instance but one, Mr. Head was accompanied in his discussions with Heads of Government by the Canadian Head of Mission. In discussions with senior officials he was accompanied by the responsible officer of

the Canadian Embassy or the Canadian High Commission (which in some cases was the Head of Mission). On each visit to the U.N., he was accompanied by the Canadian Ambassador.


Mr. Cossitt: What was the numerical strength of the Canadian Armed Forces at the end of (a) April, 1968 (b) October, 1972?


James Armstrong Richardson: Paid strength as of April 30, 1968, 100,897; October 31, 1972, 82,849.


Mr. Whittaker: 1.	Was there a decision by the government to establish a telescope on Mount Kobau in British Columbia and, if so, when was that decision taken?
2.	Was a subsequent decision taken not to go forward with the telescope on Mount Kobau and, if so, on what date and for what reason?
3.	Was a telescope constructed for installation on Mount Kobau and, if so (a) by whom (b) at what cost (c) where is the telescope at the present time?
4.	Has any reconsideration been given to the installation of the telescope at Mount Kobau, or at any other site, since the decision was taken not to install it on Mount Kobau and, if so (a) what other sites are being considered (b) on what date will a decision be rendered?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: In
so far as the National Research Council of Canada is concerned, the answer is as follows: 1. A decision to establish a telescope on Mount Kobau was taken by the government in September, 1964.
2.	The government decided to discontinue the project in August, 1968. Revised cost estimates were far higher than earlier estimates and many scientists felt that the use of the telescope would be severely restricted by unfavorable viewing conditions.
3.	Construction of the telescope had not begun when the project was discontinued. Feasibility studies only had been completed and the primary mirror blank and necessary polishing machines purchased. The blank and large polishing machine were turned over to WESTAR, a consortium of Canadian universities, in 1970 by the then Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
4.	No further consideration has been given by the government to the installation of the telescope on Mount Kobau. Scientific appraisal has led to the conclusion that no site in Canada, including Mount Kobau, is as suitable as other sites such as Chile and Hawaii. The government has under consideration a proposal from France to share equally in the construction and operation of a telescope in Hawaii. No date has been set for a decision.
February 7, 1973


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	Is it the intention of the government and/or the Department of National Defence to do away with regimental badges and the black beret worn by members of the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps?
2.	With what are they intended to be replaced?
3.	Has any survey been taken on the effect of such removal of insignia and uniform on the morale of the men involved?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. No. It is not the intention to do away with regimental badges. Armoured Corps units have the option of wearing either the black or green beret.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Field unit and individual preferences were considered in the decision to retain regimental insignia and other items that distinguish an individual's occupation or group affiliation.


Mr. Howie: What were the numbers in Camp Gagetown, New Brunswick of (a) armed forces personnel (b) civilian DND personnel, on January 1, in each year 1971,1972 and 1973?


James Armstrong Richardson: January 1, January 1, January 1, 71	72	73
(a)	Armed Forces
personnel	3,729	3,349	3,250(b) Civilian personnel 617	833	682


Mr. Masniuk: Was there any English translation of the Throne Speech as it was being delivered in French on the English CBC-TV network and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. lames Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: There was no translation because, after the broadcast of previous Throne Speeches, when translation was provided, there followed a substantial public reaction against simultaneous translation. The Corporation recognizes the difficulties created for some viewers and is studying various alternatives for future use.


Mr. Godin: Has the Public Service Alliance recently signed a contract with Treasury Board on behalf of the Department of National Defence employees at Valcartier and, if so (a) what is the nature of the
Order Paper Questions
contract (b) what are the working conditions (c) will a salary increase be granted and on what date?


James Armstrong Richardson: Since October 1, 1972, the Public Service Alliance and the Treasury Board signed three contracts which affect the employees at CFB Valcartier: (a) (i) General Labour and Trades signed 31 October, 1972, expiring 24 November, 1974; (ii) Heating Power and Stationery Plant Operation signed 16 November, 1972, expiring 29 September, 1974; (iii) Drafting and Illustration signed 5 December, 1972, expiring 22 September, 1974; (b) The contracts are designed to maintain harmonious and mutually beneficial relationships between the employer, the employees and the alliance by setting forth certain terms and conditions of employment relating to remuneration hours of work, employee benefits and general working conditions; (c) Each one of these contracts contains salary increases which have been paid and future increases which will be paid as they become due.


Mr. Latulippe: How many vacant positions are there in the Public Service Commission?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 148, as of January 25, 1973.


Mr. Latulippe: 1.	During the fiscal year 1967-68, did the Department of External Affairs pay Mr. M. Plamondon of Sillery, Quebec any amount in return for services rendered?
2.	What was the amount paid?
3.	What was the nature of his services?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Yes.
2.	$5,424.49
3.	He sculptured a bronze statue of the Marquis de Montcalm for Canada House in London.


Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	When is it intended to construct a second national park in Prince Edward Island?
2.	What is the proposed location of such a park?
3.	What proportion of the cost of acquisition of the required land will be borne by the government?
4.	What representations have been made by the government of Prince Edward Island in reference to such construction?
5.	In each of the provinces, what are the dates of establishment of national parks?
6.	What is the area of each such park?

Order Paper Questions


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. No agreement has been reached for the establishment of a second national park in Prince Edward Island.
2.	Discussions with the Province of Prince Edward Island have identified the area of East Point as having national park potential.
3.	Under the normal terms of a national park agreement, the province provides a core area of approximately 25 per cent at no cost to Canada. Canada pays 50 per cent of the cost of acquiring the remaining lands.
4.	Representations have been made on several occasions, the first being in 1969 and the most recent in January, 1972.		
	5	6
Park	Date	Area inBritish Columbia	Established	square milesGlacier	1886	521.0Kootenay	1920	532.0Mount Revelstoke	1914	101.4Yoho	1886	507.0Pacific Rim*	1970	150.0Alberta	Banff	1885	2,564.0Elk Island	1913	75.0Jasper	1907	4,200.0Waterton Lakes	1895	203.0Wood Buffalo**	1922	13,650.0Saskatchewan	Prince Albert	1927	1,496.0Manitoba	Riding Mountain	1927	1,149.0Yukon Territory	Kluane*	1972	8,500.0Northwest Territories	Wood Buffalo**	1922	3,650.0Nahanni*	1972	1,840.0Baffin Island*	1972	8,290.0Ontario	Georgian Bay Islands	1929	5.48Point Pelee	1918	9.6St. Lawrence Islands	1914	1.6Pukaskwa*	1971	725.0Quebec	Forillon*	1970	92.85La Mauricie*	1970	210.0New Brunswick	Fundy	1948	79.5Kouchibouguac	1969	87.0Nova Scotia	Cape Breton Highlands	1937	367.0Kejimkujik*	1969	147.3Ship Harbour*	1972	225.0
Park
Prince Edward Island Prince Edward Island
Newfoundland Terre Nova Gros Morne**
Date
Established
1957
6
Area in square miles
7.0
153.1
750.0
* Will be added to schedule when negotiations or survey is completed.
** Wood Buffalo National Park lies partly in Alberta and partly in the Northwest Territories. Total area of this park is 17,300 square miles.


Mr. McKenzie: Has a staff been allocated to monitor the hiring practices of corporations and business involved in the new tax reductions as set down by the June Budget and, if so, how many?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: No.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): Did the initial three minutes, 30 seconds speech of the Her Majesty's Christmas message televised by CBC at 11.00 a.m. PST, Christmas Day, 1972, reach Victoria, British Columbia and other western provinces without sound and, if so, for what reason?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: The broadcast in question originated in Toronto. It was fed to our delay centre in Calgary for broadcast to Western regions at 10 a.m. local time. While it was being received in Calgary for recording, a break occurred in the telephone lines between Regina and Calgary, cutting off the sound portion. Alternative facilities were provided by the network carrier, Trans-Canada Telephone System, after a break of nearly two minutes. The interim was filled with music. A repeat of Her Majesty's complete message was offered the same evening.


Mr. Stackhouse: 1.	How many men and women are serving in the Canadian Armed Forces?
2.	How many are (a) brigadier-generals or higher (b) officers of lower rank (c) non-commissioned officers (d) privates?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. Effective December 31, 1972, the total strength of the Canadian Armed Forces was 83,048 including 1,810 female members.
2. (a) Brigadier-General and above, 110; (b) Officers of lower rank, 15,186; (c) Non-commissioned officers, 52,961; (d) Privates, 14,791.

February 7, 1973


Mr. Diefenbaker: Has the National Film Board removed from its libraries across the country the following three films (a) "The Sceptre and The Mace" (b) "The Queen Opens Parliament" (c) "The Queen in Canada" and, if so, on what date and for what reason?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the National Film Board as follows: Yes, for reasons mentioned in reply to Question 528 on January 31. National Film Board Headquarters advised their Regional Offices on the following dates to withdraw these films: (a) March 19, 1972; (b) July 12, 1972; (c) August 10, 1972.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Department of Manpower and Immigration on publicity and/or information in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72?
2.	What were the names and addresses of firms or individuals who received these contracts, what amounts of money were spent in each case and what was the purpose of each contrac'?
3.	What contracts for publicity and/or information were awarded in the current fiscal year, what are the names and addresses of contractees, what are the amounts of money involved in each case and what is the purpose of each contract?
Return tabled.


Mr. Woolliam8:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have on the order paper questions Nos. 425, 426, 427 and 428. They have been there so long that the conference fhentioned in 426, about which I inquired as to the date, is already over. I would ask leave to withdraw that question, but I wonder whether I could get an answer to the other questions nexf time?


John Mercer Reid: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will look into it.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 85, 124 and 131 are acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents and the authorization of the government. Notice of motion for the production of papers No. 27 is acceptable to the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we should try to take this in order. My understanding is that the parliamentary secretary is suggesting that motion No. 27 be adopted. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motions for Papers



TABLING OF REPORT ENTITLED &quot;TASK FORCE ON MUNICIPAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL&quot;

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 27-Mrs. Maclnnis:
That an Order of the House do issue for the tabling of the report entitled "Task Force on Municipal Sewage Disposal" prepared by George Seaden under the authority of the Minister of Urban Affairs.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the hon. parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that notices of motion Nos. 85, 124 and 131 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING THE PEACEKEEPING ROLE OF CANADA IN SOUTH VIET NAM

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 85-Mr. Broadbent:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of correspondence between the government and the governments of the United States and North Viet Nam, concerning the proposed peacekeeping role of Canada in South Viet Nam.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 124-Mr. Dinsdale:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence, telegrams, memoranda and other documents received by the government urging the issuance of a special stamp commemorating the Silver Anniversary of the Royal Couple and the replies thereto.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 131-Mr. Forrestall:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of any correspondence exchanged between the province of Nova Scotia and the government of Canada, or any authority acting on their behalf, since December 1, 1969, together with maps and any other documents including the Memorandum of Agreement, and the minutes of any meetings that have been held by the Joint Federal Provincial Advisory Committee, with respect to the establishment of a third national park in the province of Nova Scotia along the eastern shore of that province.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions stand?


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago I asked about notice of motion No. 34. May I ask the parliamentary secretary again when action will be forthcoming on this motion?


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, motion No. 34 that has been approved for agreement of the House sub-

Motions for Papers
ject only to the consent of the government of British Columbia. If the House is agreeble perhaps the order could go subject to the approval of the government of British Columbia with regard to the tabling of these minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



MINUTES OF THE BRITISH COLUMBIA-CANADA LIAISON COMMITTEE ON THE COLUMBIA RIVER

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 34-Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the Minutes of the British Columbia-Canada Liaison Committee on the Columbia River from 1958 until the signing of the Treaty with the USA in January 1961.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Howard:: Mr. Speaker, earlier this session I raised a point of order regarding five notices of motions for the production of papers, numbers 36 to 40 inclusive, which are of a vintage long in advance of the commencement of this session. I understood that the parliamentary secretary was going to inquire about these motions. Could he now advise when we might expect them to be dealt with?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I would hope by next
Wednesday.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Oral questions. Is the hon. member for Yukon rising on a point of order?


Mr. Nielsen:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Because of the importance of the matter raised by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), I wonder whether the House would be disposed to give unanimous consent to refer the item listed under notices of government motions today, the report of the joint study group on basic rate of pensions, tabled on January 31, 1973, to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, consent being required to refer it immediately rather than waiting?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether that is a point of order. I think it would have to be charged to the hon. member as a question.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer that we hold this over to decide whether it might be useful to have a debate on this motion for at least a day.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: have a question for the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister any explanation, be it fear of inflation or something else, why he has not adopted a more expansionary stance when it has become apparent that the target he set in his budget last May for job creation has not been met? I ask this question in view of the minister's statement at that time that-"the growth of jobs should be considerably larger than last year", whereas in fact figures issued by Statistics Canada indicate that the number of jobs created in 1971 was 334,000 as against 220,000 in 1972, about one-third short of the minister's target.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will not object to the minister replying to the hon. member's question, but it seems to me that a question of this kind, while being of interest to all members, is so wide in its nature that it invites a somewhat lengthy reply which normally should be made on motions. The Chair will recognize the minister for the purpose of replying as briefly as possible to the question posed by the Leader of the Opposition.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has really brought up a debating point which I will deal with on another occasion. Job creation in terms of jobs created has been very encouraging this year, only outdistanced still by a rapidly increasing labour force which we have to expect for the next two or three years.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have to ask the Minister of Finance whether he feels he has met his target when he is 114,000 jobs short of it. Does he also feel he has met his target when he predicted an increase in the rate of growth in 1972 of between 6 per cent and 6.5 per cent whereas indications now are that the real growth figure will be in the range of 5 per cent to 5.5 per cent?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman does not know at the moment, nor do I, until the fourth quarter figures are available. We will not know until we get the final figures on the national accounts which will be published three or four weeks from now, and even after that they are subject to revision. The hon. gentleman is no more sure of his figure of 5 per cent to 5.5 per cent than I am of 6 per cent to 6.5 per cent at the moment.


Mr. Hees:: What about jobs, John?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he is aware that ministers of finance who take this attitude toward jobs are also subject to revision?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
(Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale).j


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member resume his seat. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Don Valley in a moment. I thought I should caution hon. members that we should attempt not to get involved in a general debate as we did yesterday.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest we should not and should attempt to give an opportunity to other members who are anxious to ask questions. From the point of view of the Chair, that is the only consideration I have in mind. A number of hon. members are anxious to ask questions. For the moment the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Don Valley.


Mr. lames Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance. Have he or officials of his department calculated what the unemployment rate would be had the provinces of Ontario and Quebec not been following such expansionary fiscal policies?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


FISCAL MEASURES TO STIMULATE EMPLOYMENT IN AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. In light of the fact that employment in agriculture is down by some 20,000 people compared with January, 1972, will the minister indicate whether he is going to undertake any new fiscal measures to stimulate employment in the Canadian agricultural industry?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am in touch with the very progressive and ambitious Minister of Agriculture who makes that point-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: And very talkative, too.


An hon. Member:: Aggressive and confused.


John Napier Turner: He makes that point in far more succinct terms than the hon. gentleman.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether there will be any specific employment measures for the agricultural sector in the budget, and whether the government has reversed its policy with regard to reducing manpower in agriculture?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to accept the argument within the question, but I hope the hon. gentleman is here on the night of February 19.


Mr. Baldwin:: We will be here for the vote anyway.


Mitchell William Sharp: He doesn't care about the budget, he just cares about the vote.
Oral Questions


UNEMPLOYMENT LEVEL IN NEXT FEW MONTHS
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the disclosure yesterday that one of the reasons the unemployment insurance fund went over the ceiling was the inability of the minister's department to forecast the unemployment level properly, can the minister indicate whether he has corrected that situation and is now in a position to indicate what the unemployment level will be in the next few months?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have never been in the business of forecasting.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Who is the next leader of the Liberal party?


Mr. Peters:: This is going to be some budget.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, in view of the disastrous consequences of the minister's complacency, will he give some attention to forecasting?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-SUGGESTED ALLOTMENT OF ADDITIONAL FUNDS TO REDUCE UNEMPLOYMENT IN QUEBEC
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance.
After the publication of the latest figures on unemployment which indicate that unemployment is more than 10 per cent in Quebec, could he tell the House whether he intends to earmark additional funds for the Local Initiatives Program in Quebec in order to contribute with the people to stop unemployment?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am still considering the representations made by the hon. member.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Does the hon. minister mean, as I did not understand his answer, that he is agreeable that an increase of at least $10 million be included in the budget of the Local Initiatives Program in Quebec?


UNEMPLOYMENT TARGET
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Now that his government has established a new all-time record of having an average of 564,000 Canadians out of work for 12 straight months-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member knows that questions should not be prefaced in this way. Hon. members know they should ask questions and not

February 7, 1973
Oral Questions
make statements. I invite the hon. member to do this and ask his question now.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister indicate to the House what his actual target is in respect of unemployment in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As low a rate as possible, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSSIBILITY OF INCREASED DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCES FOR CORPORATIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance seeking clarification of an answer he gave yesterday to the hon. member for York South. Is it his intention to propose further increases in depreciation allowances in the corporate sector beyond the first six months of the present year, in terms of future budgetary policies of the government?


An hon. Member:: They are as worried about this as you are.
Hon. ]ohn N. Turner (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will just have to wait and see.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF DOCUMENTS ON WHICH UNEMPLOYMENT FORECAST IN MAY, 1972, BUDGET BASED
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Will he give consideration to placing before the House the internal or working documents on which he based his forecast in respect of unemployment, particularly in the context of a budget that was dedicated to reducing unemployment significantly, before the new budget is presented on February 19 so we may have some idea of just what priority the government accords employment in the country?


Gerald William Baldwin: Benson left some of his papers behind.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the problem here is, as I tried to explain to the House on another occasion-


Mr. Fairweather:: We know all about the problem.


John Napier Turner: -that we cannot look at individual targets separately. Our goals of full employment, growth and price stability are interrelated and, as the Economic Council of Canada pointed out in its ninth annual review, for the purpose of forecasting targets there has been too much emphasis placed on too few indicators. I say again to the House that targets cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. The Canadian economy particularly is a vulnerable one, subject to world movement of trade and prices.


An hon. Member:: Tell us on the 19th.


John Napier Turner: I am just suggesting-


An hon. Member:: Bring back Benson.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the Leader of the Opposition for a last supplementary question on this subject for the time being and then go to the next matter. If we have time we will return to this subject which is obviously of interest to hon. members.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in view of the answer just given by the Minister of Finance suggesting that unemployment and inflation are not all-important as priorities-I say all-important as priorities-


Mitchell William Sharp: You said that.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -and that other indicators ought to be upgraded, I should like to ask whether this means the minister has abandoned the statement he has made frequently that the creation of employment and the reduction of unemployment is his first goal?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is again playing with words. Of course the provision of jobs is my number one priority and will remain so. But in terms of the setting of targets and looking at the statistical targets about which I was asked in the House, I accept the advice of the Economic Council of Canada that a number of interrelated targets, 14 or 15 in number, must be considered in order to get an over-all view of the economy. That does not mean in any way that I have abandoned the human priority I set, and the hon. gentleman knows it.


PROVISION BY RAILWAYS OF SUFFICIENT CARS FOR MOVEMENT-UPGRADING OF TRACKS NOT ABLE TO BEAR WEIGHT OF HOPPER CARS
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the fact the government has purchased 2,000 grain hopper cars and put them at the disposal of the CPR and CNR and that in spite of this they are still not providing adequate service in some of the major shipping blocks and elevator and grain delivery points are congested, will the minister bring pressure to bear on the railroads to provide the adequate service we deserve?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, in terms of grain arriving at destinations for export, Vancouver and Thunder Bay, it is evident that the railways are in fact putting into service the equipment required to move the grain. There are, of course, individual points in the prairie region at this time of the year that are congested as a result of the rather rapid increase in quotas prior to freeze-up which the Wheat Board put into effect in order to offer the farmers an opportunity to deliver before they
February 7, 1973___________________COMMONS DEBATES______________________________________1047
were snowed in. This congestion will certainly be removed rapidly as the record flow of grain for export continues.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, it would need to be rapid. May I point out to the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should ask a question as much as possible.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: In view of the statements made in the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee that over half the trackage in western Canada is of such a standard it will not carry the grain hopper cars the Canadian people purchased and gave to the railroads, will the minister hold discussions with the two major railroads and take up with them the matter of improving the condition of the railway tracks in western Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter which has already been discussed with the railways. Of course, the question of whether certain trackage could carry hopper cars was not very relevant until we began to acquire this kind of equipment. The tracks that can carry hopper cars are numerous enough to make full use of all cars acquired to date. The railways appreciate that as this equipment of the future is used more and more there are certain stretches of track that must be brought up to standard, and we are pressing them for action on that.


ANALYSIS BY WHEAT BOARD OF QUESTIONNAIRE ON HOLDINGS SENT TO PRODUCERS-SALES ACTIVITY
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether the Wheat Board has yet analysed the questionnaire sent to 170,000 farmers to find out whether the results indicate some disparity between the estimates made and the actual holdings of grain on farms?


Otto Emil Lang: The Wheat Board has been analysing the returns as they flow in. Something like half of the returns had been received as long ago as two weeks. The Wheat Board does intend to retain as confidential the information in these returns. A number of farmers made this very express condition in respect of supplying information. Therefore the board does not intend to reveal the facts which are compiling but they will certainly make use of them for their own marketing guidance.


Stanley James Korchinski: May I ask the minister whether as a result of the information received so far the Wheat Board is actively bidding on weekly tenders or whether, in view of the fact Commissioner Gibbings stated to the Palliser wheat growers that wheat stocks will be depleted by October, depending on deliveries by the farmers, the Wheat Board rather than seeking markets is twiddling its thumbs until October?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether a question asked in those terms is in order.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister might be permitted to reply to my serious question con-
Oral Questions
cerning whether the Wheat Board is actually seeking new markets or is just biding its time.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to tell the hon. member that the Wheat Board is continuing very actively in the selling business on world markets, and that we do have adequate supplies to achieve a record for the movement of grain into export this year and to start next year with record volumes again.


PROVISION OF RAILWAY CARS TO POINTS WITH LARGE SUPPLIES OF NON-BOARD GRAINS
Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Since the congestion at a number of points is due to very large supplies of non-board grains such as rye, flax and rapeseed which have accumulated because of the administration of the quotas by the Canadian Wheat Board, will the minister take such action as is necessary to provide additional railway cars to those points?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the Wheat Board through the block shipping system is placing the cars where the required grain can be obtained, with special attention to those areas where there is congestion. I drew this matter specifically to their attention. They agreed they would do everything possible within the block system to put the cars where they are needed. I do not agree with the hon. member's premise that it is non-board grains rather than board grains which are involved at this time.

[TranslationJ


MANPOWER
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Could he tell the House whether he is aware of the fact that, prior to the approval of a local initiatives project in Shefford, the municipal council or the individuals who are making an application must first obtain the blessings of the Liberal organization of the town or municipality?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that information. If the hon. member will give me the details I will look into it forthwith.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister and I thank him for his good intentions.
Is the minister ready to intervene with the municipal authorities involved to ensure that these problems will not be repeated and important projects will not be blocked because of local political manoeuvring?

February 7, 1973
Oral Questions ,


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. These are representations. The hon. member for Edmonton Centre has a supplementary question.
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre;: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in charge of the local initiatives program. In view of the minister's direct contribution toward a research program to establish the rate of incidence of child battery in Canada and in view of the fact that the program will investigate the socio-economic situation of the families in which child beating occurs, may I congratulate the minister on awarding a LIP grant to a very fine woman-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot congratulate the minister. He can ask him a question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw!


Mr. Paproski:: I withdraw the congratulations. But may I say that the minister awarded this grant to a very fine woman who was shafted out of the Liberal nomination in Edmonton Centre in the last federal election.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Steve Eugene Paproski: My question, Sir-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Steve Eugene Paproski: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


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


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I still think you're a great guy!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Knight Andras: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should think that if the hon. member is not permitted to congratulate me he should not be permitted to congratulate anybody else in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Would the right hon. gentleman inform the Houses whether his Minister of Agriculture was expressing the policy and views of the government when he stated on February

3 in London, Ontario, that "I am pleased that food prices have finally started to turn the corner and are rising", and again in Ottawa yesterday, I believe, when he used words to the effect that he welcomes a rise in food prices because this will mean a rise in farm incomes?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is obviously not a matter of policy. The minister was expressing pleasure, and I think it is normal for a Minister of Agriculture to tell farmers that he is happy they are getting more revenue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, in view of the endorsation of those words by the Prime Minister, may I then ask him whether it is now the policy of the government to leave the impression that the blame for high food prices should be laid at the door of the farmers?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, at no time did I say that the farmers were causing the high increase in the cost of food to consumers. I said that the farmers were now getting a fair return for the input for which they are responsible, and anybody who says differently is not stating the facts as I stated them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: You can suck and whistle at the same time.


INCOME TAX
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of National Revenue advise the House why it was, in the current campaign on the part of his department to explain the unexplainable, that is, the difficulties in the income tax form, that while various media were chosen the weekly newspapers were not, a group that make a tremendous contribution not only to their localities but to Canada as a whole?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I noticed the same lack myself, and I have asked my officials to see whether it might be possible to find the money to extend this excellent campaign as the right hon. member suggests. As one who comes from an area where people rely very much on weekly newspapers for their information, I welcome his support of my efforts to extend this campaign into the weekly newspapers.


John George Diefenbaker: Now that we have received convincing evidence that the government is starting to think about the subject, will the minister press forward to assure that many thousands of Canadians, who otherwise will not be
February 7, 1973

acquainted with the intricacies of the explanations, will have them available to them?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Yes. As I have indicated, Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to press for an extension of this highly informational campaign into those additional media.


TAXATION OF DIVIDENDS
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Revenue. Is it the intention of his department to use the Fred Davis close-up advertisements to explain to the Canadian people the facts about the income tax on dividends and why Canadians are being asked to pay tax on money they never received?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is one who took an active part in the debate on tax reform and he will know that the Department of National Revenue is administering and applying the law as he and other Members of Parliament passed it.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Wellington for a last supplementary on this subject and then recognize the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.


Alfred Dryden Hales: My supplementary will be brief. Does the minister propose to explain to the Canadian people how this comes about?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Yes. There have been some very excellent columns in some of the daily and weekly newspapers, contributed by chartered accountants and other professionals, on this subject, and I will send the hon. member copies of them.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that officials of the Abiti-bi Pulp and Paper Company in Sault Ste. Marie have openly threatened to close the mill unless the employees agree to certain conditions, would the minister inform the House what measures, if any, he contemplates taking to prevent such overt intimidation and what contingency plans he has for the 500 unemployed workers should the company close the mill?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, this matter has just been brought to my attention by my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I will be looking into it from the point of view of the Department of Manpower
Oral Questions
and I think the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce may have additional information now or later.


Reginald Cyril Symes: May I direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Since Abitibi Pulp and Paper has received regional development grants in excess of $300,000, does the minister intend to investigate this urgent matter and tell the House whether or not Abitibi funnelled DREE grants into its other operations, concurrently allowing the Sault Ste. Marie operation to become inefficient and outdated?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very glad to look into the question the hon. member has raised. I would doubt very much whether the last part of his question is correct, but I will refrain from being dogmatic about it until I have looked into it.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice or the Solicitor General.
Following the efforts made by Quebec, does the minister intend to introduce a bill to amend the Criminal Code in order to allow the establishment of casinos?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think I would like to see the actual statement, if the hon. member would bring it to my attention. There has been an exchange in the House over the past months about the extent to which the law now allows for such things, and it may well be that it is provided for already.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question either to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion or to the Prime Minister. Could either of these two gentlemen advise the House whether the government has any contingency plans to assist Canadian industries if the imposition of countervailing duties is widely applied against products manufactured by Canadian firms which receive DREE grants or other aid, or will we be reacting instead of acting?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I heard this question but I thought it was directed to another minister. In reply and without being evasive, I think it is hypothetical at the moment. There is no evidence of any further application

Oral Questions
of countervailing duties, but we are watching the situation very closely and examining the incentives program with a view to achieving something along the line the hon. member has suggested.


CANADA-UNITED STATES-ACTION TO ENSURE ADJUSTMENT BY NEGOTIATION
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Is the minister aware of indications in the United States that the U.S. government may resort to unilateral action to improve its trade position? If so, can the minister tell the House whether the government has taken any direct action to ensure that Canada-U.S. trade relations will be adjusted by negotiation, so that the Michelin case will not be a preview of things to come?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, there will always be news reports speculating on what the United States may do or may not do. I consider that a hypothetical kind of question. The fact of the matter is that our two nations are enjoying trade of the order of about $23 billion. There will be irritants from time to time, but that is in the nature of things. In the meantime, we have made strong representations with respect to the Michelin case and we are awaiting the reply of the United States on that matter.


JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECT-QUEBEC INTENTION RESPECTING SALE OF POWER TO UNITED STATES
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that the Quebec National Assembly's Bill 82 of 1972 respecting Hydro-Quebec calls for exportation of power to Consolidated Edison or the New York State Power Authority beginning in June, 1977, for a period of 20 years, would the minister reconsider his answer to my question last Monday, namely, that Quebec does not intend to sell any power from the James Bay power project to the United States?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to repeat the statement I made, which was that we have received no notification from Quebec that they have any intention to sell James Bay power in the United States.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have asked the minister this but I will repeat it. Is it a fact that the minister has no knowledge and no information that the Quebec government has changed its position?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the information that we have from the Quebec authorities is that they intend to use the James Bay supply for the purpose of meeting the domestic load.


REQUEST FOR STUDY TO ASSESS RESOURCES
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of the fact that there is considerable propaganda at this time to the effect that there seems to be a shortage of energy not only on the North American continent but throughout the world, will the government take the lead, separate from the National Energy Board which does not have the facilities, to study and reassess energy supplies, particularly natural gas, crude petroleum and electrical energy, so that we may know just what supplies are on hand?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, studies such as this have been under way for some time now and I expect to be laying them before the House in several months time.


IMMIGRATION
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration of which I have given him notice. What are the government's plans to alleviate the hardships that are being worked on a significant number of students from overseas who are in various stages of their university careers and are caught by the new regulations regarding applications for landed immigrant status and employment?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, foreign students who have come to Canada came on the basis and understanding that they were, unless otherwise declared specially exempted, capable of supporting themselves. Generally speaking, most of them will be required to seek employment visas. However, that is not to say that they will be unable to get employment visas, provided that the jobs they are seeking cannot be filled by Canadians. As I say, there are some exceptions to this. I cannot give them from memory, but special exceptions are made in cases where people were brought over under special international arrangements. Nevertheless, generally speaking we do require these non-immigrants to seek employment visas and I hope they are able to find work, provided Canadians are not displaced.
February 7, 1973


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister inform the House whether the Canadian Red Cross has undertaken a role in connection with the release of captured military and foreign civilian personnel in Viet Nam?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can confirm the reports that have been made. At the request of the Canadian government the Canadian Red Cross is sending a team of ten members, led by the national commissioner, General Wrinch, which left for Viet Nam this morning. This comes about as a result of the wish of the parties to the Viet Nam agreement that the Canadian Red Cross should play such a role, which I am sure will be welcomed by everyone in the House.


NORTH VIET NAM-CONSIDERATIONS IN CONNECTION WITH DECISION ON RECOGNITION
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing the back row again. My question is also addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and arises out of his statement on motions relating to the recognition by Canada of the Democratic Republic of North Viet Nam. Can the minister assure the House that in reaching its decision the government took fully into account the many obstacles placed in the way of the activities of the International Control Commission in Viet Nam, and specifically the Canadian delegation on that and other commissions, in their search for missing Canadian civilians during the past 19 years, and particularly during the past ten years?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and as a result of our recognition we hope to do better.


CANADA LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour and is one that I asked him a few weeks ago about the Canada Labour Relations Board. Has the government appointed a western Canadian member to the board and, if not, when does the minister expect to appoint one?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the hon. member that there is latitude for further appointments at a later time. We did endeavour to seek out an appointee from western Canada for the position, but unfortunately at that particular time he could not accept. Of the members of the board, one was born in Manitoba, another was educated in that province, and
Oral Questions
another spent considerable time in British Columbia and was educated at the University of British Columbia.


John Douglas Reynolds: Was there only one person in western Canada to whom the government felt it could offer the job?


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for Indian Affairs. Is the minister aware of the flooding that took place over the weekend at the Eskasoni Indian reserve, resulting in the evacuation of ten families from their homes plus serious damage and loss of personal belongings? Would the minister investigate and ascertain what assistance, financial or otherwise, can be provided to assist these families?


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware, and I do not think the minister is aware, of this regrettable situation but I will get the facts and will be happy to report to the hon. member as soon as I can.


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


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wish-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It might be simpler if I gave the floor to-

I recognize the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys on a supplementary and then the hon. member for Bellechasse.


ESKASONI RESERVE-REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION ON UNEMPLOYMENT
Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the right hon. member for Mount Royal went around this country tippy-toeing and pontificating about everyone never having it so good-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member ask his supplementary.


Robert Muir: In view of the fact that there continues to be a rate of 80 per cent unemployment on this particular reserve, can we not get something better and have some action taken, instead of being told that notice will be taken of these serious problems?


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the government has taken several measures as the hon. member would see if he would read the annual reports of

February 7, 1973
Oral Questions
the department. Although unemployment continues to be a very serious problem on a number of reservations across the country, I assure the House that some very substantive improvements have been made, particularly in the past four years.


Robert Muir: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys on a point of order.


Robert Muir: I do not know what the parliamentary secretary is talking about, but surely we do not have to listen to this drivel. That is not an answer to my question. The hon. member has not understood the question. He is pontificating in the same way as the right hon. member for Mount Royal.


Erik Nielsen: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon rises on a point of order.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I raised this point of order previously, namely, that there is no acting minister who is responsible for answering our questions. The Prime Minister told us the other day that the Minister of the Environment is the first acting minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is the second acting minister. Surely, there is some minister who is accountable to parliament and responsible for answering questions of this kind.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have reached the end of the question period. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Skeena on a supplementary, and I think the House owes it to the hon. member for Bellechasse to give him the chance to ask his question.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a short supplementary to the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo. Can he explain what nutritional value there is in the annual report?


SHIPPING
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
In an answer which appears at page 941 of Hansard of February 5, 1973, the minister states that the government intends to increase coastal protection by building new icebreakers.
Can the minister tell the House if the order for the first icebreaker has been given? If so, which company or which shipyard received this order?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker, no order has been given and the transaction has not yet been approved by Treasury Board.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to the order of business that has just been called, namely, consideration of the business of supply. My point of order relates to the nine notices of opposition which are on today's order paper and which presumably would be called, if they are in order, at this time; of course, they would be called only in order that there can be votes on the motions to approve the particular items which are on the order paper in the name of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury). It is my contention, Sir, that there is no provision for such notices of opposition to be entertained in the rules under which we are operating today.
Perhaps before I develop that point, which I think is an important one, I might say that even if there were provision for such notices of opposition in the rules that govern us today, it seems to me that the nine notices of opposition are poorly, if not incorrectly, drawn.
As I understand the rules, it is only open to a member putting down a notice of opposition to indicate that he is opposed to an item in its entirety. In the case of each of these nine notices of opposition there is not any notice of opposition in entirety, but only notice of opposition to a portion of the estimate. I do not allege that that is an extremely important point of order, because what is voted on under the provision in our rules is not the notice of opposition but the motion put down by the President of the Treasury Board, which of course presents the House with the choice of voting either for or against the entire item. In any case, that is not the question I am concerned about. Rather it is my point that there is no provision at this stage for notices of this kind.
I remind Your Honour and the House that we are operating under a rule, namely 58, which came into effect only in 1969, so that there is not a great deal of jurisprudence on it. However, I think the wording of the rule and our practice with respect to it are clear.
In December, 1968, when we passed the new rules that came into effect in 1969, we provided for the first time for an arrangement under which it was possible for main estimates, supplementary estimates, interim estimates, or what have you, to be brought before the House under conditions that would provide for no debate at all on them. We have been through this a good many times, both on main estimates as well as on supplementary estimates and interim supply. The theory behind that was that we would have the opportunity on opposition days to discuss any matters we wished, but if we used our opposition days on other matters, we then would be obliged to deal with the estimates without entering into any kind of debate.
February 7, 1973

However, when we drew the rule that way we made the special provision that, although estimates could be dealt with in the House without any debate, nevertheless there had to be provision for voting, if hon. members so wished.
We also felt that it would be ridiculous to call every item in the estimates and spend all night voting, and we felt that members should be given the right, by putting down notices of opposition, to call for a vote on any particular items in the estimates, main, supplementary or interim. That was the entire purpose of the provision for notices of opposition, so that when Mr. Speaker cuts off debate and calls for the vote, the House can vote on the individual items to which hon. members have indicated their opposition. This is spelled out in Standing Order 58(10) which reads as follows:
On the last allotted day in each period, but, in any case, not later than the last sitting day in each period, at fifteen minutes before the ordinary time of daily adjournment, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings then in progress and, if those proceedings are not in relation to a no-confidence motion, he shall put forthwith successively, without debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of any item of business relating to interim supply, main estimates, and supplementary or final estimates, the restoration or reinstatement of any item in the estimates-
And now come the words that are significant today:
-or any opposed item in the estimates,-
The Standing Order goes on to say:
-and for the passage of all stages of any bill or bills based thereon. If the motion under consideration at the hour of interruption is a no-confidence motion, the Speaker first shall put forthwith, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of that proceeding, and forthwith thereafter put successively, without debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of any item of business relating to interim supply, main estimates, and supplementary or final estimates, the restoration or reinstatement of any item in the estimates,-
And again we come to the phrase that is significant today:
-or any opposed item in the estimates,-
I continue with the quotation:
-and, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 72, for the passage at all stages of any bill or bills based thereon. The standing order relating to the ordinary time of daily adjournment shall remain suspended until all such questions have been decided.
I point out, Sir, that except for a reference in Standing Order 58(4) to the filing of a notice to oppose any item in the estimates, that is the only place in our rules where there is a reference to notices of opposition.
I point out, Sir, that certain conditions must obviously be met if opposed items are to be considered. In the first place, such opposed items can be considered either on the last allotted day in a period or semester, or on the last sitting day in such period or semester. This day is neither of those. This day is neither the last allotted day in a period or semester nor the last sitting day of the semester. We are not now operating under that rule at all.
The other thing I would point out is that the operation of the rules with respect to notices of opposition to items in the main estimates applies only when the Speaker is required to put questions without any opportunity for 25714-67
Supply
debate. I think we were wise in putting that device into the rules. It is very specific. It is only when those two conditions are met; (a) that it is the last day of the period or the last allotted day and (b) that we are operating under a system by which the Speaker puts the question without any opportunity for debate. It is only under those circumstances that there is any provision in the rules for using the device of putting down notices of opposition to items in the estimates.
Because those conditions are not met, because we are operating under Standing Order 58(18), these notices of opposition which are inscribed on the notice paper should not be considered at this time. We are operating under Standing Order 58(18). That has not been said as yet, but it is obvious to everyone.
Standing Order 58(18) provides that when there is an urgent necessity to deal with estimates, the government does not have to wait until we have had all of the allotted days in a period and do it in that normal way without debate, but it can at any time bring in a supply bill. However, if it does so, it must be treated as a government order and given all the treatment that goes with a government order. Perhaps I should put Standing Order 58(18) on the record. It reads as follows:
In the event of urgency in relation to any estimate or estimates, the proceedings of the House on a motion to concur therein and on the subsequent bill are to be taken under Government Orders and not on days allotted in this order.
When something is done under Standing Order 58(18) and a supply bill becomes a government order, there is no such thing as Mr. Speaker saying there is no debate. There is no time limit. The bill is treated as a normal government bill. Once it is introduced, it will have second reading which is debatable, followed by a reference to Committee of the Whole House where it is debatable both with respect to its various clauses and the schedule or schedules attached thereto and, finally, on third reading. There is no limitation in the rules. There is no provision to deny or cut off debate. If I may resort to simple logic, it would be ridiculous to import into a setup where we have debate a rule that is applied only when there is no debate.
For these reasons and one or two other comments I wish to make, Mr. Speaker, I suggest we should not proceed today by dealing with these nine notices of opposition. Rather, we should operate under the rule that says a report from a Standing Committee on Estimates shall be dealt with without debate and then, when the bill is brought in, we should proceed in the normal way which, as I say, includes freedom of debate and no time limit in order to deal with it.
I go a step further and suggest that if this practice, which as I say is not provided for at all, were followed, certain points of confusion would arise. For example, would these notices of opposition be debatable as is implied because we are under Standing Order 58(18) where there is no prohibition against debate or would it be required that they be voted on without debate as is set out in the only section of the rules that deals with notices of opposition, namely Standing Order 58(10)? What are we under, 58(18) or 58(10)? Are we under Standing Order 58(18) where there is debate or 58(10) where there is no debate?

February 7, 1973
Supply
Another point of confusion is, if we take these votes on notices of opposition that Procedure will not be quite correct because we do not vote on notices of opposition. We vote instead on the positive motions put down by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury). If we do have these votes, with or without debate, then the House, not the committee, will have made a decision. If the vote is negatived, that is the end of the estimate. However, if the vote is in the affirmative, the House will have taken a decision and we will likely have trouble later on if members at second reading or in committee of the whole try to debate the various estimates.
These confusions, in my view, support the proposition that the whole provision for notices of opposition was designed to fit into one situation only, namely that occasion where, on the last allotted day in a period or on the last sitting day of the period, we are faced with the necessity of dealing with the estimates without debate. In that situation, we have the right to put down these notices of opposition and get recorded votes on any estimates about which members are concerned.
May I emphasize that in taking this stand, and I am sure my hon. friends in the Progressive Conservative party who put down these notices of opposition will realize how true this is, I am not interfering in any way with their right to have votes on the nine items to which they seem to be opposed, either in whole or in part. If these motions are not voted on, but instead we proceed in the normal way and have the second reading debate followed by committee of the whole, which would include a consideration of the schedule attached to the bill, they would be able, once that schedule is called, to single out every one of these nine items and any other items, move amendments that they be reduced to $1, move amendments that they be deleted or force votes on them. In tact, they would have much greater freedom in committee of the whole with respect to these items than they would have by taking votes now. If votes are called now, they cannot say a word, at least if we are under Standing Order 58(10). If the votes are taken now, Your Honour will have to rule that they be taken right away without debate. However, if we do it in committee of the whole, they can expand their reasons. They can get around the problem that is created by the faulty wording of the motion that it be reduced to a certain amount and so on.
At third reading, if they are not satisfied with what happened in committee of the whole, they can move a motion to have the bill referred back to committee of the whole to delete any of the items to which they may be opposed. I hope hon. members will believe me when I say that the purpose of this intervention is not to deny to my friends to the right their desire to debate these estimates or vote on them, but rather it is out of a desire that our procedures not become mixed up and confused.
As Your Honour and hon. members who have been around for awhile will recall, this is all new. This procedure was adopted in December, 1968, and came into effect in 1969. This is the first time this particular kind of situation has arisen. In almost all cases since the beginning of 1969, we have dealt with the estimates under what is sometimes called the guillotine of the last day. It was under that last day guillotine that we exercised the right

to put down these notices of opposition. We have done it ourselves. Every time the estimate for the Senate was there, I put down an opposition motion and we got a vote on it. It is too bad there is not a Senate item amongst these votes. I could make a little speech on it.
The point is that today we are not operating under Standing Order 58(10). We are operating under Standing Order 58(18) which puts this supply bill in the category of being a normal government bill to be dealt with in government time with no time limit and no restrictions on debate. Therefore, I think the matter should be resolved in that way. Instead of dealing with these notices of opposition or the motions of the President of the Treasury Board, we should simply follow the provisions of Standing Order 58(16), have a motion to concur in the committee report, then bring in the bill and proceed with the bill as an ordinary bill on second reading, through Committee of the Whole and, finally, to third reading.


Erik Nielsen: I do not see the same confusion as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre apparently sees in these notices. He suggests to Your Honour that the notices have been poorly drawn. I took the trouble to do some research on the procedure which has been followed since the introduction of these new rules. I followed precedents set by members of the hon. member's own party in the preparation of these notices. I shall be referring later in detail to a point of order which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre raised in this House on June 22, 1972. This is to be found at page 3415 of Hansard of that date.
Ordinarily, in my submission, the House would be proceeding under Standing Order 58(16) if we were to follow the full intent of the committee on procedure which brought forth the rules which were finally adopted by the House. We would be proceeding in that way because there would have been an established pattern which was spoken of in the Special Committee on Procedure which originally recommended the changes we finally adopted. I want to refer Your Honour to the proceedings of that Special Committee because I think it is necessary to go back that far. No doubt Your Honour has already dug them up. They are to be found in the Journals of December 6, 1968, at pages 429-464. These explanations for the rule changes appear at pages 430 and 434. I wish to review, just for a few moments, the proceedings referred to in the short report of the committee.
The reforms related to supply procedure which are embodied in the recommendations contained in the fourth report of your Committee are based upon a number of crucial principles and assumptions which it would be convenient to list.
Your Honour will note the word "crucial" in that context.
(a)	A pattern of regular parliamentary sessions is assumed whereby a session would normally commence in September or October and the House would rise for the summer recess on or about July 1.
We are not in that situation today. The Special Committee on Procedure made that assumption, and on the basis of that assumption came to what it called a value judgment founded on a number of crucial principles. These crucial principles, in my submission, relate directly to the
February 7, 1973

pattern the Committee tried to block out for the handling of parliamentary business. We are not in that situation today, by virtue of the fact that an election was called on October 30 and we did not find ourselves back here until January 4. In the meantime, one of the periods which the Committee had in mind had gone by.
(b)	For the purposes of supply, the parliamentary session would be divided into three periods ending on December 10, March 26 and June 30, respectively.
Hon. members will see that the period ended December 10, which would normally have been the period in which we were considering these matters, had more than half gone by.
(c)	The main estimates to be presented to the House as early as possible in February and certainly before March 1.
(d)	The Committee of Supply will be abolished.
(e)	All estimates would be referred to standing committees for detailed scrutiny before March 1.
(f)	The Standing Order would provide that the supply resolutions and the bills based thereon would be disposed of by the House by the dates specified above. Interim supply to cover the months of April, May and June would be disposed of by March 26; the main estimates would be disposed of by June 30, the standing committees having reported by May 31 . . .
I shall be giving some citations from May in support of my submission to Your Honour, but at this point I should like to suggest that the design of these new rules was based liberally on the procedure which is followed in Westminster when fiscal matters are dealt with. But paragraph (f) goes on to say:
-and the supplementary and additional estimates would be disposed of by December 10, March 26 or June 30, depending on the periods in which they are presented.
We find these estimates, supplementary estimates (A) for 1972-73, presented to us in the period which would normally end on March 26. So, we come face to face with Standing Order 58(16) which contemplated precisely this procedure. But when referring to Standing Order 58(16) we find that the government faces problems, because that Standing Order stipulates there shall be no debate on any motion to concur in the report of any standing committee on estimates except on an allotted day. All right. The government does not want to wait for the stipulated number of allotted days to go by, because, in their view, that would take up too much time. So they look around to find some other order under which they can bring the report of the committee into the House to deal with the appropriation bill. Unfortunately, the only other order available to them is 58(18) and, for the reasons I intend to advance in a few moments, reasons which will be in opposition to those advanced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I submit that 58(18) does not apply.
We do not intend, however, to take the position that we should prevent the government from proceeding under 58(18) if that is what they desire. But in extending this co-operation to the government we must insist upon the right to a free and full debate of the notices which have been filed. As I say, we believe that 58(18) places no restriction whatsoever upon the debate of notices; it would be different if 58(16) were applied. I am reinforced in this belief. I would commend the reading of paragraph 19 of the Report of the Special Committee on Procedure
25714-67)
Supply
from which I have already quoted. At page 435 of the report appears the following:
There are occasions when it is in the national interest that parliament should consider or expedite an item of business with the minimum of delay, and Your Committee believes that the standing orders should make provision for such situations. Two kinds of eventuality are envisaged. In the first place the House should be free to deal without delay with any item of government business calling for immediate consideration on the first day of a session or the resumption of a session following an adjournment.
Here we are getting at the historical roots of the reason for the existence of 58(18).
Secondly, it seems reasonable to expect that the normal requirement of a notice of motion in relation to the introduction of business or the hours and days of sitting might be dispensed with for the purpose of dealing with matters of urgency when the overwhelming majority of the House recognizes that it would be desirable to do so. It seems intolerable to your committee that a single dissenting voice should be permitted to frustrate the otherwise unanimous will of the House, although we recognize that an objection registered by ten or more members should carry some weight. Accordingly your committee has included in its recommendations a revised Standing Order 41 and a new Standing Order 42-A which are designed to achieve the desired purposes, and which are set out in the committee's fifth report.
Mr. Speaker, in the latest revision of the little green book, Standing Order 42 has become Standing Order 44. In referring to Standing Order 44 I am getting into the argument with respect to the use of the term "urgency" in 58(18). My friend from Winnipeg North Centre has urged upon Your Honour that because the government has decided that the report of the committee on Supplementary Estimates and the appropriation bill has some urgency to it, we can proceed on this option. I most strongly submit to you, Sir, that there is no way this decision can be made by the government. The Special Committee on Procedures made that quite clear in the report from which I just quoted when they used the words:
... it seems reasonable to expect that the normal requirement of a notice of motion in relation to the introduction of business or the hours and days of sitting might be dispensed with for the purpose of dealing with matters of urgency when the overwhelming majority of the House recognizes that it would be desirable to do so.
I submit that if the government does place us in the position of restricting debate on these nine notices, then we will have to pursue, with vigour, our point that Standing Order 44 should have been invoked, which would give rise to the whole question of not only the urgency of the matter but the validity of proceeding under Standing Order 58(18). For the benefit of members who do not have their little green book with them, Standing Order 44 reads:
(1)	In relation to any matter that the government considers to be of an urgent nature, a minister of the Crown may, at any time when Mr. Speaker is in the chair, propose a motion to suspend any Standing or other order of this House relating to the need for notice and to the hours and days of sitting.
(2)	After the minister has stated reasons for the urgency of such a motion, Mr. Speaker shall propose the question to the House.
(3)	Proceedings on any such motion shall be subject to the following conditions:
(a)	Mr. Speaker may permit debate thereon for a period not
exceeding one hour;

February 7, 1973
Supply
(b)	the motion shall not be subject to amendment except by a minister of the Crown;
(c)	no member may speak more than once nor longer than ten minutes;
(d)	proceedings on any such motion shall not be interrupted or adjourned by any other proceeding or by the operation of any other order of this House;
The other two subsections are irrelevant to the argument I intend to urge upon Your Honour.
In order to proceed under Standing Order 58(18), I submit that the government must establish a prima facie case of urgency. The order clearly, specifically and cleanly uses the words:
In the event of urgency in relation to any estimate or estimates, the proceedings of the House on a motion to concur therein-
This is where we are now, Mr. Speaker.
-and on the subsequent bill-
Which will be coming before us.
-are to be taken under government orders and not on days allotted in this order.
This is what is being done, so that the government must show some urgency. The very fact that they have not chosen to proceed under Standing Order 44 is strong indication to me that they do not consider the matter so urgent as to invoke this rule. The real reason they are proceeding under Standing Order 58(18) is the fact that they are caught outside the pattern set by the Special Committee on Procedures and so have fallen into Standing Order 58(18).
To deal with Standing Order 44, and I suggest to you, Sir, that if the government insists on proceeding under Standing Order 58(18) and restricting the debate as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre suggests to Your Honour, at this stage, then they must go by Standing Order 44. This gives rise to Your Honour being required to permit debate for a period not exceeding one hour and the motion not being subject to amendment except by a minister of the Crown and the other concommitants which are set forth in that Standing Order, but certainly it is a condition precedent in my submission to the government proceeding under Standing Order 58(18) because that urgency must be established.
I was a little surprised when dealing with that point, Mr. Speaker, to hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre say that what we should be doing by these notices, when he criticizes their form, is to eliminate the item entirely. I think I am paraphrasing him correctly when, making his point about the notice being properly drawn, he said that "notices such as these must oppose the items in their entirety". According to Hansard of June 22, 1972, this very question arose. At that time the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was dealing with a situation when there had been an allotted day set aside for discussion under Standing Order 58(16), so there may be a distinction to be drawn. I submit not-


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was 58(10).


Erik Nielsen: There may be a distinction to be drawn, and maybe he is basing his argument upon such distinction, but my submission is that with respect to these notices and their treatment there can be no distinction
save that in Standing Order 58(18) against any full debate on notices that have been filed.
Urging his argument upon Your Honour at that time, the hon. member said, as recorded at page 3415 of Hansard in the right hand column
What my hon. friend wanted this House to do-
And he is speaking of notices that had been filed here.
-was vote on the reduction of that $244,000 for the information branch in this particular department to $61,000.
Now, that was not a notice to oppose the item in its entirety. He quite correctly said on that occasion, and I submit his argument is still valid, that the notice means a notice to oppose the approval of the estimate and, in effect, reduce it. That is precisely what we are purporting to do in the notice I have filed. I draw particular attention to the notice dealing with the Department of Finance and the capital works project where we want to reduce the $350 million in the estimates to the $75 million which has been estimated by the minister to be this winter's requirement. He went on to say, when being critical of the strictures being imposed to prevent them from moving a reduction:
I suggest this is making a mockery of such rights as remain to us for the voting of supply as set out in Standing Order 58.
I submit to you, Sir, that it would indeed be making a mockery of such rights as remain to members in this House to control supply if we were denied the right to debate this notice in the clear absence of any prohibition to do so in 58(18). The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre went on to state:
But tonight, for the first time since this procedure came into effect, we are faced with a different situation because what we are asking for now is not the right to vote against an entire item . . . but for the right to vote for or against the reduction in the amount of an item.
I think that effectively disposes of the position taken by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre unless, of course, he has completely changed his mind between last June and today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question at the risk of leading with my chin? What was the ruling on that?


Erik Nielsen: The ruling was unimportant because the point the hon. member on that occasion was making-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: Hon. members laugh, yet if they listened for a moment they would get the explanation. If they went back and read these debates they would realize it does not matter, and I will explain why. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will remember that he insisted the notices filed on that occasion should have taken precedence over the motion by the President of the Treasury Board in presenting an estimate, and thus give rise to a debate. That was the point which was established. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in arguing that point made these other comments.

February 7, 1973

The ruling was that the motion of the President of the Treasury Board did take precedence, and the notice had to be voted on without debate under Standing Order 58(10), where a prohibition against debate is clearly laid out on an allotted day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was it the notice for a reduction in the item that was voted on or the full item as proposed by the President of the Treasury Board? In other words, what did the Chair rule?


Erik Nielsen: The Chair ruled that the item of the estimates must be called by the President of the Treasury Board first, and then when the notices affecting the items which were called eventually came up in the ordinary course, the motion was voted on which disposed of the notice. From reading these debates that is what I got from the Speaker's ruling.
There were three exceptions to that because, as the hon. member pointed out, in that debate three of the notices purported to delete the entire item. I have certain remarks to make about that procedure which I will not make here. I only refer to this debate to point out that on that occasion the hon. member took the position that it was quite proper to file a notice of opposition that had the effect of reducing but not entirely eliminating an item. Unless he has changed his position, we feel that the argument is just as forceful today as it was then. Merely because we are proceeding under Standing Order 58(18) does not alter the force of that argument in my submission.
I think I can leave those two points now, Mr. Speaker. The proceeding obviously is under Standing Order 58(18). I do not think there can be any suggestion that we are proceeding under Standing Order 58(10) because it simply does not apply. Standing Order 58(10) is thrown out the window on the very first five words. Those words are "On the last allotted day".
My submission is that the old Standing Order applies only in circumstances where we are dealing with the last allotted day, and we are not there. We are not proceeding under Standing Order 58(16) because that only applies on an allotted day. We must be proceeding under Standing Order 58(18), because that is the only other place in the standing order where we have a vehicle to deal with the report of the standing committee on the appropriations bill. There is nothing in Standing Order 58(18) which in any way restricts debate.
We are prepared to go along with the government's suggestion that we proceed under Standing Order 58(18) and deal with the report stage of the appropriations bill, but I want to make it abundantly clear that we are not prepared to go along with the government under Standing Order 58(18) if the government intends to impose restrictions on the debate on these nine notices, because if it follows that course we want to forcefully submit, Your Honour, that the government must establish the urgency and, in order to do that, go through the procedure which is set out by Standing Order 44.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I normally would be inclined to let Your Honour rule on this without any further intervention, but because of the importance of the issue and
Supply
the fact that this is the first time it has been raised, I feel compelled to do so.
I think the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has disposed quite effectively of the laboured, forced, contrived and tortuous argument of my hon. friend, the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend!


Gerald William Baldwin: I know that Your Honour will probably smile to yourself and say that hon. members in procedural arguments sometimes do embark upon discussions which sound like that, and I suppose if I were to go back far enough in Hansard I might find some place where I, myself, was guilty of using expressions like that. If that is the case, I would plead in extenuation the fact that I was trying to widen the opportunity for divorce-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: -for divorce between the two parties over there. I am sorry, I should have said "for debate". I am amazed by my hon. friend, the member for Winnipeg North Centre, with whom I have stood so stoutly on so many occasions in an attempt to find ways and means by which the House could widen opportunities for debate, to find him now attempting to foreclose, limit and restrict debate, and using arguments of this kind. I am happy to say, however, because of the attachment I have for him, that I will not have to deal with him as he has been effectively disposed of by the hon. member for Yukon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes, indeed, I would be delighted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did he not hear me say that one of my main concerns was to get this supply bill into committee of the whole where we can have unlimited debate? Will he tell me how he can say I was arguing for restriction of debate when, in fact, I was arguing the very opposite?


Gerald William Baldwin: It is quite plain because the hon. member is saying we are going to debate this particular notice, and if that is not an attempt to restrict the debate I do not know what is.
I should like to go a little further into the historical reasons behind this particular ruling and practice to which we are adhering. I think this is what the House and the Chair are interested in and should bear in mind. If we go back to the days when we had the committee of supply and there was unlimited opportunity to discuss supply, I suppose some would say those were the good old days, being in the opposition, but those in the Cabinet would probably say they were the bad old days. I can recall occasions when my hon. friend said exactly the opposite. The government House leader was not sitting in the House then, but standing in the wings preparing the bullets his friends were firing when the then Liberal opposition took up to 75 or 80 days to deal with issues of supply. It was for reasons of that kind the House decided to find ways and means of restricting debate, wrongly so as the facts have proven. The Committee on Organization and

Supply
Procedure did in fact brood about this matter and came up with the recommendation that has been referred to in part by the hon. member for Yukon.
What was the case before that? On several occasions during the session, there would be a motion made that the House go into committee of supply. On those occasions there would be a two-day debate with an opportunity for amendment and sub-amendment. If I recall rightly, a government fell on one of those occasions. Mr. Speaker was in the Chair then, and there was a vigorous and forceful debate. Following that, we went into the committee of supply when there was an extensive opportunity for discussing the particular items of the estimates. Therefore, there was a great scope at that time, before we changed the rules and came up with the existing practice, for members of this House to debate extensively, compel votes to be taken and compel the House to divide on issues relating to supply.
The hon. member for Yukon referred to the third report of the committee. He quoted some pages from that report. I should like to go back to page 430 and quote paragraph 5 (g):
A total of 25 allotted days spaced throughout the session would be placed at the disposal of the Opposition. Five would fall before December 10, seven before March 26, and 13 before June 30. On these allotted days the Opposition would be free to select for debate any matter coming within the jurisdiction of Parliament, including the business of supply currently before the House, on motions of which notice would be required.
Then, it deals with a number of motions, so many of which would be motions of confidence and so many of which would be motions of non-confidence. The final sentence reads:
It is envisaged that during the latter weeks of a session these days[DOT][DOT] *
That has reference to opposition days:
... would frequently be used for debating the reports on the departmental estimates presented by the various standing committees.
Then, we have paragraph (i) which states:
The final decisions in relation to the main estimates of each department of government would be held over until the end of the third supply period so that the opportunity to debate any department would remain open throughout the session.
Then, by analogy with regard to supplementary estimates, which almost invariably are brought in in this period, the final debate would have been left until the last of the seven opposition days.
Now, for various reasons which I shall not go into, this House has been deprived of the five opposition days it normally would have had in the period ending December 10 and will be deprived, so far as these supplementary estimates are concerned, of the seven days which would end on March 26. It is true enough that those days will be made available later on, unless some very fortuitous situation comes about and the members of this House go out to the happy hunting ground to engage in other activities. Normally, we would expect the seven days to be available, but for reasons of which I believe the Chair can take judicial notice the government decided to utilize this par-

ticular procedure in an attempt to secure expeditious approval of these estimates and the appropriation bill. Because of these facts, we are therefore prevented from engaging in debate, from putting down motions on opposition days, including motions of non-confidence, and from challenging the government on these estimates. By the time we have an opportunity to do so, the estimates will have been passed and the appropriation bill will have been passed.
I suggest it was with that possibility in mind that Standing Order 58(18) was brought in. If we do as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre suggests, we will be limited to dealing with items of estimates only when we are in Committee of the Whole. There would be no opportunity to challenge the government with Mr. Speaker in the Chair, have a debate or discussion, and then have the House divide on an issue, an opportunity which we would have had had the government not seen fit for its own purposes to adopt the procedure under Standing Order 58(18).
I realize that the Chair cannot be bound by questions of equity and so on if the rules say otherwise, as often is the case, but where there is a freedom, as in this case, I believe the Chair should be vigilant in respect of equity, freedom and opportunity for debate to the fullest extent possible. This can be done only by allowing two things. First, it can be done by having a procedure whereby, as was argued by the hon. member for Yukon, there is an opportunity to debate in this House with Mr. Speaker in the Chair items such as those which are now dealt with and set out for debate today. Second, having done that, we then get into the appropriation bill and there would be some opportunity at least for debate and discussion of some of the items at that time. That is something we will have to meet later. Having this situation and being in the position where the scope for dealing with estimates and debating supply is restricted compared to the situation which existed prior to these rules, and then having the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who previously advocated eloquently and frequently the right of extending debate, tell us we cannot do this, I suggest is something which the Chair and the House should not tolerate.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I realize we are discussing a new situation and that, because of the adoption of the new rules, it is a situation which we have not faced precisely before. I wish to make a number of comments. First of all, I ask myself whether the form of the notices given by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) are correct. Secondly, I ask myself whether he is entitled to give these notices at this time. Then, finally, I must attempt to relate the situation in which we find ourselves today to the past parliamentary practice and the changing practice of supply in the House. In respect of point number one, which is not really the most important point, concerning whether the hon. member for Yukon has put his notices in a proper form, from my reading it would seem to me that all the Standing Order entitles him to do is simply to give a notice of opposition to any particular item. Once that notice of opposition is given to any particular item, it triggers the placing on the order paper of the motion to which that opposition is taken. It seems to me there is no provision whatsoever in Standing Orders
February 7, 1973___________________COMMONS DEBATES_________________________________ 1059
for amendment, qualification or alteration of an item. There is provision solely and simply for opposition.
Having stated that, I have looked at certain situations which have occurred in the past and I agree with the hon. member that notices of motion in opposition to items which have done more than oppose have been put down. They have attempted to overmodify or amend. However, I do not rest my case on that. I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that the hon. member for Yukon is not entitled to put these notices of motion on the order paper at all. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre presented the argument that such notices of motion could be put only on the last day of the supply period when the Speaker is obliged to put all outstanding questions at a final moment. I believe I would like to carry the argument one step further and say that what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is really asking is whether today is an allotted day. If it is an allotted day, then the proceeding that is suggested here by the hon. member for Yukon could be regarded as a proper procedure. But there is no provision for this proceeding under our Standing Orders except on an allotted day, and I challenge hon. members on the other side to indicate where, in the Standing Orders, there is a foundation for this proceeding, namely, the proceeding of opposing an item in the estimates, except on an allotted day.


Erik Nielsen: I will.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I suggest that there is no such provision. I move on further, Your Honour, to draw attention to Standing Order 58(10), the reading and contemplation of which helped me to clarify in my own. mind the exact nature of the problem that we are faced with procedurally. However, before I go to Standing Order 58(10) may I refer to 58(5), in which a discussion is conducted as to the number of sitting days to be allotted to the business of supply. That discussion ends by saying:
These twenty-five days are to be designated as allotted days.
I ask myself, when the Chair is tabulating the 25 allotted days under the Standing Order, is today an allotted day? If it is an allotted day, then at the end of this day there will be left 24 allotted days.


Erik Nielsen: Of course, it isn't an allotted day.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member says it is not an allotted day. He has agreed that it is not an allotted day. So, Mr. Speaker, the argument is ended, because if it is not an allotted day there is no possible foundation for this particular proceeding. I leave that case on that very simple ground. It is either an allotted day or not an allotted day.
Then, I ask myself what of the proposition in Standing Order 58(18) in which it is provided that:
In the event of urgency in relation to any estimate or estimates, the proceedings of the House on a motion to concur therein and on the subsequent bill are to be taken under Government Orders and not on days allotted in this order.
Are we proceeding here on a day allotted under Standing Order 58? Obviously, we are not. The hon. member for Yukon has just said so. This is obviously taking place as a
Supply
government order. In a sense, it is a government day because under the new dispensation all the allotted days are opposition days. That was the purpose of it.
I merely say that it is one or the other. If it is an allotted day, the hon. member has a right to put down these proceedings. If today is an allotted day, then there will be 24 left, or the allotted days in this period will be reduced by one. But I cannot see that as a reasonable outcome, because the reason we relied on 58(18) was that in order to bring these estimates under the so-called guillotine, or to have an allotted day to deal with them, it would mean having the House contort itself for a short period of time to clean up seven allotted days before February 7, and you can imagine the screams that would have been heard if we had attempted to do that.
We said, "Let us take our chance. We go to the House without any guillotine, and we treat this situation as any normal bill, without any time allocation." That is what we are doing. There is no question in my mind that if you rule that this is a proceeding under Standing Order 58(18), and not an allotted day, then on second reading there is no time limitation, in committee of the whole there is no time limitation, and on third reading there is no time limitation. I confess that the House is totally free to deal with the matter without limitation on any of these stages, although I would hope the House would take account of the necessity for replenishing the programs that are involved in these estimates.
That was a risk we took in making up our minds to proceed this way. The only question that bothers me at this point is, if the motions put down by the hon. member for Yukon are ruled as improper proceedings, then is the main motion put down by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) a debatable motion? It is obviously a votable one. It has to be concurred in or not concurred in. However, is it debatable?
Hon. members will recall that before we abolished the committee of supply, we would have discussed the estimates in that committee. But we abolished the committee of supply, and we used the standing committees to do the work that had been done formerly in the committee of supply. So, today we are in a sense at that stage following the completion of the work of the committee of supply, but in this case the work was completed by the standing committee.
Before we adopted the new rules there is no question as to what the situation would have been. The supply resolutions coming out of the committee of supply would have been concurred in without debate or without amendment, and if on this question we wanted to follow an exact parallel we would divide without debate or an amendment. But on that point, I really have not been able to reach a firm conclusion. It would be my feeling that it is somewhat incompatible with the over-all system of supply, incompatible with the regime we are following under Standing Order 58(18), to have an extended debate on a motion to concur in the estimates, which estimates have already been dealt with extensively in the standing committee. If the motion is not debatable and if it is concurred in, then it is clear that it will bring an appropriation bill before the House, and that bill is without time limit at any stage.

February 7, 1973
Supply
Further, when we go into committee of the whole on the supply bill, every item to which the hon. member takes exception will be before the committee, and all the others, for discussion and decision.


Erik Nielsen: But no recorded vote.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: And he will be able, if he wishes to follow the advice of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to consider taking certain actions on third reading. He can have votes in committee, on second reading and on third reading. He has full parliamentary latitude. I would hope we would not find this was an allotted day and have a proceeding at this stage that I do not think is contemplated.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for their very interesting comments. Hon. members who have not studied this interesting procedural point too closely, I think, will have reached the same conclusion as I, that the matter is somewhat confusing. As some of the hon. members who took part in this discussion have pointed out, this is actually the first time we have been faced with this situation, with this difficulty, so it does take perhaps a bit of imagination, and I would think a lot of good will on the part of the Chair, on behalf of hon. members, to interpret the rules and the Standing Orders in a way that will be fair to the House, and to all hon. members. It is perhaps in this light that I have tried to interpret the arguments put forth by hon. members during the course of this discussion.
I should like to refer at the outset to the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He made reference, in the first instance, to the form of the notices which have been filed. The President of the Privy Council also referred to that point, and I think it also was mentioned by the hon. member for Yukon. All who referred to this point agreed that it was not the substance of the discussion, and with this I also agree. However, I would still like to enter the caveat that, although this form of notice has been used before, it was used in circumstances where there was not too much time for the Chair to object. It is always difficult for the Chair to declare such motions out of order, preventing hon. members from having the opportunity of voting upon them. That is why in all such circumstances the Chair must exercise leniency and bring to the attention of hon. members that what the Standing Order provides for is for a notice of objection, not a motion or an amendment as such.
If hon. members were to adopt the practice of making these notices motions rather than notices of objection to an item, importing argument and debate, then I can see that we would get into some difficulties because they would be more motions, on which actually we could not vote, than they would be notices. I hope the practice will develop in the other direction and members will make an effort to limit the wording of these notices to that of a notice of objection, instead of making the notices amendments which are put in the form of argument. Therefore, I agree on this point with hon. members that a ruling on such an important matter should not be made on the form of the notices that are before us.
The second point made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-so long ago that I forget whether it was his second, third, or fourth point, but I believe it was the second point he made-was to the effect that notices of opposition are intended to provide an opportunity to vote on certain items only at the cut-off time, or when the guillotine comes into play-if guillotines ever come into play. My impression is that this is the procedure that we have followed until now. Notices have been considered and a vote taken on the item opposed only at the very last moment when the guillotine came into play at the end of the period.
Actually, there is nothing to prevent the House from considering these motions outside of the provisions of Standing Order 58(10). I refer hon. members to the possibility of doing this under the provisions of Standing Order 32(l)(k), which reads as follows: "The following motions are debatable: (K) for the consideration of any motion under the order for the consideration of the business of supply." I have even wondered why the House has not taken advantage of these provisions to bring these items under consideration forward for debate before the House reaches the last minute on a finally allotted day. That is a possibility that is always open to the House, and for this reason I do not think I can accept the argument advanced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on this particular point.
I was also impressed, if I may say so, by his argument with reference to the difficulty of following the procedure now proposed by hon. members who have brought these notices of motions, namely that the House might be called upon to vote twice on the same item. It could be said that this situation is hypothetical or that the objection is premature, that it would be at a later date when the matter came up for a vote the second time that that argument could be taken.
It may be an obiter dictum at this time to rule on this point, but I think it might be worth referring hon. members to May's eighteenth edition, the last paragraph at the foot of page 483 and the first paragraph at the top of page 484. I will not read it all because it would take too much time, but the suggestion made by the learned author is that there is nothing wrong with this kind of procedure. He says:
The various stages through which a bill progresses (normally but not necessarily on separate days) are intended by the practice of Parliament to provide so many opportunities not only for consideration, but also for reconsideration. Such stages may be taken to include the passage of any necessary financial resolution. Thus an entire bill may be regarded as one question which is not settled until it is passed. And hence no objection can be taken to an amendment on any particular stage on the ground that it raises again a question decided on an earlier stage.
And the author continues along this line. I think this is a relevant citation and that hon. members would like to think about it. In any event, I do not believe that this was the main point of contention of the hon. member.
The President of the Privy Council, supporting the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, said that this is either an allotted day or it is not an allotted day. I find it easy to rule that it is not an allotted day. My understanding of the rules presented to the House, and adopted by the House in 1968, is that they were intended to set up an

February 7, 1973

entirely new supply procedure and eliminate all other supply procedures so that there was only one way to proceed on supply. The way to proceed on supply is either on an allotted day, which is a certain day called an opposition day, or on a government day, at a time when the government feels there is a matter of urgency and, in its own time, asks the House to consider a certain item. It does this in its own time, as I say, and to my way of thinking that is the only difference between the two proceedings. In the one case the House is considering an item in opposition time; in the other case, where there is urgency or, in the view of the government, an emergency-and that must be the decision of the government-the matter is proceeded with in government time.
I think the government would have to feel deeply that this is an emergency, because they would have to give up their time for the purpose of considering business that normally would be studied by the House in opposition time, in conformity with the dispositions of Standing Order 58. The Standing Order as revised in 1968 establishes, as I say, a mechanism for the consideration of supply, and essentially this procedure contemplates a reference of estimates to a committee or committees, their return to the House under a timetable, and debate on allotted days.
The interpretation of section (18) of Standing Order 58 must be that, in certain circumstances, consideration of supply must take place in government time rather than on allotted days, which are opposition days under the provisions of the standing order. The proceedings are identical, except that opposition days cannot be used for the purpose of the business of supply when the government brings forward supply outside the cycle contemplated by the Standing Order. Except for the time allocation provisions of the Standing Order and the use of certain days by the opposition, the same machinery must apply in both cases.
In this particular case notice of objection to the passing of the estimates has been given in conformity with Standing Order 58(4)(a). The conclusion is that those notices are properly presented to the House and that the required motions should be made in order to bring the business of supply under debate.
MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE la, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote la, in the amount of $200,000 of the Department of Finance for financial and economic policies-program expenditures in supplementary estimates (a) for the fiscal year ending March 31,1973, be concurred in.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, could we stand the first one, please?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Speaker:: It is a government motion, of course. Is the House ready for the question?
Supply


Mr. Hellyer:: Mr. Speaker, is the House not willing to allow this motion to stand?


Mr. Speaker:: That is obvious. This is a government motion and the government alone can ask that it be stood. The hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) and the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) appreciate that it is not for the Chair to determine whether a motion, if it is before the House, shall stand, unless there is unanimous agreement that the motion shall not be proceeded with.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government House leader for his co-operation in standing the first item and proceeding with the second item, Vote L12a to do with winter capital projects.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the hon. member's reasons, but since it is our desire to cooperate I will certainly extend that co-operation. I hope it will be reciprocated, and not in the usual manner.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the House that Motion No. 1 shall stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion stands.
MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE L12a. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That Vote L12a in the amount of $350,000,000 of the Department of Finance for Winter Capital Projects Fund-Loans in Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973, he concurred in.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I am about to refer to the document that was tabled by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) entitled "supplementary Estimates (A)" which, on its front cover, is said to be "for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973". I now refer to Vote L12a in the estimates, to be found at page 16. That item is described as a non-budgetary vote and is set out as being a request for funds for winter capital projects. The vote reads:
Winter Capital Projects Fund-Loans to provinces, provincial agencies and municipalities as defined in the Municipal Development and Loan Act in the 1972-73 to 1975-76 fiscal years inclusive for the purpose of creating employment through the construction, in the period commencing with December 6, 1972 and ending with June 30, 1975 ...
I will not read the rest. The point I make is that this vote calls for authority to spend $350 million in three fiscal years, yet the supplementary estimate is described as being for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973.
As I said just now, this vote covers three fiscal periods or years. To that extent the vote, in my submission, unless there is some rational explanation, is not in order. I do not think the government should be asking in supplementary estimates which purport to cover the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973, for authority to spend moneys as far in the future as 1975. To my knowledge, that kind of authori-

February 7, 1973
Supply
ty has never been asked for by governments in the past and, certainly, has never been granted by parliaments in the past.
I wish to make a further submission about the item which is described as being non-budgetary. The vote provides for the forgiveness of 50 per cent of the loans made. Actually, it reads that there shall be a forgiveness of, "50 per cent of normal direct onsite payroll costs". To that extent the vote, in my submission, is not non-budgetary, but is budgetary. These forgiven and to-be-forgiven amounts should be reflected in the accounts of government expenditures for each and every fiscal year in which they are incurred. This provision is set forth clearly in the treasury manual, which the President of the Treasury Board, who is intimately familiar with the treasury manual, will no doubt concede. Evidence that the forgiven amounts are continuing and immediate appropriations of public funds is contained in the words in the treasury manual, "Payment is hereby forgiven", rather than in the non-budgetary words "To be paid out of moneys to be appropriated by Parliament," under which a vote would have to be put in the estimates in each fiscal year and voted on by parliament in an appropriation act.
Clearly, the offence here is that of the government coming before parliament and purporting to ask for authority to spend money in one fiscal year, that ending on March 31, 1973, and smuggling into these estimates, by way of an expanded vote description, moneys to be spent during three other fiscal years.
In the case of the forgiveness provisions of the vote, that part, I say, would be non-budgetary, although the annual appropriations would be budgetary. In this supplementary estimate, the government is combining a budgetary element in the vote with a non-budgetary element. It has done something that is less than legitimate in calling this item non-budgetary, since it is a combination of budgetary and non-budgetary items. In my belief this is a misrepresentation of the true state of affairs and ought not to be accepted by the House. The result would be that the government would conceal expenditures of public funds which will be recovered from and paid for by the taxpayer. Both these points were raised in committee.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) appeared as a witness before that committee and attempted to explain his reasons. He did not satisfy me and I do not believe he really satisfied the members of his own party, even though they voted to pass this estimate out of committee, or at least voted that the government could proceed in this way. The minister's explanations were somewhat lengthy. The length of his argument belied the strength of it. It was because his argument was so weak that he had to speak so long. This matter raises the question of section 20 of the Financial Administration Act, which I quoted in committee. That section directly prohibits the government from proceeding in the manner which it now asks us to prove.
Section 20 of the Financial Administration Act provides:
All estimates of expenditures submitted to Parliament shall be for the services coming in course of payment during the fiscal year.
Here we are being asked to fly directly in the face of that stricture in section 20 of the Financial Administration
Act and approve amounts for services that will be paid during three fiscal years. I see the President of the Treasury Board is listening intently. How can the government justify requesting this House to approve moneys to be spent in three fiscal years in the face of that direct prohibition in section 20 of the Financial Administration Act?
It is inconceivable that there could be any other interpretation of that section than the one I have suggested.
It reads:
All estimates of expenditures-
This vote is an estimate of an expenditure.
-submitted to Parliament-
It is now submitted to parliament.
-shall be for the services coming in the course of payment during the fiscal year.
That means the fiscal year to March 31, 1973. The section, in effect, prevents the government from asking parliament to provide moneys for services coming in course of payment during any other fiscal year. However, the description of the vote asks for $350 million for three fiscal years. When asked a question in this House by an hon. member, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) said he expected a cash flow during the first winter of operation of this project to amount to something in the order of $75 million. When pressed in committee, he gave us ball park figures for the second and third years. If my recollection is correct, it was $170 million and $105 million for the second and third fiscal years respectively.
In committee, what we suggested by way of compromise in order to legalize what the government is trying to do with this project, was to reduce the amount of $350 million to $75 million and to report back to the House that a separate appropriation be brought in by the government for the next two following fiscal years. That suggestion was not accepted. The answer of the Minister of Finance was, if we did that the provincial governments could not plan sufficiently far ahead because they would be uncertain about getting the money. That was a rather empty argument because if parliament appropriated moneys for the second and third fiscal years as well as passing an estimate for $75 million for this fiscal year, they could plan ahead just the same as they could if this unlawful, in my view, estimate were to be passed in this form. That argument really did not hold any water.
There is no restriction on the future planning capability of the provincial governments for these projects if we proceed in a proper way by appropriating the two fiscal years separately. I mean doing this now, not waiting for the second and third years to accomplish this. There is no reason why we cannot do it now. However, proceeding in this fashion is simply not correct. The law exists for a reason. The law is being flouted. I say to the Minister of Finance through you, Mr. Speaker, that we are talking about old Section 20 of the Financial Administration Act which, as I have been saying, places a direct prohibition against the government proceeding in this fashion.
Having made that point, I want to assure the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), the Minister of Finance and the government House leader that we are

February 7, 1973

perfectly prepared to give our consent to the minister's own estimate of $75 million now in this estimate. We urge the government to bring in separate appropriations for the years 1973-74 and 1974-75. I take it we will give our projected consent. In that way, the government will be acting within the terms of the Financial Administration Act and not flying in the face of it. Those are my three points on this item, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the government is being damned because of its complete mishandling of the economy which has produced the highest rate of unemployment of any country in the western world. In reply to a question asked during today's question period, the Minister of Finance said that he was not in the business of making forecasts. I suggest to the minister that he reread his budget speech of May 8, 1972 where he made a number of forecasts. He said, and I quote:
Mr. Speaker, my first words to this House as Minister of Finance last February were that my most urgent priority was jobs. This remains my first priority. No economy is working as well as it should if there are men and women in this country seeking work who cannot find it. ...
I mean real jobs, not temporary jobs. I mean jobs that last and satisfy. .. .
-the first priority of this government is to bring about a further substantial reduction in unemployment.
The minister has now been Minister of Finance for almost a year. He has failed completely, because the rate of unemployment today is almost exactly what it was when he took on the job of Minister of Finance. I predicted then that unless the government was prepared to change its policies, this minister would be the same as the previous minister except that he did not smoke a pipe. The figures which were released yesterday-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but the debate that is now taking place is squarely confined to Vote LI 2a concerning the amount of $350 million of the Department of Finance for winter capital projects fund. The hon. member should relate his remarks to this particular item.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the purpose of the capital works fund is to do something about unemployment. That is simply the point I intended to make before coming to the specifics of the proposal.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure the hon. member will not mind because I am really on his side in this issue. I refer Your Honour to the wording of the vote. I quote:
Winter Capital Projects Fund-Loans to provinces, provincial agencies and municipalities as defined in the Municipal Development and Loan Act in the 1972-73 to 1975-76 fiscal years inclusive for the purpose of creating employment through the construction, in the period commencing with December 6, 1972-
I recognize that we must confine ourselves to the vote, but nevertheless the words "creating employment through the construction" entitles the hon. member to speak on that aspect of it. I am sure that members of our party will
25714-68J
Supply
follow along this line. It should give the hon. member some scope in that regard.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the unemployment figures which were released yesterday indicate that in January, 1973 there were 688,000 Canadians unemployed compared to 665,000 in January, 1972. The seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment for the country was 6.2 per cent in January 1973, almost the same percentage as in January, 1970. According to the regional breakdown, the number of unemployed in the Atlantic provinces has increased from 85,000 in January, 1972 to 87,000 in January, 1973. In Quebec, the figure increased from 233,000 in January, 1972 to 247,000 in January, 1973. In British Columbia it increased from 79,000 in January, 1972 to 95,000 in January, 1973.
Today's Montreal Gazette headlines the unemployment figures for Quebec. This should be of concern to the Minister of Finance who first came to this House as a member representing a Quebec constituency. The headline reads "One out of every ten Quebecers reported out of work".
I submit that the Minister of Finance was wrong a year ago when he said that his first objective was to provide jobs. It may have been his first objective, but he certainly did not do anything about it. He ought to be criticized. Opposition members have been calling on the government to take action for the past two years. The provinces and municipalities have been calling on the government to take action. Month after month we get the answer from whoever is Minister of Finance that things are getting better; next week or next month we will turn the corner and the rate of unemployment will decrease.
In his budget speech on May 8, the minister predicted that the rate of unemployment would decline. I quote from that speech as reported at page 2,010:
I expect that unemployment will fall, on the average, in the course of this year, although the extraordinary month to month fluctuation in the size of the labour force will likely continue and be reflected in an uneven movement in the unemployment rate.
The minister, who said earlier this afternoon that he is not in the business of making predictions, made a prediction. The only mistake he made earlier this afternoon was this: He should have said "I am not in the business of making accurate predictions." That would have been correct, because he did make a prediction and it was all wrong.
Finally, concern about unemployment, or, possibly, concern about a possible election and public reaction to this high rate of unemployment, prompted the government to bring forward a plan to put people to work through a winter capital projects fund program, a program which would commit the government to lending to the provinces and the municipalities in respect of approved projects $350 million over the next three years. And, as the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has pointed out, 50 per cent of the labour costs of most of these projects are forgiveable to the provinces and to the municipalities.
The provinces and municipalities greeted this announcement with considerable enthusiasm. It is true

February 7, 1973
Supply
they had certain reservations, certain criticisms to make. One of them was that the program was not big enough. Another was that notice was too short to enable them to undertake projects on which they felt it desirable to proceed. I am sure that criticism on these lines could be directed against governments generally, whether formed by Liberal parties, as in Quebec and Nova Scotia, or the NDP, as in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, or by the Conservative parties, as in Newfoundland and Ontario. Time is needed. But this program we shall eventually vote on says the federal government is prepared to put into this winter capital projects fund program the sum of $350 million over the next three years.
I submit we can fault the government of Canada for being late with its proposal, a delay which means that not very much will be done to alleviate the unemployment crisis in the winter of 1972-73. But if this proposal is approved, the provinces and municipalities will be given notice that they can now begin to make their plans for the winter of 1973-74 and for the winter of 1974-75. This is precisely what they have sought-time to consider their requirements, time to prepare detailed plans, time to set up an organization to administer the plan and get the projects into operation.
But what do we find this afternoon? We get from the hon. member for Yukon the usual cynical, opportunistic speech I have come to expect from him, a speech in which he suggests it is somehow illegal or improper for the government to be committing money for the next two fiscal years. I shall not deal with the legality of his proposition; I shall leave that to the lawyers or to those who have learned a great deal more than I about the rules of this House. But I suggest it comes with ill grace from the representative of a party which has been beating the drums against the government because it has not done enough to counter unemployment to come out now with a legalistic argument and propose, in effect, that the government should not proceed with a program which would give the provincial governments and the municipalities the assurance that in the next two years they would have in the neighbourhood of $175 million to $200 million to spend.


Erik Nielsen: That is a distortion; a deliberate distortion.


David Orlikow: I listened to the hon. member for Yukon in committee. I have listened to him this afternoon-ad nauseam, if I may say so. I think he was all wrong, but that is my right. I am sure he thinks I am wrong. That is his right. I suggest that if any member of his party wishes to speak after I am finished he can rise and make a speech. But I suggest it is a cynical and shabby bit of business for the lead-off speaker for the Conservative party, which has been quite properly castigating the government for not facing up to its responsibilities of devising programs to deal with the serious unemployment situation, to say: Yes, we want you to deal with it, but you should not commit money for the next two fiscal years. This despite the fact that only in such a way can programs be arranged which would put the maximum number of people to work under this proposal on the most worth while projects.
I want to say to the hon. member for Yukon that if he is serious in his attitude toward unemployment he ought not

to come here with what I consider to be spurious, legalistic arguments.


Erik Nielsen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I make a correction as I am entitled to do under the rules? The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) has deliberately and grossly distorted what I said in my participation in this debate and in committee.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: If hon. members will consult the rules, they will find I am entitled to rise on a point of order to correct grossly inaccurate and misleading statements. That is exactly what I am doing.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker,
I have heard before, in committee, the argument put forward by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), and I have dealt with one aspect of it. I should like to deal with another aspect of it this afternoon. No one doubts that section 20 of the Financial Administration Act is, indeed, the law of Canada. Nevertheless, I think it is also a parliamentary axiom that one parliament cannot bind or commit subsequent parliaments. In other words, it is always open to parliament to override any provision of the Financial Administration Act or any other legislation by means of subsequently enacted legislation.


Mr. Alexander:: Why did you not tell us that the other day?


John Napier Turner: I introduced the argument the other day in the committee but hon. members of the Conservative party were not in a mood to be convinced no matter how cogent the arguments.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: We were willing to listen, but you did not make sense.


John Napier Turner: Vote L12a, which is before Your Honour, is set out in supplementary estimates A for 1972-73 as are the other items to which reference is made. When these are annexed as an addendum to the supply bill, that bill will pass and will become an act of parliament, as any other bill of this House, and in the same way as the Financial Administration Act itself. What parliament, therefore, does on any supply bill and what it will do on a supply bill that follows these estimates is override any contrary provision, including the provision ~-of section 20 of the Financial Administration Act.
One does not have to say directly in the supply bill or estimates that this overrides section 20 of the Financial Administration Act; that is the clear effect of any subsequent piece of legislation that is drawn in more distinctive or specific terms. In other words, I am submitting to Your Honour that there is nothing illegal in what parliament has over and over again provided for in supply bills and has indeed effected through this vote in question.
I have some precedents for the House but I do not know whether they will convince the opposition because they seem to be dug in on a legalistic game. Take the estimates last year for the previous parliament-take the estimates
February 7, 1973

of 1970-71 for the Department of Finance which show, for instance, provincial employment loans program, 1971 and loans to provinces, provincial agencies and municipalities as defined in the Municipal Development and Loans Act, 1971 through 1973 fiscal years. It extends beyond one fiscal year as this does. It was for those three fiscal years and that was in the previous parliament. Take external affairs, the supplementary estimates (A), 1970-71-Canadian International Development Agency, vote 20A-the grants listed in the estimates-to extend the purposes of the special accounts established by Vote 33d of Appropriation Act No. 2, 1965 to provide for payments out of that account in the current and subsequent fiscal years for social development assistance. That is a clear precedent for what we are doing here. Or take the supplementary estimates, 1971-72 for the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources-Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, nuclear research and utilization program. Vote L51a- loans in the current and subsequent fiscal years to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited on such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may approve, to finance the rehabilitation of the Glace Bay heavy water plant. Again, that is extending a vote beyond the fiscal year which was being reviewed in the estimates.
I want to go back to the years in which the government was under the leadership of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), and I should like to submit to the House a few precedents where authorization was granted beyond the fiscal year in question.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: With or without argument?


John Napier Turner: Let me turn to further supplementary estimates for 1958-59 for the Department of Transport for air services, civil aviation division, vote 793 for airways and airports-construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment. There is a further amount required including authority to contribute during the current and fiscal years amounts not exceeding in the aggregate $196,000 and so on. Or look at the estimates for 1959-60 for loans, investments and advances for the Department of National Defence. Vote 475 was to authorize loans to be made in the current and subsequent fiscal years in respect of housing projects constructed pursuant to an agreement with the Minister of National Defence for occupancy by members of the Canadian forces. That is in the amount of $10 million. Or take the estimates for 1958-59. Vote 285 relates to the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources for the northern administration and lands branch, Yukon Territory. It authorized payments to be made in respect of each of the fiscal years for the period commencing April 1, 1957 and ending March 31, 1962-a five year period, well beyond the fiscal period reviewed in the estimates. I submit to the House and Your Honour that I could introduce at least 100 precedents completely within the four corners of the item now before Your Honour.
May I say that the suggestion made in the House and before the committee by the hon. member for Yukon to the effect that the estimated cash flow-which may be more now because the provinces are applying pursuant to agreements to be signed, for an encouraging amount to meet winter unemployment this year-against the substantial amount of $350 million, were it divided into three,
Supply
would completely destroy the purpose of the three year fund. The purpose, which the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) has suggested, is to allow the provinces and municipalities to plan, to allow the municipalities who have limited resources in their budgets for future years to count on the fund as a continuing $350 million fund to meet winter unemployment so that they can plan ahead. The provinces can do likewise.
I went across the country in June, meeting my counterparts and their colleagues who were dealing with manpower and employment. Each of them stressed to me the importance of special planning and a sufficient period of time, consecutively taken, so that they could mount a consistent, logical and effective attack on winter and seasonal unemployment. This is the purpose-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I wonder if the minister would permit one question in order to clear something.


John Napier Turner: Certainly.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Is the minister now telling the House that if this is passed it is a definite commitment. I get confused when I remember the failure of this government regarding certain commitments on urban renewal. Is this a definite commitment in the event that this vote is passed?


John Napier Turner: This is a definite commitment. It will have two controlling authorities, the ultimate authority being parliament, if parliament should authorize the loan provision in the total amount over the three year period of $350 million, these loans to be forgiven at the rate of 50 per cent or 100 per cent labour intensive depending on the period the work is done. First, the authority is the authority of parliament pursuant to approval of this item and subsequent approval of the supply bill; second, individual contracts between the Minister of Finance of Canada and each of the provincial governments for the amount of their allocation and setting out the criteria under which the provinces are to disburse and later seek forgiveness. As I said, these contracts are reviewable by this House. Disbursements in future will be shown in future estimates before this House.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I was just a little concerned with respect to urban renewal, Mr. Speaker. I thought definite commitments had been made and, all of a sudden, the government did a flip-flop and frustrated a lot of cities across the country. I want to elicit from the minister whether this is a definite commitment. I understand now that it is; it is in writing and is subject to the approval of parliament on a year to year basis.


John Napier Turner: The commitment will take-


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order and, with apologies to my hon. colleague. The hon. member's comment on urban renewal, with which I was associated at the time is really a misinterpretation of the type of commitments made to the municipalities. There was no legal commitment made at that time.

February 7, 1973
Supply


An hon. Member:: No legal commitment, but there certainly was a moral commitment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think we are straying from the subject of the debate before us. I would recognize again the Minister of Finance.


Erik Nielsen: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I think-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, order. I recognize the hon. Minister of Finance.


John Napier Turner: I am perfectly willing to continue the conversation with the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) after hours, and I will do so in the appropriate way.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I want to talk to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras).


Erik Nielsen: Will the minister permit a question at this stage?


John Napier Turner: I wonder if I might just finish the argument, and then certainly I will entertain a question from the hon. member for Yukon.
In other words, the provinces asked for, and we are providing, a three-year program that will allow them to undertake global planning and to mount a consistent and effective attack against unemployment. Any slashing or dividing of this authorization will completely destroy the effectiveness of the program. It would convert it into a short-term plan, a stop and go work-related program and would have a disruptive effect on the planning of municipalities which will receive federal funds through provincial governments.
I say this new long-term program will give the provinces and municipalities more time to plan properly and to implement employment programs, avoiding inappropriate use of funds which sometimes results from shorter one year programs. That would be the result of the suggestion of the hon. member for Yukon. Frankly, we consider this to be a major attack on seasonal winter unemployment in this country, and whether or not some hon. members consider it to be sufficient is a matter of argument. If the opposition wants to cripple it, that is the business of the opposition.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on; get off it.


John Napier Turner: That is the business of the government.


Erik Nielsen: That is a gross distortion.


John Napier Turner: The provinces need this authorization before the contracts within the authorization are valid and before any loans can be offered. Frankly, I think the people of this country ought to recognize that this is just legalistic tinkering by the Conservative party with the lives of the unemployed of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the remarks of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and to those of the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner).
What is the essence of vote L12a, which the House is being asked to pass to the amount of $350 million to create a Winter Capital Projects Fund? In his speech, the minister gave no details on the administration of this program. This is the only thing that troubles our party. We are told that the government is to spend $350 million for a Winter Capital Projects Fund. This money will be distributed among the provinces on a per capita basis. The type of assistance will be a loan, the purpose will be the creation of jobs and the period will be December 6, 1972, to June 30, 1975.
The minister would like to be granted a three-year mandate to fight unemployment in Canada. However, the government has been trying for four years to fight it and has met with no success. Still they are to be granted a three-year mandate.
Mr. Speaker, everything the minister has just said is very fine; it is extraordinary to see his determination to fight unemployment, for once, in co-operation with other levels of government, and this is appreciable. But from the moment he wants to co-operate with provincial and municipal governments to lick unemployment in Canada and at the same time promote investments and the implementation of long-desired projects, the minister who is concerned about public finance should at the same time be preoccupied about the financial situation of provinces and municipalities.
Mr. Speaker, in the detail of vote L12a, on page 16 of Supplementary Estimates, it is stated that the government shall grant loans to the provinces under the following conditions: every one of these loans must be secured by the obligations of the province or municipality-their indebtness is still increased-and the obligation shall be issued to or payable to the credit of the Receiver Genral for Canada.
Which means, as stated in sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (b) of this vote, that through the Department of Finance the federal government becomes some kind of finance company for the provinces in order to create employment.
This vote provides also that the term to maturity is 20 years or such lesser period as mav be fixed by the Minister of Finance.
About this matter, I would like the Minister of Finance to take the trouble of giving us an example or the result of discussions that he is deemed to have had with his provincial counterparts, in order that we may know what term the provinces have asked for to repay these loans.
Mr. Speaker, what concerns me most is the following paragraph, and I quote:
February 7, 1973

(iii) the obligation bears interest payable annually at the rate
applicable pursuant to Subsection (1) of Section 113 of the
Canada Pension Plan, at the time of the issue of the obligation
for obligations issued pursuant to that Act at that time to the
Canada Pension Plan;
Such is, Mr. Speaker, the crucial point of this program. Here is a specific example; one or two years ago, Victoria-ville wanted to develop some parks but did not have the financial means to do so; it had to resort to a loan bylaw which in the end was rejected by a majority of citizens. The municipal council found another procedure to carry out its project, but it remains that at the present time, the municipal councillors, the mayor and the people are aware of the financial condition of the city. Let us say that it is no better or no worse than elsewhere.
In short, Canadian municipalities-including those in Quebec which concern me and which I have at heart-are head over heels in debt and the minister would like to obtain the co-operation of provinces and municipalities to set up a system increasing their public debt in order to create the jobs which he has been unable to provide in the past four years. All that because he was trying to check inflation.
Mr. Speaker, the Social Credit has been suggesting for a long time that public plans in the public sector of the economy should be financed interest free or at a rate of interest which should not exceed the administrative costs of the loans granted through the Bank of Canada or its branch at the provincial level.
Our Liberal colleagues come to us begging support in order to avoid the defeat of the government but when we talk about the Bank of Canada, they find us funny. I want to take the opportunity to tell them that I am a Social Crediter and that I am not ashamed of the Creditist theory and that if they were men they would listen before laughing.
Mr. Speaker, I will say to the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Duquet)-I understand that he is not interested in the financial problems of municipalities-that the municipalities of my constituency as everywhere else are indebted. His attitude is wrong to the point that he deprives the population of several desirable and necessary projects of public interest.
Provinces and municipalities endure hardships. The idea behind these $350 million is extraordinary in the sense that the provinces and the municipalities will receive some help at last.
But I draw the line, Mr. Speaker, when the government contributes to increase provincial and municipal indebtedness by charging high interest rates and by demanding the issuance of obligations when they borrow and even by requesting them to invest twice what they invested if the loans came under the second class, that is if they have been granted after December 6, 1972.
Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues and other people consider interest-free loans as a very funny thing. However, the Minister of Finance or anyone who will replace him will have to think someday and tell us if our solution is that funny. What is the solution he proposes to stop the
Supply
alarming indebtedness of provinces and municipalities? He will have tell us some day.
Mr. Speaker, I will give the example of Parisville, a very small municipality in my constituency. The hon. member for Quebec East does not talk about his constituency's problems; anyway, he does not have the right to rise and take the floor. Just today at noon, I was talking to the Mayor of Parisville who told me he submitted a local initiatives project for setting up a community leisure centre at the end of December. He has had no news about this project although it would create jobs. Having had no reply, he telephoned me at his own expense to solicit my assistance and the co-operation of the department.
His municipality spent $25,000 from its savings in a bank account in order to supplement the financial participation of Parisville citizens toward this centre. Might there be higher priorities in Parisville? That is not our problem, nor that of the Minister of Finance. We must abide by the choice of municipal or provincial authorities.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the government really means what it says about creating jobs. I have just heard the hon. Minister of Finance state that it is urgent that jobs be created. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) should express the same opinion and start action, replying to applications submitted on the government's invitation in order to create jobs. He should at least have the decency to reply to those people, whether at the local or municipal level. Then, the government's good faith would find credibility.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the government should strive very seriously for a solution to the problem of public financing in our country. What sources have provinces or municipalities for their financing? Would they be bond issues and foreign loans?
When a municipality or a province borrows, what does that involve? It must reimburse twice or three times the amount of the loan in interest, and once in capital. Who does this reimbursing? The taxpayer, who is taxed, bled white.
In order to finance itself the municipality may have recourse to the second expedient, namely taxation. No need to talk about it since all my colleagues who consider themselves honest will admit like me, I think, that Canadians are overtaxed.
Mr. Speaker, it is expected that the government will have a huge deficit. What will it suggest to make up for it? A tax increase, I am sure! We shall wonder whether to tax the rich, the poor or take from the rich to give to the poor, but the fact is, however, that the funds of the lederal, provincial and municipal governments show a deficit.
As for private business, it is being bled white to pay for administrative mistakes and the mismanagement of our administrators who failed to develop a modern way of financing the growth of the public sector, thus enabling the Canadian people not only to take part in the growth of our country and to work, but to be able to make savings.
Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues from the Liberal party find it funny, but when we come to the point of taxing the taxpayers' savings, it is no longer funny. This means that there is a problem in financing the public sector and one day the federal Minister of Finance will

Supply
have to study the proposals of the Social Credit Party or any other proposal in order to assist municipalities to create jobs without hopelessly sinking into debt.
Mr. Speaker, the principle of appropriating $350 million presents good aspects, but the terms and conditions of the repayment are dangerous, to such an extent that they will contribute to create at least $350 million of debts, in capital only, for municipalities and provinces. The hon. minister should be brave and frank enough to tell the House what interest rate will be charged, on the repayment of this $350 million loan granted by the federal government. My colleague from Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) says one billion, and I do not doubt it because he is usually good at figures, and I believe him. And who will reimburse that billion? Of course, the good old "milch cows" of the federal government and the same "milch cows" with regard to the municipal and provincial governments; in other words, the average Canadian, whose taxes are pounced on.
Fiscal federal-provincial conferences are held not to find new ways of fincancing the public sector, or creating new jobs, or meeting the requests of the municipalities, but to find out who will be taxed.
Now, the Social Credit has a realistic solution. We ask the Minister of Finance to tell us, before this vote is passed-if he is honest enough to do so-how those $350 million will be reimbursed over 20 years and at what rate of interest. If he is honest enough to answer, then he will have proved to the House that there is no other solution to creating jobs in Canada and realizing long awaited municipal and provincial projects than by financing them through the Bank of Canada or its branch office in each one of the Canadian provinces with loans bearing no interest or at cost for the administration of the loan, so that the Canadian taxpayer, while finding employment through those projects, might reimburse only once what they cost to the financiers in Ottawa.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I was intrigued by the suggestion of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) concerning the method of financing this particular program. Who knows, it might well have some attraction to hon. members opposite. I regret that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) is not here now, so did not hear the proposal and did not react to it. However, if I recall correctly me Minister of Finance was a member of this House on the opposite side when his colleagues voted for a proposition put forward by the Social Credit Party advocating interest-free money and the dealing with propositions of this kind. I cannot say for certain, because I do not have the record before me, whether the Minister of Finance voted for it, but certainly his party voted for it. The present distinguished Leader in the Senate, and all the rest of his colleagues stood up and voted for a proposition akin to that advocated by the hon. member for Lotbiniere.
I hope the answers will be given by the Minister of Finance before this proposition is completed so far as our debate is concerned. I see that the Minister of Finance is here. That is good. Before he assumed this portfolio, the Minister of Finance was Minister of Justice. As Minister of Justice he should have acquired a healthy and funda-

mental respect for the law. Yet we have heard him today propose a proceedure in which he says in effect we should ignore the law or jump over it if it gets in our way. Then, he cited the improprieties of the past.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Lotbiniere is rising on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. [English]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Lotbiniere on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). Since he said at the beginning of his speech that it was regrettable that the Minister of Finance was away and could not answer my question, would he allow me to ask a question to the hon. Minister of Finance with the consent of the House?
Could the Minister of Finance tell the House what will be the interest rate the provinces and the municipalities will have to pay in connection with the reimbursement of the $350 million?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think we might get ourselves into difficulty if we stray back and forth and deal with this as if it were a matter being debated in Committee of the Whole House. If the measure is adopted and it subsequently forms pari of a bill which is being considered in the Committee of the Whole House, the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) and other members will have full opportunity to ask questions with respect to detail of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and other members of the ministry. I really think that, with members having limited time when taking part in the debate at this particular stage, it would be better if one were recognized and allowed to have his say. All these interesting questions could be stored up until we get ourselves into the committee of the whole at some future time. The hon. member for Peace River.


André-Gilles Fortin: On this same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I will respectfully obey your instructions. However, this will be in co-operation with my hon. friend from Peace River and with the minister who seems anxious to answer. Why not allow him to take a minute to answer my question which is surely of interest to all hon. members and which he forgot to discuss in his speech?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am tempted, but I think not. I prefer that the debate proceed in the regular way at this time. Otherwise, we might get ourselves into all kinds of difficulties. I think hon. members will realize that they are dealing with a rookie Speaker at this stage, and I want to appear as exact as possible considering my awesome
February 7, 1973

responsibilities. May I now call on the hon. member for Peace River.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), I would like to add that if we consider as a matter of no importance the interest rate which will be charged to municipalities and provinces, it is sufficient to refer to the item of the budget to find out that it is hardly irrelevant because the interest rate-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is making a speech and not raising a point of order. I ask the House to co-operate with the Chair and proceed in the regular fashion. There will be opportunities to ask these questions of the Minister of Finance in due course. I now recognize the hon. member for Peace River.


Gerald William Baldwin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think your decision is very reasonable.


André-Gilles Fortin: Will you ask the question?


Gerald William Baldwin: It has been suggested to me that I can relay the question to the Minister of Finance, if he did not hear it. At this point I would ask the Minister of Finance if, in the course of this debate, he would indicate not only to my hon. friends in the Social Credit party, but to all members of the House, what the interest rate will be?


John Napier Turner: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Gerald William Baldwin: No, I was asking the Minister of Finance a question. I asked him a question, and I hope that by the time I have completed my remarks he will have the information with which to answer. If not, he can take two days more to come up with the answer.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: You haven't read the bill yet.


Gerald William Baldwin: What bill? Mr. Speaker, this brings me to a very interesting point. That was a Freudian slip on the part of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury). We are not dealing with a bill. This is one of the complaints I am going to make about the way we are dealing with this issue.
I was just getting to the very interesting stage in my remarks where I was complaining about the attitude of the Minister of Finance who, as the first law officer-


John Napier Turner: Former.


Gerald William Baldwin: -who at one time was the first law officer and constitutional adviser to the cabinet. I was complaining about the very light way in which he now accepts his responsibility as a member of the Treasury Board when he advocates that we disregard the laws of this country. He cites improprieties in the past. He goes back to improprieties that were committed in a number of instances. Mr. Speaker, I don't care which party is in power, I take the position that there is a right way and a wrong way to proceed when we come to take tax money from the people of this country. No matter what was done in the past, the
Supply
Minister of Finance would be well advised in this period in his career, which may very well shortly be curtailed-


John Napier Turner: You were a parliamentary secretary to the then Prime Minister when all those things went through in 1959 and 1960.


Gerald William Baldwin: In the very limited time left to him to hold his office, he would be well advised to comply with the law. I would suggest to him that he should remember the phrase, "Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive."


An hon. Member:: That is what he gets for following your practice.


Gerald William Baldwin: This government has done this. If this were the first instance, I would take no account of it. A certain amount of ignorance goes hand in hand with the operations of the Minister of Finance and all hon. members opposite. But now it has become more than ignorance. It has become a stated method of proceeding. We have the case which the hon. member for Yukon so well illustrated.
We have some lawyers in this chamber. Some of us were lawyers before we progressed to become members of parliament and went upwards in the scale of society. But there is a very interesting proposition scienter, that every dog is entitled to one bite. However, having made that bite, he ought to be destroyed if he bites a second time.
Let me chronicle a few of the things that the government has done in this respect. We had the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, and the Unemployment Insurance Fund, where we caught them out cold with their hands in the taxpayers' pockets, without licence to do so. Then, we had the case of the CNR which engaged an auditor for a year without any legal obligation to pay him. Then, we had the Export Development Corporation, and one of my colleagues who participated in that debate convinced the House that the government had exceeded its commitment under a legal ceiling at that time. I could go on, Mr. Speaker. This dog has been biting so often that it is about time it was put back in its kennel. A dog catcher will get him in the next election.
My hon. friend from the Yukon has well made his case with respect to illegality. I don't need to enlarge on that, but I want to deal with this issue in other areas of substance. I was shocked to see the Minister of Finance stand in his place today and, in his most pitiful and inadequate way, attempt to defend the program outlined in this estimate, saying, "Last June I went around the country. I went to the provinces and found out that measures of this kind were required." What a shocking admission that is. That was in June of last year. Obviously, the House was still sitting. We were attempting to drum the facts of life into the government. We were attempting to show the government what the situation would be in the fall and this winter. My hon. friends in the NDP were associated with us in our endeavours at that time. But in the face of all that, in face of these trips that the minister had taken in June, in face of the fact that he had come to the conclusion that measures of this kind were required, what happened? Nothing was done. The House recessed at the

February 7, 1973
Supply
end of June or at the beginning of July, against our protests.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: We came back for two days in September to deal with a special problem at that time. We vigorously pressed for action to provide measures for the winter unemployment which circumstances at that time indicated would occur in Canada. But we were met with the story that everything was fine, everything was good, everything was rosy.
The Minister of Finance admits having gone around the country in June. He admits he knew what the problem was. But because the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and other hon. gentlemen opposite decided to call an election, then just as with the case of the Unemployment Insurance Fund, they hid the problem and did nothing about it. You do not turn on a winter works program like you turn on the tap on a beer keg. It takes time, it takes preparation, it takes notice. I come from a part of the country where there are a great many small communities that have to struggle desperately in order to provide the budgets they need for the social amenities for the people who live in them. In order for them to take advantage of a program of this kind they require several months notice. June, Mr. Speaker, is not too early at all. I say, shame on the government for its failure, having full and adequate knowledge of the facts, to act when it had an opportunity to do so.
There were as of January 688,000 unemployed people in Canada. How many will there be in February? What are the government's expectations that a program of this kind will have any alleviating effect during the balance of this winter? I suggest there will be very little indeed. It is true that, hopefully, this program might have some effect next year, but I think it is a shocking and shameful thing that it is February before we become involved for the first time in attempting to provide some measure of assistance through programs of this kind to the unemployed of this country. It is obvious-it has to be obvious-that the programs that will be engaged in will have little remedial effect during the balance of this winter, and the responsibility for this lies squarely at the door of hon. members opposite. The people of this country will not lightly forget that.
There are many other areas with which I could deal. The fact that this measure could well have been brought in in the form of a bill is one. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) thought it was a bill. This government has become accustomed to dealing with matters of this kind in the estimates with all the particulars, exceptions and provisos. I suggest it should have been brought in as a bill last spring or summer. An opportunity should have been given the House to send the measure to a standing committee composed of Members of Parliament with far more knowledge of the needs and requirements of the people of Canada than have my hon. friends opposite. There could then have been included as input to the bill the views and representations of constituents all over Canada.
It is manifestly wrong to attempt to provide measures dealing with unemployment though items in the estimates. Fortunately, through our ingenuity and because of a very wise decision which was made, we now have a little better opportunity to discuss the matter than we otherwise would have had. If that were not so, there would have been some limited debate in the committee, and if the matter had been taken up at the end of the period of allotted days an item involving $350 million would have received no debate at all. This is no way to deal with such an important measure as this.
I have so many more things to say, Mr. Speaker, but I understand that hon. members on both sides of the House want to discuss the matter so I will reserve any further comments until such time as we go into committee of the whole.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I have often been asked whether, if a particular party were to take over the government, we would be able to do many of the things that are promised. Having watched the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), I think we would have to come to the conclusion that that would not be likely. I was very surprised this afternoon when he said that what he was doing was all right because his advisers had told him so. These were the same advisers who told the previous government that it was all right to do this, and probably they also told the government before that. I am equally sure they will tell the government yet to come the same thing. It is time we took a look once more at the rules of the House so as to give Members of Parliament the chance to make some input, instead of having civil servants who do not really care about how legislation is developed as long as it is developed along their own lines provide the input.
I do not agree with the argument of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). Perhaps he did have to take advantage of the opportunity of putting down a notice, for the simple reason that this has been the precedent that we have recently developed. But I think the real problem with this piece of legislation is that which was outlined in the remarks of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). This estimate really is a bill. It has the power of a statute and it will be a statute because it will come in as another bill. It will become a statute following passage of the supplementary estimates. I say that is a lousy way of doing business; it is a terrible way to introduce legislation. This piece of legislation will be lousy legislation, and it will be bad for a number of reasons.
I totally agree that we need winter works projects. I have discussed this matter with a number of municipalities in my area and all agree they could probably scrape up some money if they could be given a long-term loan- which probably they cannot afford. If Members of Parliament would really think about supplying capital for winter works projects I am sure they would agree that there have to be certain criteria, and these cannot be outlined in supplementary estimates.
For example, let us suppose that the province of Ontario wants to use its three-year contribution of approximately $100 million to do something at the proposed Pickering airport. It is possible that the province of Ontario will find this a very useful winter works project


in that area. Although the Minister of Finance said that he had discussed this proposition with all provinces six months ago, the fact is that in Ontario to the best of my knowledge there are no application forms yet available for these projects. We are already well into the month of February, and the maximum advantage to be derived from this legislation will end in the latter part of May.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: You have not passed the bill.


William Arnold Peters: We do not have a bill. What we are talking about here is an estimate that seeks to provide $350 million over a three-year period. I do not know that it is a good idea to do this in the form of an estimate and for a period exceeding one year, but I am not prepared to argue that point. What I am prepared to argue is that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) is right and that there should be a bill. All Members of Parliament should know what are to be the criteria governing the expenditure of this money.
In some of the communities I represent in the province of Ontario there is an unemployment rate of 25 per cent. I suggest that if any capital works projects are to be started in those municipalities, one of the criteria should be that there be a reasonably high level of unemployment in the area. A sum of $100 million over a three-year period is roughly $30 million a year, and this will probably allow 300 communities a $10,000 grant for each of three years. Thousands of communities in northern Ontario have an unemployment rate of 25 per cent.
It has been mentioned that Quebec will receive $113 million and that the province has a total over-all unemployment rate of 10 per cent. If that amount is divided up among the municipalities of Quebec, then there will not be much forthcoming in the form of capital grants. The same can be said of the local initiatives program. When we ask people to submit good LIP programs, there is not nearly enough money to cover the majority of them. There is nothing wrong with the projects; it is just that there is not any more money.
If we are to be fair to Members of Parliament and to the country, and if we are to be fair to municipalities, which really will be the ones to take advantage of this provision, we will need to spell out how the municipalities are to apply, on what grounds they can apply and who is to get the money. Toronto, in Ontario, hogs practically all the money available. If the people there decide to build a subway, they do so. Whatever they decide to build or do, you name it, they do it. Anything they decide to build may not do the rest of Ontario much good. It is my opinion, and I am sure it is shared by most hon. members present, that if this measure were to be introduced in a bill, in the normal way, most hon. members would stipulate as one criterion to be followed, the level of unemployment existing in those municipalities which apply for these loans. As the amount of money involved is so small, I suggest that the level of unemployment in those communities would need to be rather high, probably over 30 per cent.
I am violently opposed to legislation of the type now before us. We tried to get rid of what are referred to as dollar items in the estimates. They were statutory items
Supply
and legislative items. I think most people agreed when the committee changed the rules that those items ought not to be included in estimates. Legislation ought not to be introduced in the form of dollar items, because major amounts should not be spent without Members of Parliament being given an opportunity to discuss the issues involving those particular items. We have now passed that stage, and most Members of Parliament welcome that.
I do not agree with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) when he suggests that because someone else did this before or because we may list a number of projects that have been introduced in a similar manner that this is the right way to introduce the project being considered. He knew about this in June of last year and discussed it. I say this because I received, as all hon. members did, a sheaf of papers the other day indicating how the winter capital projects program would operate. The senior officials of municipal departments have known about it, as have officials of the province of Ontario. The matter has been discussed by some municipalities for some time. However, I did not know what was involved. I did not know who was going to make decisions and I did not know what the criteria were to be. I still do not know what the criteria are.
I suggest that we are not very honest in this House if we pass this kind of legislation, important though it is, and it is important. I agree that the three-year provision is necessary, because nothing will happen this year and the money will be applied to projects in the next two years. It takes that long to plan capital projects in most municipalities. However, I think we are dishonest if we pass this kind of legislation as a substitute for normal legislation introduced in the normal way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: This, Mr. Speaker, is a civil servant's dream, because he can make any kind of arrangement he wants with his provincial counterparts. He can make any kind of pork-barreling arrangement he wishes. Believe me, pork-barreling is not exclusively the prerogative of members of any legislative House, federal or provincial. The civil servants scratch each other's back all the time and this is an excellent opportunity to scratch somebody's back. Also, passing this item will not mean that winter capital projects will go to those municipalities most in need. They may not go to those municipalities that can provide the best type of permanent community activity, in view of the size of the expenditure to be made. Projects will be awarded to certain areas after provincial civil servants, in conjunction with their federal counterparts, have decided what is of most advantage to them.
I do not know why the Minister of Finance, who is a progressive, young and energetic person, even though he has been given a huge portfolio, has fallen into the trap of allowing the introduction of this type of legislation by estimate rather than by a bill. Surely, he agrees that criteria ought to be set out by Members of Parliament so that the municipalities can get the maximum benefit from the money. As I see it, we are putting up the money.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

Supply


William Arnold Peters: Why should we allow the provinces to decide what the criteria are to be? Why should we allow civil servants to decide what those criteria are to be? Why should we operate this winter works capital project by regulation rather than by legislation? On those grounds, Mr. Speaker, I do not support this type of legislation by estimate.
The minister said this type of program is required. Sure, it is required; there is no argument about that, but it is wrong to legislate this way. This is the same as passing a dollar item. It is wrong to enact legislation by the device of using dollar items in the estimates. We agreed it was wrong and we got rid of that practice; yet we are doing exactly the same thing under this supplementary estimate. I do not know whether the House would be agreeable to standing this particular item, in order to give the minister an opportunity to bring in a bill to implement the objective of the estimate. Obviously, he must know what that bill would contain, because if we pass this estimate, it would be as if we passed a bill which would become a statute. That bill would have no more in it than you see in the estimate. It will not deal with criteria; it will not set the levels of unemployment in municipalities that may take advantage of this measure. The estimate does not say how much the interest rate is to be.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes, it does.


John Napier Turner: Yes.


William Arnold Peters: Well, I do not read it that way, but it may say that. Certainly, my Social Credit friends who may be more interested in interest rates than I am do not read it
that way. I do not think the Minister of Finance said what the rate is to be. In this item of the estimates we are not told what the basis of the winter capital works project is to be. I think it is wrong to do it this way. I do not think this item meets the needs that I should like to see met in these kinds of projects.
Let me add this, however. I believe the idea is excellent. I believe the proposition is good and I think the three-year provision is to be commended. All the same, I believe we ought to know how the money is to be spent. I am sick and tired of seeing money given to the provinces and seeing them pork-barrel it among themselves, if one may use that expression. This, apparently, will be another instance of that. Let the federal government be given some of the credit for the program. We ought to set the criteria; we ought to decide interest rates and, certainly, we ought to have some input in these programs. Every time I discuss a LIP program I hear officials in Toronto say, "We have to talk to the people in Ottawa before any decision can be made." We do not really make the decisions, Mr. Speaker. The same thing will happen with the winter capital works projects, and I think it is wrong.
May I call it six o'clock in order to give the minister an opportunity to consider a very serious proposition.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, may we have an indication, possibly from the President of the Treasury Board or the Minister of Finance, as to whether we are to continue with this matter?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
At 6.01 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday. February 8, 1973