1973-02-08

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I ask leave of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity arising from the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to the delegation from the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs that "perhaps you have more legal rights than we thought you had when we did the white paper". I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Taylor):
That the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development be convened immediately and that the Prime Minister be asked to appear before the committee to clarify the government's position with regard to the legal rights of native people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move a motion under Standing Order 43. It may be that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) or one of his colleagues would like to second it. If so, I should be glad if he would so indicate. I would move, as follows:
The landing of STOL aircraft in Rockcliffe having been stalled as the result of a citizen protest headed by Mrs. John Turner, this House calls on the government to indicate that it will reconsider the protests with respect to Sea Island Airport and the proposed Pickering Airport when it learns that those protests are headed, respectively, by Mrs. Ron Basford and Mrs. Alastair Gillespie.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair heard two or three members say no.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


FRASER RIVER PROTECTION PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 with respect to the continuing danger of flooding in the lower mainland of British Columbia. Therefore I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds):
That the Minister of the Environment be urged to give priority to discussions with the province of British Columbia for the purpose of developing and financing a program on the Fraser River that would remove this annual fear and safeguard the property and lives of residents of the valley and lower mainland area.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I solicit unanimous consent of the House to deal with a matter of very urgent importance to all eastern producers concerning feed grains.
Since the hon. minister had committed himself to setting up a new policy in this field through consultation and that this morning the Union des producteurs agricoles and the Cooperative federee du Quebec seceded from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, thus breaking off any possible negotiations, the matter seems to me so urgent and important that it should be dealt with as thoroughly as possible.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Tetrault):
That a special debate take place following an agreement between parliamentary leaders in order to deal as soon as possible with the new situation related to the development of a nation-wide

February 8, 1973
Grain
feed grain policy giving fair consideration to the rights of all producers, in all parts of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is no unanimity, the motion cannot be put.


SURVEY FIGURES-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I also rise under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pertaining to the refusal of the minister responsible for the Wheat Board to disclose figures, when available, in the Canadian Wheat Board's current grain survey. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton):
That this House instructs the minister to forthwith direct the Canadian Wheat Board to make available the information in the grain survey undertaken by it and to make public that information as to grain supplies on hand at the present time of the survey.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to the item "Motions" on the agenda. My point of order is that this is the first opportunity available to the government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), following the meetings he had yesterday with representatives of the Nishga Tribal Council and the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, to make a statement to the House about the government's position with regard to aboriginal rights. I rise on this point of order not only because it is the first opportunity but especially because there is public indication that the position of the government and the Prime Minister has definitely shifted on the question of aboriginal rights and specifically because a letter was addressed this morning by my leader, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis)-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubt whether this is a point of order. The hon. member might indicate how it is a point of order. It seems to be a question the hon. member might want to ask later.


Frank Howard: I wish you would not have asked me to do that, Mr. Speaker. The point is that the Prime Minister has not taken this opportunity to disclose his feelings about

aboriginal rights to the House and the public, and I think that is shameful.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Frank Howard: for leave to introduce Bill C-140, to amend the Canada Elections Act (a form of absentee balloting).


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the said bill?


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, there is a provision in the Canada Elections Act now whereby a resident in a rural polling division may vote by swearing in and being vouched for, even though his name may not appear on the voters' list. The purpose of this bill is to extend that provision to people ordinarily resident in urban polling divisions and also to permit a person to vote by using in effect an absentee ballot or swearing in within his own constituency.


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

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motions:
February 6, 1973-The Minister of Veterans Affairs moved:
That the report of the joint study group on basic rate of pensions, tabled January 31, 1973, be referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21, this motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the House.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 INDIAN AFFAIRS ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 26 to ask leave to move a motion for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the question of aboriginal
February 8, 1973

rights. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That the House do now adjourn and that a discussion on aboriginal rights in Canada be held.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Athabasca has given the Chair due notice of his intention to request an opportunity to debate, under the provisions of Standing Order 26, the question of the aboriginal rights of Indians.
Hon. members know how difficult it is for the Chair to reach a decision under the terms of Standing Order 26, and in view of this I have given the usual very serious consideration to a notice given under the terms of that Standing Order. As hon. members know, it is only in very special circumstances meeting the specific requirements of the Standing Order that the ordinary business of the House can be set aside for the purpose of an emergency debate. The Chair has to take into account, particularly, whether the situation sought to be debated is one which is in the nature of a sudden emergency requiring the immediate consideration of the House and, in addition, whether there might be other opportunities for debate.
On the first point, the fact that the matter has been referred to in debate on so many occasions during the past weeks suggests that the situation is not one which would normally justify an adjournment under Standing Order 26 in spite of the special circumstances referred to in one of the motions under Standing Order 43 earlier this afternoon. Hon. members may have noted that there is a notice of motion dealing with essentially the same question standing in the name of the hon. member for the Northwest Territories. It may also be recalled that the hon. member for Skeena as well as the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands have proposed motions under the provisions of Standing Order 43 dealing with the same question. Such a motion was proposed earlier today by the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands and a point of order was raised by the hon. member for Skeena. These motions, and the point of order, dealt essentially with the same question. On several other occasions this session questions have been put forward leading to an exchange of views seeking ways and means of arriving at a solution to this problem.
The Chair recognizes that there are unique circumstances attendant upon this question, and while it is not my intention to close the gate on the possibility of a debate on this subject it is my feeling that a more effective vehicle could be found for a debate. I regret to say that the nature and the complexity of the many aspects of this problem, as well as the requirements of the Standing Order, suggest to me that the matter should not be put forward for debate at this time under the provisions of the Standing Order.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he is prepared to permit individual Canadian taxpayers preparing their forms to deduct reasonable fees paid to tax consultants in view of the severe difficulty ordinary income taxpayers will encounter when they face the nine-page challenge that his colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, is trying to persuade people is really quite simple?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is the Minister of Finance prepared, because this comes under his jurisdiction, to recommend to the House that arrangements be made to permit deduction for income tax purposes of reasonable fees paid to tax consultants by the ordinary Canadian?


Hon. lohn N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the preamble to the hon. gentleman's question. The answer, of course, would be a budgetary item in any event.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I suppose this is such a big step for the government to take that it has to wait for the budget. I should like to ask the Minister of Finance or the Minister of National Revenue whether representations have been received from firms of accountants or tax consultants seeking the postponement of the deadline for the filing of tax forms in view of the complexity of the forms and, consequently, the additional demands for their services which they are unable to meet within the deadline?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: As I have said previously, Mr. Speaker, there has been some suggestion that there might be an extension of the date for filing income tax returns, but I do not think there is any precedent for this and no decision has been taken on the matter. I might say that I am sure that the hon. Leader of the Opposition would not want to encourage most Canadians to think that it will be a difficult task to complete the tax form.


Mr. Hees:: You do not have to encourage them; they know perfectly well it is.


Mr. Horner:: Why advertise it so much if it is not difficult?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I think hon. members might take note of the analysis by Mr. Ken Hall, I think it was, in the Calgary Herald, who said that after looking at the form he found that it was no more frightening than Brigitte Bardot in a bikini.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

February 8, 1973
Oral Questions


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, now that the minister has repeated his indication that he is considering a deferment of the deadline for the filing of these tax forms, can he tell the Canadian people whether there will in fact be a deferment of the deadline, or does this too have to wait for the budget? Or is the minister really indicating to the House today that he has been thinking about it but in view of the fact that it shatters all precedent he is not in fact prepared to recommend an extension of the deadline?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I think what I said was that it had been requested, but one of the bases for the request was that at that time it was expected there would be some delay in distributing the personalized forms. Actually they went out at about the same time this year as they have in the past.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York South on a supplementary.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, my question is in the general area but is not supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: Then the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Calgary South on a supplementary.


COST OF ADVERTISING RESPECTING 1972 FORM
Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the Minister of National Revenue. Would the minister indicate to the House the ultimate cost to the taxpayer of the tax advertisement, "It's new and easier than it looks", and what it has cost to date for television, radio and so on?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question could be placed on the order paper. The hon. member for Moose Jaw on a supplementary.


Mr. Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Revenue.


Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member for Moose Jaw but the hon. member for Calgary North is rising on a point of order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, with great respect, I think that ruling may have been made in a little haste.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Surely hon. members are prepared to hear me out. With the greatest respect, this is a very serious matter. These are difficult forms. We have seen today a misrepresentation of the facts about those forms, as has been the case for weeks. What we are looking for from the government are forthright answers on this subject. I would ask Your Honour to permit the hon. member for Calgary South to rephrase his question so that we can get some answers on this very serious matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Moose Jaw. The hon. member for Calgary South did rise, obviously wanting to ask a supplementary, and he will be given that right in a moment.


REGULATIONS RESPECTING CLAIMS FOR DEPRECIATION BY FARMERS
Douglas Charles Neil: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My supplementary is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the fact that the 1972 farmers' and fishermens' tax guide could create some misunderstanding on the part of farmers with respect to their claiming depreciation, would the minister undertake to inform farmers that they may continue to use Part XVII of the regulations for depreciation of assets acquired prior to December 31, 1971, and that it is only with respect to assets acquired after December 31 that Part XI should be used?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to have that looked into.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON COST OF ADVERTISING RESPECTING 1972 FORM
Peter Colwell Bawden: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Would he be prepared to make a statement on motions as to the cost of running these advertisements across the country?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: That would be rather odd, Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member's own colleagues have quoted a figure in the House. There is no secret about it. It is about in proportion to the amount spent by the governments of Ontario, Manitoba and Quebec on advertising their new tax departures this year.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Peter Colwell Bawden: Mr. Speaker, will the minister advise the House how Mr. Fred Davis is qualified to advise Canadians on their tax matters?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that this question is not in order. I recognize the hon. member for St. Boniface.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF OFFICE HOURS TO ASSIST TAXPAYERS SEEKING INFORMATION
Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (St. Boniface):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Give it to him, Joe.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Sock it to him, Joe.
February 8, 1973


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Would he now give consideration to the possibility of extending the office hours of income tax offices throughout the country so it will be more convenient for citizens to appear at these offices to get the additional information they require?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I think this is an excellent suggestion.


An hon. Member:: And a necessary one.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I have asked my officials to give it careful consideration. I just want them to try to be sure that the cost of doing it does not add to the burden of Canadian taxpayers too greatly.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the statement made in the House yesterday by the Minister of Finance that he has never been in the business of forecasting, would the right hon. gentleman please inform the House what ministry or other body or unit within the government is responsible for forecasting economic trends in order to assist policy-making in this area?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, the Economic Council of Canada under its legislative authority has a mandate-


George Harris Hees: You have never paid the slightest attention to anything they have said to you.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I apologize, but the ebullience of some members of the House made it impossible for me to hear the Prime Minister's answer. With your permission, perhaps he might repeat it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I indicated that under its legislation the Economic Council of Canada was involved in the business of looking at the medium and long-term trends of the economy. Of course, the government is not without advice from its own internal advisers. We discuss these problems in cabinet and, indeed, I am sure the minister discusses them with his officials. When a budget is brought down they give the House and the country as much knowledge as possible about the economy, past, present and future.
Oral Questions


SHORT-TERM MONETARY AND FISCAL TARGETS OR OTHER TOOLS USED IN ARRIVING AT POLICIES
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance arising from the fact that he seems to me to be confusing forecasting with prophesying, and no one is asking him to prophesy. I should like to ask him to indicate to the House what short-term targets he has set for his monetary and fiscal policies and, in particular, the rate of unemployment in the short term? If he has decided not to set targets, would he please inform the House what other tools he and his advisers are using for arriving at policies to manage the economy?


An hon. Member:: The NDP.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, this again is a debating point. I said yesterday that certain hon. gentlemen look specifically at some of the important targets in respect of unemployment and prices but, as the Economic Council of Canada pointed out, they are all interrelated and we really should be speaking in terms of targets over a range of 14 or 15 indicators. I said as well that there is a risk that targets might be confused in the public mind with forecasts. This is very difficult to do in a vulnerable economy like Canada's where we are so influenced by interrelated trade and price movements.


An hon. Member:: A vulnerable government, you mean.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Minister of Finance, when he brings down his budget, will talk a little more sense. May I ask him whether he can give the House the reason for the resignation from his department of Cyril D. Hodgins, who was director of economic analysis, and particularly-I ask this seriously-whether his resignation was a consequence of the minister's attitude toward economic targets and guiding the economy on the basis of having the courage to set economic targets?


John Napier Turner: That assertion of the hon. gentleman about Mr. Hodgins is unworthy of him. Mr Hodgins left because of other opportunities and, as a matter of fact, remains in close touch with the department on a contract basis. I deny that assertion very strongly. As for my speaking sense on budget night, I will do so if the hon. member can give me the same undertaking.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement of the Minister of Finance a moment ago that it is difficult to make forecasts and that he was reluctant to make them, I should like to ask the minister why he forecast with such emphasis during the budget speech that more jobs would be created during 1972 than in 1971 and that food prices would go up less in 1972 than in 1971?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the hon. gentleman play with his selective memory in the hope that he can influence the House and the country with selective recall of facts and statistics. As a matter of fact, I find that the Leader of the Opposition is playing a rather cynical game of distorted numbers.

February 8, 1973
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are a number of members who wish to ask supplementary questions. They will be recognized, but first the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Bellechasse and then return to this matter in a short while.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board.
As the minister in charge of the board recently gave an outline of the government feed grain marketing policy to the representatives of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and since Quebec producers were represented by the Union des producteurs du Quebec and the Cooperative federee, is the minister aware of the scission recently brought about by the departure of the representatives of the UPA and the Cooperative federee from the ranks of the CFA over a difference of opinion on the important matter of feed grains?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have been following very closely the differences of view in the country both within different regions and between different regions with regard to this question. What I did indicate before the Canadian Federation of Agriculture yesterday was the confidence of the government about implementation of the principle with which all parties involved agree, namely that feed grains ought to be available to producers of animals across the country at prices which are equitable from one region to another. All parties agree with that and the Speech from the Throne adopted that principle. We also indicated that prior to the beginning of the next crop year we would have in place a solution that would stop the situation of several years ago from occurring again. So far as I know that is accepted by the Co-op Federee, among others, as a very important step in ensuring the principle to which, as I say, all parties in fact agree.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.
In view of the encouraging answer the minister has just given the House, can he tell us whether he intends to introduce legislation, as announced in the Speech from the Throne, to remedy a situation that is growing more serious every day?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as regards the immediate situation I think most persons, including the producers and the organization to which the hon. member refers, realize that we are not in the difficulty we were in a year or two ago and, indeed, that the Canadian Wheat Board has been offering feed grains to eastern Canadian producers at

prices below the prices they could have obtained from foreign sources. They do this in recognition of the importance of the eastern feed grain market to the western producers. Of course the Minister of Agriculture and I will be discussing the particular solutions we propose with the various interested agricultural groups. I do not expect that a bill will be involved in the solution, but that is still a possibility.


FEED GRAIN-SUGGESTED ADDITIONAL SUBSIDY TO ASSIST FARMERS IN ATLANTIC CANADA
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the Minister of Justice has reaffirmed the federal government's commitment to solve the feed grain marketing issue before the end of July and has stated that Ottawa is considering easing Wheat Board control over the interprovincial movement of feed grain and that a bill would not be presented, is the government considering additional subsidies to defray expenses so that farmers in Atlantic Canada may buy feed grains at prices in line with those presently being paid in the west?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that is in fact the situation at the moment. I think there is a good deal of misunderstanding in different regions of the country about the great cost involved in transportation, handling and, indeed, in the cost of services like storage or taking the risk of carrying grain. Those differences naturally are reflected in price differences between one region and another. The government will be looking at the whole range of alternatives in an attempt to improve the situation and essentially to ensure that the situation of a year or so ago does not occur again, namely, that distress priced grain is available in one region and only much higher priced grain is available in other regions.


FEED GRAIN AND MILK-INCLUSION IN AGENDA OF NEXT FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
Is it his intention to follow up on the statement made yesterday night by the Quebec Premier that he intends to move that the matter of feed grains and of milk prices be included in the agenda of the next federal-provincial conference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is possible, Mr. Speaker, that the Quebec Premier has made such a statement but I am not aware of it; he will undoubtedly write to me about it. The House knows that when the agenda of these conferences is established, any reasonable request by the provinces is taken into account.


FEED GRAIN-SUGGESTED ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION TO WESTERN PRODUCERS
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the minister in charge of the Wheat
February 8, 1973

Oral Questions
Board. In view of the fact that the western grain farmer is now subsidizing the eastern feeder to the tune of about eight or ten cents a bushel, does the government intend to compensate the growers of feed grains in western Canada for that loss?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it would be wrong indeed to refer to the pricing practice of the moment as a subsidy by anyone to anyone else. The Canadian Wheat Board, which the hon. member certainly ordinarily supports, has made a decision about the selling practices it ought to adopt in order to protect the market in eastern Canada for western Canada feed grain as one of the most important markets in fact available to the western producers of grain.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again there are a number of members seeking to ask supplementaries. I think I owe it to hon. members to indicate there must be a limit to supplementary questions because from day to day we manage to consider only two or three matters. I know I hear from other members who are deprived from day to day of an opportunity to ask questions, and we perhaps are being unfair to these hon. members. The hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East.


Mr. Forrestall:: Mr. Speaker, my question is not a supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East.


URBAN AFFAIRS
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport a question with regard to the 1,800 foot thing that is going to be built in Toronto. I do not know whether it has been named. Has the minister assured himself through his departmental officials that this does not in fact constitute a very serious flight hazard, particularly for Toronto Island airport but also for the main international airport at Malton? Specifically, has the Department of Transport given the planners authority or approval for a structure of this height?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, ever since it has been announced that a tower would be built in Toronto, first by the Canadian Pacific and then by the Canadian National, contacts have been made with our department, studies have been carried out not only about Malton, but also about the Hamilton airport and the one which is planned for Pickering. It has been concluded that the tower will not be a hazard for air traffic.


CANADIAN CULTURE
Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State responsible for multiculturalism. Can he give us his assurance that the takeover by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation of radio station CKSB in Winnipeg, which until now has been functioning as a multilingual station, will not result in the loss of the customary rights enjoyed by other cultural groups than those using the two official languages?


Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Minister of State):: Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this matter with my colleagues in the cabinet and everything possible is being done.


Paul Yewchuk: Would the minister ensure that the hearing on the application to take over CKSB, now scheduled by the Canadian Radio-Television Commission to be held in Montreal on February 19, will be transferred to Winnipeg so that the people concerned can be heard?


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, I have made representations on this matter to the chairman of the CRTC.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the electrifying and earth-shattering statement by the head in the Prime Minister's office that the Prime Minister has formed a new emotional attachment with the Canadian people, will the Minister of State not discuss this matter with the Prime Minister, or is this posture merely related only to the statement made last month by the Prime Minister that the primary responsibility of the government is to stay in office?


An hon. Member:: Valentine's day.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


MULTICULTURALISM-POLICY OF CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State and it is in respect of the change in radio station CKSB. Will the Secretary of State ask the Commissioner of Official Languages to investigate the report that it is CBC policy not to allow languages other than French and English to be used over its facilities and whether this is in keeping with rule 38 of the Official Languages Act?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that any citizen can make such a representation to the Commissioner of Official Languages.

February 8, 1973
Oral Questions


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Has the minister yet approved the capital budget for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the fiscal year 1972-73?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take the question as notice so my answer can be entirely accurate.


Terrence Wyly Grier: My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and it is further to the question I asked the Minister of Finance. Will the minister assure the House that he will see to it that capital budget is approved and tabled in the House before Bill C-133 comes up for second reading?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to do that, but the capital budget would be examined in the committee when the estimates of the corporation are examined, and I would not want the passage of Bill C-133 delayed for that purpose.


FISHERIES
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of the Environment and Fisheries. In view of the importance of the herring fishery to Newfoundland and to parts of my riding and in view of the fact insufficient research has been carried out to determine the quantities of stocks, will the minister say whether it is the government's intention to impose closing lines in certain bays-I am thinking primarily of Placentia Bay and St. Mary's Bay in my riding-to protect the existing herring stocks against possible depletion?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we have set up a herring management committee for that area which is comprised of fishermen, representatives of the industry and so on, and I am awaiting recommendations from that committee, in the very near future.


Walter C. Carter: I wonder if the minister would assure the House, again in view of the importance of this industry, whether sufficient data does exist and sufficient research has been carried out to enable the department to set quotas in these bays?


John (Jack) Davis: We have set over-all quotas, but I am looking to this industry committee for specific recommendations on quotas for individual bays.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question to the Minister of Environment.
Can he tell the House if he has taken steps so that bilingualism will be respected among civil servants working in the Fontaine Building in Hull and to make sure that the French-speaking employees of that department may work in their mother tongue?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


FRASER RIVER-DISCUSSIONS WITH BRITISH COLUMBIA ON PROTECTIVE WORKS
Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of the Environment. In view of the annual fear of those on the lower mainland of British Columbia regarding the flood situation, may I ask whether there have been any recent discussions with the government of British Columbia on the question of diking, dredging or other works on the Fraser River to offset the flood danger?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have had a meeting with the minister of lands, forest and waters from British Columbia. I have also sent him several letters offering to extend the agreement, both in terms of dollars and in terms of the percentage of the federal contribution to the total cost of these dikes.


Alexander Bell Patterson: May I ask whether there has been any agreement between the federal and provincial governments on the request that the two senior levels of government share the capital cost of any such works on a 50-50 formula?


John (Jack) Davis: The 1968 agreement adopts a 45-45-10 cost sharing formula. It is the local 10 per cent share that is at issue. We are prepared to go as high as 50 per cent of the total amount at the federal level.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Sirathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. I want to assure him that in light of the forthcoming budget I consider it an important question. In view of the proliferation of government buildings and departments throughout Ottawa, which shocks me as one who has returned to this city after several years absence, and in
February 8, 1973

view of the government's stated intention to buy more property on Wellington Street, will the Prime Minister state what, if any, are the limits to government growth in Ottawa?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would hope that if the Prime Minister is going to give this information he would give it by way of a statement on motions. Perhaps the hon. member might like to rephrase his question along those lines.


Douglas Roche: May I ask the Prime Minister, in light of the increase in the civil service by 10 per cent over the past year, whether this is an influencing factor in determining taxation in the country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if I might attempt to answer in the way you indicated would be in order, I will not be making a statement along those lines, but perhaps the Minister of Public Works might take it into consideration.


OPENING OF NEW BUILDING IN HULL-HIRING OF CONSULTANTS
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Public Works. Can he explain why he hired outside consultants for $120,000 to open a new government building in Hull rather than using the services of Information Canada?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, it is not correct to assert that it was merely for the opening of the building. The money will be spent on promotion of the shops, boutiques and restaurants which will bring in money to the government of Canada and make the building very interesting.


Steve Eugene Paproski: This is not the first time that the services of this company have been engaged. Is the department following a policy of bypassing Information Canada? After all, they have been spending millions of dollars and nobody wants to use them. What is the matter with them?


CANADIAN CULTURE
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. In view of the government's repeated statements about its desire to encourage multiculturalism in this country, would the minister discuss with the senior officials of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation their policy of banning broadcasting of programs in various languages on stations which are or will be purchased by the CBC?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the CBC's operations are governed by the Broadcasting Act. We did receive a letter. The Minister of State responsible for multiculturalism received a copy of the letter from the Ukrainian com-
Oral Questions
munity to the president of the Canadian Radio-Television Commission. I take it that in time it will be replied to, but I suggest that the most-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


James Hugh Faulkner: -correct course would probably be to raise this matter, following the reply of the president of the CRTC, in the committee when the CBC appears before it.


Mr. Hueglin:: In view of the fact that CKSB-I am sorry.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North who raised the question should be allowed the first supplementary.


David Orlikow: Is the minister suggesting by his answer that he has no right to discuss government policy in regard to broadcasting with the CBC and the government's desires and the desires of all the people of Canada?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, if it is simply a question of whether or not I am prepared to discuss it with the CBC; of course, I am prepared to do that.


Joseph Fred Hueglin: Mr. Speaker, it has been the custom that CKSB has been a functioning multilingual station in Winnipeg. Would the minister assure us that when it is taken over it will continue to be so rather than being forced to be French and/or English?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


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


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the House that station CKSB is situated in the centre of St. Boniface and has indeed for several years provided services not only to French Canadians in the west, but also to all other ethnic groups.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. the Prime Minister. In view of the right hon. gentleman's statement to a delegation of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs that "perhaps you have more legal rights than we thought you had when we did the white paper", can the Prime Minister now tell the House whether the government has changed the position it took in the 1969 white paper and, if so, when will a formal statement be made to the House?

February 8, 1973
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the quotation by the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands is reasonably accurate in the sense that it did reflect some of the things said yesterday. I should point out, however, that I indicated also that if one aspect of the opinions expressed by the court was to be accepted by the Indian people and the rest of Canadians it would be to the effect that they were claiming not aboriginal rights but legal rights and this would be the case with the Nishga Indians. To that degree the position we put forward a few years ago on aboriginal rights is not affected by this judgment. It is true to say, however, that the judgment has indicated new possibilities for their legal rights, and we have asked the Department of Justice to advise us further on the consequences of some of the opinions expressed. As for the statement requested by the hon. member, we would plan some time in the future to make public the position on the whole matter of Indians, which we think would be updated by the experience we have had in communicating with them over the past few years and by the various briefs they have submitted to various courts.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister's remarks with respect to the legal rights, as he calls them, of Indians be confined only to the Nishga people or would they be applicable to all Indian people? If the answer is yes, would they be applicable to the whole of the native population?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the statement referred to by the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands was an opinion I expressed to the Nishga people, and the judgment that they were referring to of course concerns the Nishga tribe in their dealings with the government of British Columbia. I believe it would be the intention of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, assisted by his able parliamentary secretary, to meet with the government of British Columbia to see how they react to the opinions expressed in the judgment brought down by the Supreme Court.


Frank Howard: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Because this matter takes on additional urgency every day, I wonder whether the Prime Minister could be a little more precise in terms of an announcement by his government on the question of aboriginal rights generally? Could he inform the House with more precision when that statement might be made?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I could not honestly think that the statement to which I referred would be forthcoming before at least a couple of months. We are, of course, prepared to have the minister and other officials deal with all aspects of the Department of Indian Affairs when the estimates come before the parliamentary committee. I understand that will be reasonably soon.



ABORIGINAL RIGHTS-REQUEST THAT SPECIAL COMMITTEE BE ESTABLISHED

Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary. Inasmuch as the Prime Minister is going to get some advice from the Department of Justice

about the Supreme Court decision, may I address my supplementary to the government House leader and ask whether he is in a position to adopt the suggestion made by my colleague, the hon. member for Northwest Territories, that a special committee be established to examine the question of aboriginal rights so that this type of input will be considered as well and not just the narrow one of the Department of Justice?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite prepared to accept the suggestion made by the hon. member for Northwest Territories but if it will facilitate the early discussion of the question that has been raised I would be prepared, instead of waiting for the reference of the estimates to the standing committee, to consider the possibility of sending the annual report to the committee, which would give the members on the steering committee the opportunity to decide the framework of the discussions that might take place within that committee. I have not undertaken that action up to the present time because of the developing situation and especially in view of the comments made yesterday by the Indians in question that they were not keen or did not want this matter to be examined at the present time by a parliamentary committee. That was very much in my mind in not reaching a decision to refer the report to the committee.


Erik Nielsen: That is just the Nishga.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I do not make this remark in an unkind sense but I think the last statement of the President of the Privy Council should certainly carry with it the thought that the expression attributed to the delegation that met with the Prime Minister arose because they thought the Prime Minister was on their side.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands for a last supplementary and then we will try before the end of the question period to have two or three quick questions.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the President of the Privy Council. Would he now give consent to the motion I moved the other day under Standing Order 43 that the annual report of the department be referred to the standing committee?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to put it down as a government order at this stage.



ASSURANCE THAT MONTREAL OLYMPIC STADIUM WILL NOT BE USED FOLLOWING GAMES BY POSSIBLE TEAM IN UNITED STATES FOOTBALL LEAGUE

Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. the Prime Minister. If one can accept the principle that the Canadian
February 8, 1973

Football League is a unifying force in Canada, and in light of the proposed 80,000 seat stadium to be built in Montreal, can the right hon. gentleman give an assurance to the Canadian people that in the aftermath of the Olympic games the stadium will not be used as a point of entry for the American football league?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is a sort of hypothetical question but in so far as it is based on facts I would point out to the hon. member that the matter of amateur sports and physical fitness comes under the authority of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.



ACTION TO ENSURE TESTING OF DRUGS BY MANUFACTURERS TO DEMONSTRATE SAFETY AND EFFICACY

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. He may want to take it as notice or answer by a statement on motions. In view of mounting evidence of the existence of questionable drug manufacturers and questionable prescription products on the market in Canada, and in view of the tendency of provinces to allow pharmacists to substitute on prescriptions without the permission of the physician or the patient, can the minister assure me that the health protection branch will take action to ensure that prior to the initial distribution of a drug product or modification of an existing product every manufacturer will be obligated to perform tests which are appropriate and sufficient to demonstrate the clinical safety and efficacy claimed for the product?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister oi National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I wish first of all to thank the hon. member for raising this question with me earlier. I had the opportunity of discussing it with him. As he knows, the department has very elaborate control procedures at present with regard to drugs. However, in the light of the recent articles that have been published I have asked for a full report on this question and I might be able to give further information to the hon. member later.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.
As a result of the decision taken by the Union des producteurs agricoles to withdraw from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture concerning the problem of feed
Oral Questions
grain does the minister intend to receive the representatives of the Union des producteurs agricoles and the Cooperative Federee in order to clarify the feed grain situation as soon as possible?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will be glad to have my officials meet with the persons in these organizations. Indeed, we have had such meetings and I indicated to them yesterday I would look forward to such meetings continuing.



HARBOURS


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.
In view of the present oil situation, could the minister tell the House what is the state of consultations or plans concerning a deep water seaport in Isle Verte?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, discussions are going on with reference to many sites for a deep water seaport. This is still under consideration and I cannot give any information today.



URBAN AFFAIRS


Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and is supplementary to the question asked earlier on the construction in Toronto of the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific communications needle. As development agreements between the city of Toronto and the developers, that is to say, CN and CP, with regard to Metro Toronto Centre in which the needle will be found in future, have not been finalized and as, particularly, there have been extremely significant changes in the composition of the council of the city of Toronto over the past few months, would the minister give serious consideration to having the start of construction of the communications tower delayed until further deliberations can take place between the developers and the city of Toronto?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think the City of Toronto and the CNR are having constant consultations on this matter. At first the contacts were between the CPR and the corporation which these two companies had created, and I cannot see why at this time we should delay the building of the tower.

February 8, 1973
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have gone beyond the end of the question period. Perhaps the Chair might recognize the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River on a quick question and then close the question period with a question from the Leader of the Opposition.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In light of the fact that there seems to be no let-up in the high unemployment statistics, can the minister tell the House if he has any plans at this time to accelerate his recruitment program to attract a larger number of new citizens to Canada, in particular workmen who would be employed in the lumber industry?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: No, Mr. Speaker. This report, which I believe was in a west coast newspaper, is erroneous. It arises from the fact that in the ordinary course we are training foreign service officers, that is to say, immigration officers, for work abroad. There are 25 such foreign service officers just returned or on rotation leave in Canada and they are to be oriented toward Canadian industry so that they may do their jobs better in their assignments abroad. However, there is no special program to recruit immigrants with any particular skill at this time. Actually, we are adopting a rather low key approach abroad to immigration at this time. This hiring and training happens every year. We think it is rather good practice to have our people reoriented toward Canada after they have been away for some time or before they go abroad.


Mr. Alexander:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Leader of the
Opposition.



AIRPORTS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Is he prepared to go to Richmond, British Columbia, and, if so, when, to answer questions of concerned citizens who are disturbed about the airport expropriation proceedings? I ask this question particularly of the minister because officials have indicated there are certain questions they cannot answer as they are only civil servants. If the minister is prepared to go we would be prepared, of course, to allow him pairing privileges.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, last night there was a public meeting attended by more than 100 people, in the Sea Island area more precisely, to allow public servants to answer questions. Some of these were of a very technical nature, such as the explanation of the CNR system, that is Composite Noise Reading and another called NEF, or Noise Exposure Factor which is also quite a sophisticated system. All the computations must be redone for each request in order to explain one system in relation to the other.
This is the question which officials of the department could not answer immediately. This is strictly a technical question. As to the other answers, these people were able to get them.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


An hon. Member:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have allowed the Leader of the Opposition to ask his question. I think we should call orders of the day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government House leader about the business of the House for this week and next week, bearing in mind the announcement of the Minister of Finance that, finally, he will be able to make the budget speech on Monday night which would take us right up to next Monday, the nineteenth.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we will continue today with the business of supply. If we conclude that today we would continue with the amendments to the Criminal Code followed, probably, by the bills on housing, on foreign investment and on crop insurance. If the business of supply is not completed today, I may feel obliged to vary the order in which I may call the other items.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, as a further question, could I ask the minister when he will take steps to activate the various standing committees? I particularly bring to his attention the need to activate forthwith the new joint committee on statutory instruments in light of the very large task that the committee will have in dealing with the large number of orders in council, regulations and decrees that are being issued.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Secretly.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will take steps to activate the joint committee, although I am surprised that my hon. friend would consider having such a joint committee in view of his recent estrangement from the other place.


Mr. Bell:: They are doing a good job now.


Gerald William Baldwin: It is provided for in the Standing Orders.
[TranslationJ


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the President of the Privy Council if he could indicate to the House if he intends to start other talks as early as this week so that the House will be able to decide about the new electoral map proposed by the commission?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I take a risk in even discussing this subject, in view of my junior status in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have already had discussions with the other juniors who sit with me in that room and I am awaiting a response from them as to what the next step might be. If there is need for a discussion, I will have it at an early date.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member rising on another point of order? The question period has ended and I think other questions cannot be permitted at this time.
However, as the Chair has allowed the hon. member to ask his question, he may now ask a supplementary and I will then recognize the hon. member for Yukon.


André-Gilles Fortin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A meeting of House leaders took place this week and I was told yesterday by the hon. minister that a second meeting would be organized to take action on this matter. My question is as follows. Does he intend to officially call for a new meeting of House leaders so that this matter can be settled as soon as possible.
[EnglishJ


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will try to organize that meeting as soon as possible; tomorrow, if possible.


Erik Nielsen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I follow up the question asked by the hon. member for Peace River and direct my question to the President of the Treasury Board or the Minister of Finance, as the case may be. Since the budget date has been announced and since the Standing Orders normally require the estimates to be brought before the House before March 1, can the President of the Treasury Board indicate when we will get the main estimates for this year?


Mr. Drury:: I hope before March 1, Mr. Speaker.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, we normally get them before the budget as well. Will we be getting them before the budget?
Oral Questions


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I hope the House will recognize that the budget this year is earlier than usual and, consequently, there is some confusion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise with respect to the business of the House that was announced by the President of the Privy Council. May I ask him whether the bill to amend the Old Age Security Act will be tabled in the House next week so that we will know the amount by which pensions are being increased before we get to the budget?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have already discussed this question with my colleagues. There is a possibility but not certainty that it will happen next week.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to get your eye for the past two days. I appreciate the difficulty, but as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has asked the House leader about a matter of order of government business, I feel I can ask just as basic a question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I am coming to it. I have been waiting for two days and I can wait a lot longer. In view of the fact the Minister of Communications made a very interesting speech last night, the first real policy speech he has made in four years, and it is four years late, will the House leader consult with the Minister of Communications to find out when that minister intends to lay before the House the green paper setting out proposals for telecommunications and a communications policy?
While the House leader is discussing that with the Minister of Communications to try to clarify this House business, can he also find out from the Minister of Communications whether the rationalization of the legislative and regulatory authority for broadcasting and telecommunications means there will be one authority merging the CRTC, the CTC and DOT? If he can do this, Mr. Speaker, it might save some questions next week.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is obviously a question. Hon. members will appreciate that the question period expired more than 10 minutes ago. The Chair was lenient in allowing points of order which were not really points of order. The hon. member for Peace River rose on a point of order to ask about the House business. If every Thursday this is going to bring on an additional 10 or 15 minute question period, these matters will have to be asked as questions and not as points of order. The question has been asked. If the President of the Privy Council can reply briefly, he will be allowed to do so.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: With regard to the first part of the question, Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that that document will probably be laid on the table in the spring.


An hon. Member:: Which spring?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In connection with the second part of the question, I am afraid I cannot answer that.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A supplementary question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh,oh!

February 8, 1973
Oral Questions


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I appreciate-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member wants to ask a supplementary question. Obviously, he was asking a question. This was done with the indulgence of the House. If the hon. member wants to ask a supplementary question, the House must allow it.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member would not mind waiting until tomorrow. I will give him some kind of priority so that he can ask all his supplementaries then.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I rise on a question of privilege, in a sense. You have me out of the way today but I do not think I am going to be here tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I know that makes you happy. However, since I have started, may I just finish with one supplementary?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Obviously when the Chair attempts to be helpful and lenient to hon. members we get into so many difficulties that there is not much inducement or encouragement for the Chair to do this.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I rise on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I quite agree with the dilemma and the difficulty in which the Chair finds itself. I do not mind getting up all during the question period for the exercise and training for the Olympics. I am prepared to accept that the same as all members are prepared to accept it, but I am not going to sit here-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: -and have other than the House leaders ask the government House leader to try in a normal way to outline the business of the House for the following week. I am not going to have other Members of Parliament rise on false points of order or questions of privilege to get their pet bills laid on the table when I have been trying to get Your Honour's eye for two weeks.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (A), 1972-73-MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE L12a-DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
The House resumed, from Wednesday, February 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. 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, be concurred in.
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I made some remarks on this supplementary estimate yesterday. I indicated to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) that I, and I expect most other members, are not opposed to developing an extensive program that will affect a large number of people who are out of work this winter and will be out of work next winter and the winter following through Winter Capital Projects Funds. The funds for these projects have been distributed by the provinces and administered by the municipalities. Not being in the form of a bill-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May we have order, please? There are so many conversations going on in the House at the moment that it is highly unfair to the member who has the floor. Can we have order, please? I suggest to hon. members that these numerous conversations might take place outside the House. The business of the House is now continuing, and the hon. member for Timiskaming has the floor.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that some members are not particularly interested in this subject. It only affects unemployed people and municipalities with very high unemployment. It also affects a program that will be in effect for the next three years. Therefore, the subject matter probably is not important to many members, although some of them may become unemployed much faster than they anticipate. It is interesting to look around the House. Although I have not been here very long, most members who were here when I arrived and many who came subsequently have become unemployed. Perhaps some of these members should look at this proposition as well.
This is an important piece of legislation. It involves a long-term program. This estimate contemplates a program that will extend over the next three years. When I first came to this House, I supported the proposition of emergency assistance to gold mines. The emergency had developed a few years previous. During this session, we will be asked to extend for another period of time that same emergency legislation. I presume that unless something drastic happens in this country, such as the election of the New Democratic Party-


An hon. Member:: That would be drastic, all right.


William Arnold Peters: I am not saying this will happen. But unless it does, it is very likely a critical situation will be faced in
February 8, 1973

the area covered by this estimate for many years to come. I expressed my view to the Minister of Finance that these measures should not be introduced by way of an estimate. Since making my comments yesterday I have had an opportunity to look at a sheaf of papers provided to all Members of Parliament, setting out what this program is intended to achieve, and, in general terms, the manner in which it will be operated. But the papers do not tell us in what directions the funds are to be spent; they merely say they will be spent over a three year period.
My province is no more fair than other provinces. I know it is true to say of the Province of Quebec and of the Province of Ontario, certainly, that there is no equality between opportunities in various parts of those provinces. A large proportion of the unemployment in Ontario occurs in your area, Mr. Speaker, and in my area-both in eastern and in northern Ontario. The measure we are considering by way of an estimate does not say that any criteria will be laid down by the federal government to ensure that areas of high unemployment will receive special consideration. The decision has been made by the federal government simply to allocate the money to the provinces. If the province does not express a direct interest, projects can be initiated by the municipalities themselves, with provincial agreement.
In my own area, as in other parts of Ontario, there are pockets, municipalities, where the unemployment rate is between 35 and 40 per cent. I will give an example. Probably 40 per cent of the work force in Cobalt is unemployed at the present time. Those who are working are willing to go out and raise money through the municipality for worthwhile projects, and I am sure they will be highly interested in getting some kind of capital grant in addition to the labour costs in connection with any project they might desire to undertake. Your Honour may be aware that the federal government did make an offer to the people of Cobalt under the terms of a DREE grant of $750,000. But because there was hanky-panky between officials of the federal government and officials of the company concerned, this offer was withdrawn. This was a calamity; the total loss to the community amounted to some $2.5 million.
I am sure the people of this community, as in others, would be pleased to take advantage of the government's proposals if they were to be made available to them on the basis of need for greater employment opportunities. They should be given preference when it comes to deciding the areas in which these funds are to be spent. I have in mind another community which has already raised $7,000-it is a very small community-toward constructing a skating rink and a municipal hall. I suppose they are thinking in terms of around $25,000. I appreciate that under the winter works program they can get assistance as far as the cost of labour is concerned. But it is the capital cost, in projects of this kind in rural communities which present the greater problem. Each Member of Parliament who has any interest at all in helping communities where there is an abnormally high level of unemployment should insist upon the inclusion within this program of a proviso which would oblige provincial governments to allocate funds to those communities whose need is greatest and whose interest in doing something for themselves is strongest.
25714-69)
Supply
I said yesterday, and it is true, that Toronto, for example, might decide to build what it might consider to be a vitally necessary road to the Pickering Airport. Or they might decide to build a trail over to Malton. Remember, we are talking about $100 million over three years. This is peanuts for projects of the kind I have just mentioned. But a fund of this size could be used to great advantage in many of the remoter areas of Ontario by smaller communities which want to help themselves and get men off the unemployment roll. The Town of Cobalt will probably get considerably more out of the unemployment fund and out of the welfare fund than will be necessary to enable them to embark on a substantial works project provided the capital required in connection with that project could be financed over a period of years.
If we pass the estimate in its present form, as we are invited to do, we are saying that the civil servants know best and that the civil servants, both federal and provincial, are to be allowed to make the decisions. I am shocked that members of the cabinet should pay no attention to running their departments and seeing what happens after they get bills passed by this House. But in this case, of course, they are not even bothering to bring down a bill which could receive some consideration. They are asking the House to pass an estimate. Of course, every reasonable effort to deal with unemployment ought to be supported, and I do not propose that hon. members should consider killing this proposal, but they should really give consideration-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but I am advised his time has expired. He can continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Arnold Peters: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall close by saying that other hon. members, particularly those who have not been here very long, should consider carefully the effect of legislating in this way. They will have no opportunity to make an effective input in connection with the program. They will be unable to influence the criteria set. The ability of the provinces to do whatever they wish with these grants is in no way limited; there is no means of ensuring that those communities in the various provinces whose need is greatest will benefit from the money.
I sincerely hope other hon. members will concern themselves about the difficulties which arise when legislu*;on is introduced by way of estimates, particularly since the programs introduced seem likely to last for many years to come. At least, if a bill had been introduced to provide for a winter works capital projects fund, rather than an estimate, a useful discussion could have taken place.


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Ottawa Centre):: May I first of all comment on the concluding words of the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters)? He shares the view held by myself and, I believe, by most members of the House, that the type of project envisaged by this vote is beneficial for the people of Canada, especially because of the high rates of unemployment which exist in so many parts of the country. After all, the primary objective of this fund is to reduce the high rate of unemployment which is apparent

February 8, 1973
Supply
in certain areas. Unlike the hon. member for Timiskaming I do have great confidence in the public servants of this country who are going to be asked to administer these projects should this vote be approved by the House.
I do not think it is the obligation, or indeed the duty and responsibility, of this House to write contracts entered into between the provincial governments and this government. Sufficient be it that the program is outlined in specific enough detail so that we can honestly and accurately appraise it and see that it is indeed for the benefit of the people of the country in the area it is intended to assist.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), in his remarks both before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates and in the House yesterday, indicated that following consultations with the various ministers of finance across the country, agreements were entered upon which would be reduced to contract form indicating the rights and obligations of the provinces in the event that they do take the amount of money that would be theirs if this appropriation is approved.
It seemed to me that some members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition appeared to agree in principle that this project is worthwhile and of benefit to the nation, specifically in areas that suffer from a great deal of unemployment. They felt that unemployment should be alleviated as quickly and efficiently as possible in every and all such areas. However, notwithstanding that fact, they seemed to get caught up in a legalistic argument in order to defeat this vote, thus preventing the provinces, in co-operation with the federal government, from making global plans over the course of the next two to three years in regard to on-going projects that would ensure, so far as is possible, the alleviation of unemployment in those areas.
The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) had something to say about section 20 of the Financial Administration Act. He said that section 20 of the act makes illegal what this vote is attempting to do. This vote is attempting to place money in the hands of the provinces for worthwhile winter works projects. It is within the competence of this parliament to pass a law to this effect, thus providing funds for on-going projects, not just in this fiscal year but also in ensuing fiscal years.
Yesterday in his remarks Minister of Finance mentioned many precedents that had been created over the years-precedents that in my submission to Your Honour become part of the law of the land-whereby the very same vehicle has been used to provide funds for worthwhile projects beyond the specific fiscal year in which they were voted. Indeed, the Minister of Finance referred to the same procedure being used during the period when the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbak-er) was leader of the government. Surely, those precedents which were legal and which were followed at that time are no less legal today.
I suggest that attempting to bring forward in this House this kind of legalistic argument so as to defeat or to delay the passage of a vote that is needed immediately in order to ensure that the program gets underway at the earliest possible moment is unworthy of the hon. member's previ-
[Mr. Poulin.J
ous actions, and indeed his many other fine and worthwhile submissions to the House.
The objectives of this program are to bring about an increase in capital spending in order to sustain a high level of employment, particularly during the winter and especially in those areas of the country where there is at the present time, and where there can be anticipated to be in ensuing winters, a high level of unemployment. If we are to deny to the provinces and municipalities the financial means to plan, over a sufficiently lengthy period of time, on-going winter works projects, then we are not doing our duty in this House. We should make financially possible all the winter works we can in order to alleviate the high unemployment existing in some areas of this country.
Guidelines and administrative procedures have been set down to administer funds if parliament votes such funds. These guidelines are easily understood and can be easily administered by public servants. When each year the forgiveness clause contained in this vote comes before a parliamentary committee for approval, and before parliament itself, I understand, hon. members will have an opportunity to examine it in detail and either grant or not grant forgiveness of the loan, in accordance with the contract with the province or municipality concerned. As I understand it, what we are asking parliament at this time to do is not to spend money but rather to authorize a loan. According to my interpretation of section 20 of the Financial Administration Act, authorization of a loan in this fiscal year is not an expenditure. As the Minister of Finance clearly demonstrated, it is only upon the operation of the forgiveness feature that there is an expenditure in that fiscal year.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in my submission the legalistic argument that has been raised really carries no weight whatsoever. It attempts only to detract, and to some extent does detract, unnecessarily from the most worthwhile objectives of this program. I would urge the members of this House to join with me and vote for this item in its entirety, thus providing to provinces and municipalities $350 million to enable them to plan long-range projects to aid in alleviating unemployment in this country.


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on the matter which is before us I should like to make it clear, particularly with reference to the comments made by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Poulin), that what we are suggesting is that rather than voting $350 million at this stage the amount should be $75 million. I point out that this amount is actually the amount the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) indicated would likely be the top amount to be spent by this government in the current year. This House should always remember that we in the Progressive Conservative party, and certainly I personally, believe that the on-going program should be put on a more practical basis than is being proposed at the present time in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
February 8, 1973


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I come from a riding which has had many problems over the years concerning winter works programs. Those problems are largely ones of not having sufficient lead time. This House should consider the possibility, and I emphasize that the government should consider this, of setting up a much more workable mechanism to ensure that the municipalities, the provinces and the federal government can plan ahead year by year in respect of what funds may be available from time to time for this type of approach.
In saying that, however, I should like to emphasize that it is totally unacceptable for the Minister of Finance and for the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Poulin) to, in effect, say that parliament should delegate the direction of that on-going program to the public service. It is important that we keep control of the current year's expenditures in this House. I would suggest, and in this I think perhaps the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) is in agreement, that it is absolutely essential these funds be administered in a way that will be of maximum advantage to the municipalities and provinces concerned in this country.
If you take a look at the vote itself, you will see there are certainly some unanswered questions. For example, you will find that, while most members have referred to this as being a three-year program involving $350 million, the fact is the vote does not make it clear that the $350 million will be spread over three years. Our Minister of Finance has indicated that this year he feels the top amount which may be expended will be $75 million; next year, he thinks it might be $170 million, and the following year $105 million.
While the minister will not answer our questions concerning what rate of unemployment he finds acceptable, perhaps we can use as a barometer the fact that there are 688,000 people out of work today, and he anticipates substantially more unemployed next winter because he suggests there will be more than twice as much money used from this fund next winter. Let me emphasize that there is nothing to prevent the government, through the Minister of Finance, expending the entire $350 million within two years. There is no guarantee that this amount is going to be spread over three years, and I think the House should understand that.
When the hon. member for Ottawa Centre and the Minister of Finance continue to say that all we are talking about is a loan and that we are going to have a chance to speak later on expenditures when we decide how much is to be forgiven, I think they are taking an extremely legalistic approach. Rather than our group presenting legalisms, I believe if you read his evidence given before the committee which considered this matter, you will find that the Minister of Finance was extremely legalistic in his approach.


Gerald William Baldwin: What a great slush fund it would be in an election.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I would also point out that the wording of vote L12a has some small print. It sets out the various amounts of the $350 million that will be apportioned to the provinces, and then it provides that if the provincial ministers indicate in writing they will not use a portion of any
Supply
allotted amount, that amount may be allotted to other provinces. I feel this is not a decision which should be left in the hands of civil servants.
The hon. member for Ottawa Centre, and I agree with him, has great confidence in public servants. However, I believe they must be given direction and leadership because this government is more in the hands of civil servants than directing them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Another thing that worries me a great deal about this vote is the fact that it will really be the wealthier municipalities and provinces that will get to the trough first in order to make use of the funds made available. I say that because if you read paragraph (b) in the vote you will notice a convenant is required from a province or a municipality. There may be small municipalities or smaller provinces which will find that, because of their own peculiar financing problems, they will not be in a position to take advantage of these funds to the extent that the more wealthier municipalities and provinces will. This I feel is one reason that, rather than having this type of approach, it would be more satisfactory to work out an on-going conference-like arrangement with the provinces and municipalities to make sure that the funds available, $75 million if you like this year, will in fact be available to the municipalities that need it most.
I am afraid that under the present wording of this vote the reverse will be true, and the wealthier municipalities and provinces with relatively low debts will be able to make the fastest and greatest use of these funds.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The same old gang.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: For example, in my own area, it is not the larger municipalities that have the greatest difficulty. I spoke to the chairman of York Region who pointed out that, although they have a great number on staff, they find it difficult to meet the deadlines generally set concerning winter works programs. He pointed out that if this is so at the regional level it is particularly so at the lower level where you are dealing with small towns or townships which do not have the staff to cope with the amount of red tape which is usually generated prior to one of these grants being approved.
I feel a much more satisfactory program has to be worked out by the government and accepted by this parliament. I am really puzzled as to why the government has chosen this approach. Oddly enough, there is reference in the vote to an existing act, namely the Municipal Development and Loan Act. I suggest that before we go too far in voting the $350 million suggested figure, those in this House should take a look at the Municipal Development and Loan Act, particularly Section 30 thereof, which set up in 1966 a process that could easily be amended to give effect to that which the government is proposing here today.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, when one begins to read that act I believe it gives one a few clues concerning why this vote L12a has been proposed in this form. You will notice that section 13 refers to a limit being placed on the amount which should be used for this type of activity. There is a

February 8, 1973
Supply
limit of $400 million. Subsection 2 of this section points out that no portion of the $400 million may be used in a province in a ratio higher than that province's ratio is to Canadian population figures of 1961. If you apply that formula to this amount, to arrive at the provincial figure you will find a ratio has been used, I suggest, which indicates that the government is attempting by a kind of back-door approach to reactivate a statute which is already on the books and yet it will not openly come to this House with an amendment to this statute, or be candid with regard to what it proposes in the future in respect of the fund for this program. I am particularly disturbed by this approach.
My apprehension was certainly confirmed by the remarks of the hon. member for Ottawa-Centre who spoke before me. He suggested that we should pass the vote and let the civil servants handle the program because they will do a good job. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), when appearing before the committee, agreed that this is a non-budgetary item about which we are talking. I feel we have had too many non-budgetary items in this parliament produced by this government. I know it is very convenient to speak of a net liability in the country and whether we happen to have a deficit or whether we happen to have a surplus. However, I think it is also important that we should look at the total debt position of this country which in 1972 was $42.7 billion. That was an increase of $5 billion in one year and an increase of $15 billion since 1962. I feel that if one analyzes the main reason for such a substantial debt increase in this country one will find it is because of the so-called non-budgetary items, which have been channelled by the Minister of Finance into a Crown corporation or into a special fund such as he wishes to set up here. Certainly in such a case parliament would have very little opportunity to analyze what has happened in respect of such funds.
I feel very disappointed about the fact that neither the Minister of Finance nor the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) happen to be in the House today. Here we are dealing with an item of $350 million. We say we have no objection to an amount of $75 million because it is indicated that there is a need for this amount in the current year. However, for the reasons I have given, we do object to having our right to analyze how the government intends to spend the balance of that money taken away from us. We find that at the moment these two ministers do not have the courtesy to even be in the House in order to find out what members of this parliament think about this issue.
The hon. member for Ottawa Centre has said we should trust the public servants. There is a parallel situation I would like the hon. member to look into and then perhaps next time he will not be so keen to say that. I suggest the Minister of Finance who is proposing this vote today is certainly cognizant of what is transpiring with regard to certain other non-budgetary items which this parliament has very little opportunity to examine. For example, the Minister of Finance has indicated he feels may be spent in the current year something in the order of $75 million on behalf of winter works activities in the provincial or municipal field. I would point out that the vote refers to December 6. I believe it is interesting to remember that under another non-budgetary item the Export Development Corporation has spent, with no sanction from this Parliament, $90 million since December 7, including $26.5 million in the form of a loan to Brascan Limited of Toronto in respect of one of its subsidiaries in Brazil.
I would also point out that that same corporation has offers outstanding to three companies in Brazil which, if accepted by those companies, would mean that we are committed to another $75 million in long-term loans to Brazil. Those offers, for example, are good until June 30, 1973. But, when we take a look at this vote it is evident that they must be accepted by May 31. I suggest that not only has something in the order of $100 million been committed since December 7 to Brazil, but that through offers to five companies in Mexico there is an amount of $95 million outstanding in the program again until June 30. It is my understanding that this corporation alone, in a non-budgetary sense, has some $360 million outstanding until June 30 at least of this coming year. This is the situation in spite of the fact that parliament in its wisdom, placed a ceiling on the maximum amount that the Export Development corporation could lend of $850 million. I emphasize that that ceiling has already been violated, and I feel that we in this House must insist that a minimum of non-budgetary items be tolerated.
We owe it to the people of Canada to manage their funds better. I suggest if would be wrong to allow this vote to go through which would empower the government to get at another $350 million in the terms suggested. When the government has done this type of thing in respect of non-budgetary situations connected with the Export Development Corporation, I do not feel we should expect it will not do things we would find unacceptable in connection with this $350 million fund. That is why I believe our suggestion is reasonable that the amount of $75 million might be approved which the government says it intends to spend in the current year. In fact, I would suggest it is not only reasonable, but it is extremely difficult to identify the rationale behind any other suggestion.
If we look at the estimates we are discussing, we find that the title reads "For the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973". Why should there be any suggestion that in those estimates we would find amounts for 1974 and for 1975. Surely, that is most irrational. The suggestion that "we are just lending now and you are going to get your chance later" is a very poor answer because the fact is that the money will be expended and all that this parliament could do would be to meet some kind of a pressure play at that point, much as has happened with respect to the unemployment insurance fund.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired. He can only continue with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Blais:: Would the hon. member permit a question at this time? The hon. member made quite a to-do about the question of civil servants handling all those funds. I recall the evidence of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner)
[Mr. Stevens.J
February 8, 1973

before the committee in which there was an indication that there was a pending agreement between the federal government and the provinces interested. I was wondering whether the hon. gentleman took the trouble to ask the Minister of Finance for a copy of that agreement or any of those agreements to find out what the terms of those agreements might have been.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: The minister cannot produce them because he does not have them.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly assure my hon. friend that if the Minister of Finance were here right now I would be more than willing to ask him whether I could see any agreements that he can produce of the nature to which he referred.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance did indicate, according to the committee's proceedings, that that agreement was available to all members at any time. Surely, the hon. member knows of the offer made by the Minister of Finance. That agreement would have been available, notwithstanding the fact that the minister is not here at this time.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister was never before the committee.


Some hon. Members:: He was.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: He was there in spirit only.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In conclusion, may I emphasize that I feel this is one more example of the government trying to cut down the right of this parliament to examine expenditures. There is no question, and let there be no doubt, that we are in favour of a winter works program, but surely that does not mean that fact can then be used as a lever to have us accept something that is so totally unacceptable as this present procedure. I would also emphasize that we in the House have ample evidence to justify a lack of confidence in the government's handling of such money matters and that we would be irresponsible if we did not object, as we are doing, to this blanket endorsation of the $350 million.
If we are to learn any lesson, let us take a look at what has transpired in one Crown corporation, namely the Export Development Corporation. May I point out that that corporation, for example, with no reference to this House, has $1 billion of outstanding financing contracts, 50 per cent of which are for the benefit of eight corporations in this country of which 50 per cent are subsidiaries of foreign concerns. This is the way in which the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) have been handling funds of a nonbudgetary nature, and I feel it is time that parliament, and certainly the people of Canada, dug in their heels against this irresponsible management of finances.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, we have now before us a very important budget item according to the statement made jointly by the Minister of
Supply	,
Finance (Mr. Turner) and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) on December 6, 1972.
So we have the impression that the government realized that there was to be an increase in unemployment during the first months of 1973. Yet, former federal minister Kierans had predicted a high rate of unemployment and stated that not only would employment become a very crucial problem but that there would also be a strong increase in inflation.
We realized one day that Mr. Kierans' predictions were accurate. And, on September 7, the government published a release announcing that a new local initiatives program would be set up in the first days of December to allow the creation of a number of jobs and also to reduce the scourge of unemployment.
The process is excessively slow although it had been announced at the time that the required forms would be available starting October 1 and several people realized that a few days had elapsed in October before the forms were available to allow the promoters of projects to submit them early enough to be activated and create a certain number of jobs.
Mr. Speaker, at December 31, according to the information published, 13,163 projects had been submitted under the local initiatives program. This shows that Canadians believed very seriously in the worthiness of the program and the good intentions of the government since this figure exceeds by far the number of projects submitted during the last fiscal year.
Mr. Speaker, of the 13,163 projects submitted, only 1,400 had been approved on December 31, which means that very few projects had been carried out before the end of 1972. In Quebec, also according to my information, only 427 projects had been accepted as at December 31. This is probably the explanation for the figures relating to unemployment then, because of the delay in the execution of these projects, the number of jobs available was of course decreasing and, automatically, the unemployment rate increased.
On December 6, the Minister of Finance had his colleague the Minister of Manpower and Immigration announced a special program for municipalities and provinces, requiring $350 million. The department involved had issued a most elaborate press release to invite provinces and municipalities to participate in a most active way in order to help the federal government reduce unemployment.
But most municipalities are indebted to the extreme and one only has to meet municipal administrators and talk a little about their problems to find out very rapidly that the same problem faces all municipalities. In fact, the rate payers are asking for improved public services; they want to get better water, sewer, depollution and road services, but municipalities do not draw the required revenues to meet immediately this demand and the needs of rate payers.
I have often pointed out in the House that the federal government should pay more attention to municipalities and their sources of revenue and transfer as soon as

February 8, 1973
Supply
possible the sources or revenue which would allow them to provide the services for which they are responsible as the government closer to the people.
According to the statistics for Quebec in 1970, 1652 municipalities had a debt of $2,083 million with annual interest of $232,470,000 seriously affecting their budget.
For example, the budget of Trois-Rivieres is burdened with interest on the public debt of 28 per cent, while that of Cap-de-la-Madeleine reaches 34 per cent and that of Trois-Rivieres Ouest 57.4 per cent.
We could draw up a very long list of municipalities affected by the very heavy burden of interest on the public debt to which they must devote a considerable amount of their revenue.
Now, the government is introducing supplementary estimates to give effect to the statement of December 6, 1972 restating the contents of the press release and allotting the share to each province, provided they sign the agreements with the federal government to carry out some projects which were also listed in Annex I to the press release of December 6.
At first glance, it seems advantageous; one has the impression that the government is very generous, but on reading page 16 carefully, one realizes the government is using the provinces and the municipalities, under the present financial system, to mortgage the Canadian taxpayer even further for the benefit of those who control credit.
The federal government is placing $350 million at the disposal of the provinces but it has yet to decide to obtain that money from our banking institution, the Bank of Canada. In fact that money represents loans from those who control credit or taxes on the income of workers and corporations.
The cost of financing in the public sector is thus doubled, because the federal government itself pays interest, and then lends to the provinces and municipalities at an unknown interest rate, since the credit under study states, and I quote:
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-
If you get down to the bottom of things you discover that again we cannot base ourselves on a predetermined rate of interest because under the paragraph I have just quoted the Minister of Finance is authorized to set the rate under certain circumstances.
Further on, it seems an attempt is made to gild the pill; it is said that the federal government will be generous provided the municipalities are willing to invest in public works.
Municipal projects usually cover water and sewage works, road building, paving, etc., difficult to carry out in our province during the winter months because of our country's very severe climate.
I feel the program should not be carried out exclusively during the winter months, from December 1 to May 31, but during a more favourable season, which would bring down the cost of operating machinery and result in better work. After all, it is not only in winter that the unem-

ployed eat. So it would be normal that they be given the opportunity to work in more human conditions so that they can be shown that they are not considered as slaves but as full citizens who have a right to the benefits of modernism.
It is said in paragraphs d, e, f and g that the government will forgive that portion of the principal amount in a proportion of 50 per cent of the normal direct costs of labour hired locally during the period commencing December 6 1972 and ending May 31, 1973. And it will be repeated until the end of 1975.
Everyone knows today that in the building industry, and mainly in the area of the works I mentioned earlier, less and less labour is used. The job is performed mainly by heavy machinery; one operator with his machine can do the work which would have required hiring 25, 30 or 40 men 15 or 20 years ago.
On this 50 per cent forgiveness the municipalities should be allowed to include the operating cost of machinery used to carry out these investment works. I could go further but I think that the time has not come yet. Hopefully the day will come when we will have progressed to the extent of using, as I said earlier, our national financial institution to finance the public sector at the level of the municipalities, of the provinces and of the federal government, at administration cost. The Bank of Canada should be able to create the required credit to grant loans at cost to these various government levels, loans refundable at the rate of depreciation which we shall have created when spending this money.
I think we are appreciably moving in this direction since the Canadian Union of Mayors and Municipalities has already presented two briefs to this effect to the federal government. In time and with up-to-date members- because there are many young members in this House and they are willing to put progress at the service of society- for progress to be put at the service of society we shall have to modernize our financing system. We shall have to give up this outdated financing system which was suitable a few years back but does not fit at all our modern techniques, the quick rate of production which we know now and which we will know even more in the years to come because progress is with us to stay.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that we should try to have our whole society benefit from the advantages provided by that progress, instead of having it become its victim, this being contrary to reason.
Therefore, in order to have such progress really serve society, we must very seriously consider the principle that everything materially possible for men-because men exist, as well as materials, but funds are lacking-should be possible financially, because finance is an artificial creation. I have never seen dollars growing in my fields; yet, I have tilled them for a long time, and I was doing it seriously. I have not seen dollars growing behind my plough. I have not seen the thing happen either inside industries. Money is made somewhere; the point is to know where and how it is controlled. More and more people realize that the dollar is an artificial creation and
February 8, 1973

that it should exist in quantities sufficient to allow men to trade or to create services useful to society.
Evidently, this budget provides some benefits, for instance, funding investments aimed at helping the municipalities to do something. I am sure, and I am saying it now, that the greater obstacle the municipalities are bound to encounter will not be planning, because they have had projects in mind for a long time, though being unable to carry them out. And a date is being set. The thing should not be considered before December 6, I believe that we must show some leniency on that point. Nonetheless, we must give municipalities a chance, even though they have put their projects on paper before December 6, though they were not in a position to carry them out; we must be generous and not unduly hinder the municipalities willing to take part in those programs.
Mr. Speaker, if the government worked seriously to deal with the unemployment problem, we should not always be starting all over again. We are going to have to think about setting up an income security plan as soon as possible in order to enable individuals-no matter how old-to meet their essential needs.
Mr. Speaker, this morning I received a letter from an unemployed worker who would like very much to work so as to be able to build a house. He tells me in his letter that his rent is $130 a month and that if there existed a program to help low-wage earners to build a house, this monthly rent could be used to meet the cost of building the house, on really favourable loan terms. If the government really wants its program to be effective, the hon. Minister of Finance is going to have to be mindful of what he has promised to announce when he will be tabling his estimates on February 19. It will be realized then . . .


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the wish of the House that the hon. member be permitted to continue his speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. friends for allowing me to conclude . . .


Mr. Leblanc (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker . . .


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Laurier rises on a point of order.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: Before allowing the hon. member for Bellechasse to continue his speech, I would ask him to confine his remarks to the subject now under study and not discuss housing, because this subject is not being debated. Therefore, I would rather see him stick to the item under study.
Supply


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. No strings can be attached to the consent. The Chair will have to determine whether the hon. member is in order. I must ask again whether it is agreed that the hon. member may continue his speech. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression that I was in order as I was discussing the causes of unemployment. It is not only a matter of applying a band-aid on a wooden leg, but of finding ways to avoid a repetition of this situation.
Furthermore, taxes on building materials are interfering with the construction of a great number of housing projects, which results in many workers being unemployed. In fact, such taxation is only an indirect cause of unemployment and it is my opinion that this problem should be settled, not only for months but for the years to come.
I believe these supplementary estimates have some value though I would have preferred to see more included in them. This is the reason for the suggestions made in my comments. I understand that we might not be able to do it in the next following weeks. In any event, however, it is a member's duty to make really serious suggestions to improve the situation.


Mr. I.-Roland Comtois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be quite brief, but I still would like to make a few comments on the matter now before the House.
We seem to forget that the $350 million fund for winter projects will simply allow the government to grant loans to the provinces and municipalities until May 31, 1975. And what surprises me, Mr. Speaker, is that for once the official opposition seems in agreement with the government estimates, because the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) said in committee last week that he estimated at $75 million the needs of the provinces until March 31, 1973, and we see now the opposition for once agreeing with the estimates and ready to grant its support for this amount of $75 million.
Mr. Speaker, we want to allow the provinces and the municipalities enough leeway to present projects which will really meet their needs and which, at the same time, will reduce unemployment especially during the winter months.
In order to promote this concentration of supplementary works during the next two years, this same program includes an important stimulus providing for the forgiveness of an amount equal to 50 per cent of the direct onsite payroll costs until May 31, 1975.
And in answer to the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), I must remind him that this forgiveness applies 12 months a year and not only during the winter months.
As for the second part, this is a supplement of 50 per cent of the direct onsite payroll costs from December 6,

February 8, 1973
Supply
1972, to May 31 of the 1972-73 winter, and from December 1 to May 31 of the 1973-74 and 1974-75 winters.
Now, what do we want to do here? We simply want to allow the provinces to better plan their works. In my opinion, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), who wondered how this money would be administered, should have read the guidelines and the administrative forms that the Minister of Finance was kind enough to send to all members when the statement was made. He would have seen then what the controls are and which way these funds are administered.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that several provinces have already submitted their projects to the federal government and that the whole thing will be late owing to objections encountered in this House and in committee.
I would like only to remind opposition members that as far as New Brunswick is concerned, it has submitted projects for more than $3 million and so did Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland submit projects for some $2 million. I believe that Manitoba will come to Ottawa tomorrow with its list of projects. Quebec also has already prepared a long list of similar projects and it will give it to federal government for approval.
Mr. Speaker, I have been a member of this House for seven years and always heard opposition members say "too little, too late" about anything the government might introduce, including legislation and estimates. And for once the opposition has changed its position. Now $350 million is much too much and it is too early to bring it before the House.
I would like the opposition to make up its mind once and for all on what it wants and on its priorities since this is what we have been attempting to learn for a long while.
Now, Mr. Speaker, when the eligibility of a project is being discussed consideration is given to the additional direct or indirect employment which will stem from the suggested expenditure. Particular attention is paid to areas where the unemployment rate is high. And if all the loans requested by a province and its municipalities exceed the amount awarded to that province, they must give preference to projects which are labour intensive or which will be carried out in sectors where unemployment is at the highest.
The unemployed seem to be forgotten in this debate, because they are indeed the ones we want to help and, whatever the reasons for this unemployment, I suggest that we must not delay the passage of such an important measure which will enable the various provinces and especially the municipalities to undertake works deemed essential.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to delay unduly this debate because I suggest that the only objective of the government is to help provinces and municipalities. As someone said earlier, some municipalities are over-taxed and it is that very assistance from the federal government which enables several small municipalities to implement some works for the welfare of their citizens. Anyone with a bit of experience can see that the labour used in municipal projects, in road works carried out by provinces or in building construction are very often difficult to place; I

refer to those people who are 40, 45 or 50 years old who could easily be employed in such municipal or provincial undertakings.
I suggest that we are dealing with a need which must absolutely be met now in Canada. We must encourage these people to find a job. I do think that for once this program is neither too early nor too late, but just in time. The amount of $350 million, when one considers that it will be for a three year period, is very realistic and reasonable. I will wonder why the opposition seems to be willing to freeze these credits, for this project only represents the authorization to lend money to provinces.
Mr. Speaker, I think that when the House is asked to vote, most hon. members will approve the amount $350 million which I hope will be loaned as soon as possible to provinces and municipalities to enable them to create jobs, something every member of this House must wish.


Mr. lames Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to enter the discussion on these estimates with a combination of concern and some sanguinity. My sanguinity comes from the fact that I do not believe I am detracting from other urgent business that the government may have by participating in this debate at this time.
I have been singularly unimpressed by the fact, possibly because I am a new member having been here only five weeks, that parliament has been able in that period of time to put through only the Pilotage Act, a housekeeping bill, establish a food prices committee and pass Bill C-124 which was needed because of the government's incompetence of the past, but absolutely nothing else.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James McPhail Gillies: In spite of all the efforts we in this party have made to try to progress and move forward, it has been very, very difficult to do so. My concern about this matter before us arises, not so much for the reasons that have been raised by my colleague and the members to my left, but because these supplementary estimates, and the way in which they are presented, tell us an enormous amount about the manner in which the government is attacking the two basic economic problems which face this economy, unemployment and inflation.
We are being asked to approve these estimates in order to do something about the unemployment situation in this nation. Certainly, everyone agrees something has to be done about it. I have argued in this House and elsewhere, many times, that the economic performance you have is a result of the economic policies put forward. Unfortunately, we have not had any new economic policies proposed by this government to deal with the problems of unemployment and inflation in any meaningful way whatsoever. This is the first item that has come to this House that we can take a look at in terms of the government's approach to the problem of unemployment.
I need not reiterate that Canada has the highest rate of unemployment of any industrialized country in the world, and the way we are going we may set a record in terms of inflation. However, let me say that I reject totally the idea that we cannot do anything about these problems. Unfortunately, we cannot do much about unemployment
February 8, 1973

through the estimates that are before us today, but surely we can no longer hide behind the fiction that is impossible to do anything about the unemployment situation. We have had a demonstration that something can be done about economic problems by our neighbours to the south. Two years ago, the United States unemployment figure was approximately 6 per cent. It is now heading toward 5 per cent while ours may be going to 7 per cent. Two years ago the rate of inflation in the United States was rising rapidly. It is now almost 3 per cent while ours is going toward 5 per cent. It is irrational, improper and a fraud on the Canadian people to suggest that nothing can be done about the problems of unemployment and inflation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James McPhail Gillies: It seems to me that the record shows that the policies which have been followed by the government over the last three years have been highly ineffective. In fact, the Treasurer of the Province of Ontario, speaking at the finance ministers' meetings recently, said that the total effect of the last three budgets on our economy has been perverse-that they have probably done more harm than they have done good. I would not care to debate that point particularly, but the point I do want to make, one which I think is relevant to the issue we are discussing here today, is that forecasts made in the last budgets have been wrong. I want to suggest to hon. members that there is no way in which we can make proper economic policy in this nation unless we are organized in such a manner as to have proper information and proper data upon which to make it.
I cannot say how concerned I was to hear the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) stand in this House yesterday and say he is not in the business of forecasting.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James McPhail Gillies: May I say that the shock I felt yesterday was only a continuation of the shock I have felt for the whole period I have been here because it has not been possible to get the Minister of Finance, speaking for the government, to say what are the goals of economic policy for this country. We must be the only country in the world with a government which will not say what it is trying to do in connection with economic policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James McPhail Gillies: Only a few weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States stated, not in secrecy but openly and with press releases, that the economic goal for that country for 1973, in terms of price increases, was an inflation rate of around 3 per cent. Now, why did he do that? He did it because he wanted every single person in that country to know that this was what the government intended to aim for; he wanted everybody negotiating contracts to know this was what the government was aiming for, he wanted people to know, when talking about price increases, that this was what the government was aiming for. I do not believe that what we are trying to do in this country in terms of economic policy should be a secret held within the breast of the Minister of
Supply
Finance, the Department of Finance or anybody else. After all, everyone wants to work toward achieving satisfactory economic performance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James McPhail Gillies: Unless we know what our goals are, how on earth are we going to be able to reach them? It is my opinion that the reason the government does not want to give these indications, to tell us what its goals are, is that in the past the figures they have given us have not worked out. Perhaps they feel embarrassed and are not prepared to make economic forecasts. But I say to you, Mr. Speaker, with due respect, that to follow such a course is an abdication of responsibility. Surely, we should not play politics with the amount of unemployment we have in the country and with the amount of inflation which exists in the country. What we really should be doing is trying to solve the problems, and to do so it is necessary for everyone in the country to get behind the goals of economic policy.
I am sure Canadians would not care-I do not suggest that they would be very happy-if the Minister of Finance on behalf of the government were to say that unemployment this year will reach 6 per cent or 6.2 per cent. At least, we would know where we were going. We would know what the goals were. I think the fact that these estimates have been brought in for us to look at without any idea of what the economic policy of this country is in terms of fighting unemployment or in terms of fighting inflation, makes it impossible for anybody to give really serious consideration to them in any effective fashion.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that to ask us to approve an estimate for three years of $350 million for a winter works program, without any other policies being brought forward by the government with respect to unemployment or inflation, is asking us to do something which we can do only with the greatest reluctance, if it can be done at all. If one looks at these estimates, one cannot help but wonder at them. The Minister of Finance has said that probably this year $75 million will be drawn for winter works programs by municipalities through the provinces. That, of course, leaves $275 million to be drawn down in the two later years. I can only ask myself: does the Minister of Finance expect that unemployment will be higher in 1974, and higher in 1975, if he is asking for that kind of appropriation? I also realize that the $350 million will be worth 10 per cent less, unless we have new policies with respect to prices, because of our rate of inflation each year. But basically what I am saying is that this type of policy making is ad hocery of the worst sort. And I say that ad hocery in the making of economic policy certainly is not good enough, especially when our country is suffering from unemployment and inflation at the rate it is at the present time. I suggest the estimates simply reinforce the fact that the government should take a really good look at the way in which economic policy making is organized in this country.
I have said before, as has my party, that we need a short-term economic forecasting unit in this country in order to keep track of what is happening. The provincial premiers have said that the program now being discussed is being introduced too late to be effective. They asked for
1096

February 8, 1973
Supply
it many months ago, and I can only presume the reason the government was not willing to meet their request earlier was that it was confident that the unemployment situation would not be as bad as it is, or that the inflation situation would not be as serious as it is. How could the government be so wrong? The reason it could be so wrong is that it is not organized and has set up no organization to look at economic problems on a short-term basis. If there had been operating effectively in Canada, a short-term, independent, economic forecasting unit, we would not be sitting here today trying to approve estimates without any framework within which to know they could work. It seems to me, then, that asking for approval of these estimates in this ad hoc way is an inappropriate and a most unsatisfactory method to approach such an important matter.
The case we have presented many times in favour of a short-term, independent, forecasting unit has set out the ways in which such a unit could be established easily and effectively. Even, a simple amendment ^o the Economic Council of Canada Act would allow the council to involve itself in independent, short-term economic forecasting. Again, I find it somewhat incredible that the Minister of Finance should say he is now depending heavily on the Economic Council of Canada for economic advice with respect to trends and forecasts, since their findings are medium and long-term; the Economic Council does not look at short-term forecasting. I am also amazed when I recall that though Dr. Arthur Smith, Chairman of the Economic Council of Canada some time ago, predicted with great certainty what was going to happen he was completely disregarded and absolutely no attention was paid to what he was saying.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James McPhail Gillies: I have no other course but to think that this great interest on the part of the Minister of Finance in the Economic Council arises because he has nowhere else to turn. What we must have-and we must be among the last major countries in the world which does not consider it- is a budget on a full employment budgeting basis so that we know exactly what our revenues and expenditures need to be to sustain full employment in this country.
In addition, it seems to me we ought to know, if we are going to look at these appropriations-and we are asked to look at them in terms of an unemployment situation- what the other parts of the package really are. What is the government going to do to solve unemployment and inflation? Is it willing to accept the suggestion we have made that there be substantial personal income tax cuts? Does it intend to adopt the constant dollar proposal in taxation, a proposal which would at least help take some of the edge off inflation, a policy which would make parliament more responsible because the government would always have to come back to parliament to get approval for expenditures instead of itself benefitting from inflation which all of us know is partially generated by excessive government expenditures? What policies are ahead of us? Is there a program for improving the operation of small business in Canada? Are we to have an investment credit program?

I do not wish to wander too far afield, Mr. Speaker, but I wish to make clear that no matter what major indicator one follows, the Canadian economy is in a distressful situation. I am told there are 16 indicators, but the suggestion that the number of freight car loadings, for example, is as an important indicator as the amount of unemployment, for policy making seems to me to be demonstrably incorrect. Our economy is in trouble, and we have this band-aid to help take care of unemployment. And in terms of its relation to total policy we do not even know where the band-aid is to be applied.
Are we to understand that the government has adopted the philosophy that a public works program is an integral part of a full employment program? Or has it been brought in at the last minute to take care of a temporary situation? You can cure the unemployment problem in a variety of ways: you can cure it by putting money into the hands of consumers so that they can go out and buy the goods they want, and the best way of doing this is through cutting taxes and raising old age pensions; or you can cure it by direct expenditure programs. This is a direct expenditure program.
Does the government believe that through direct expenditures of this kind the economy can be effectively stimulated as rapidly as would be the case if they were to cut taxes and increase old age pensions? It seems to me that no government should bring in a policy that has something to do with unemployment in such an ad hoc fashion as this, outside of any framework of policy and without forecasts as to what is going to happen in the economy. I suggest that parliament is being asked to do something it should not have to do. I therefore respectfully say that this parliament should give thorough consideration to the way economic policy making is conducted before approving these expenditures.


Mr. Elmer MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to follow my distinguished colleague from Don Valley (Mr. Gillies). I may say at the outset that, like so many members of this House, I, too, have learned to respect his judgment in these matters. I hope that the government will be cognizant of some of the excellent and substantive polices that he has outlined.
As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in the ramifications of supplementary estimate L12a. I do not wish to suggest to the House that the theory behind it is all that bad, but what does appal me about is that, like so many government programs, it seems to me hastily contrived and that there is no assurance that its application will achieve lasting benefit or that the program will even be operated efficiently.
In discussing this matter today, I wish to point out that this government's performance in terms of legislation passed so far this session is, in my humble opinion, and to be most charitable, nothing less than dismal. Only one item, Bill C-124, has been fully disposed of, and we all know how that was disposed of. To be perfectly frank about it, those who accuse our party of being obstructionist should be told simply this, that there has been nothing to obstruct. That shows how barren and unimaginative the government's program has been.
February 8, 1973

I should like to refer briefly to some comments made by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) last night. I was quite impressed with his remarks, and since, in effect, we have a coalition government I think hon. members opposite could derive some input from hon. members like the hon. member for Timiskaming, though he is probably a bit too practical to suit their taste. May I briefly refer to something that he said, as reported at page 1072 of Hansard:
Why should we allow the provinces to decide what the criteria are to be? Why should we operate this winter works capital project by regulation rather than by legislation?
In discussing items such as this it is time we realized that, in effect, the government have been doing this sort of thing a great deal lately. They operate by decrees, by orders in council, by regulation; and they are not even dealing in a meaningful way with their own Members of Parliament, much less other members of this great institution who are entitled to the fullest consideration on matters of policy, and to the opportunity to express their views.
It seems to me that, in effect, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has abdicated his responsibility for setting the financial direction this country should take. The provinces, as the hon. member for Don Valley pointed out, are in many cases following budgetary measures that are designed to create full employment, at the same time operating at a deficit, whereas the Minister of Finance is showing a surplus of $600 million. In many ways the Minister of Finance reminds me of another great explorer, Christopher Columbus. He, too, left his destination not knowing where he was going; when he arrived there he was not sure where he was; and when he returned he could not say where he had been. And like the Minister of Finance, he did it all on borrowed money. I say that this government cannot forever continue to do things by regulations, orders in council and so on. It must do these things through legislation, and it must have meaningful consultations with the members of this House.
When one considers the aims and objects of winter works and provincial participation, it seems to me very strange that there is another government department that has not been allowed apparently to have much input. I refer to the department that is most responsible for our regional development plans and which, by its very nature, participates in infrastructure programs, industrial incentives and capital works programs. This much heralded department, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, to my mind is one that should be taken into account and whose aims and objects should be blended and integrated with any meaningful winter works or capital expenditure program in this country.
In connection with DREE, I should like at this point to refer to some of the policies that we in this party have put forward in what I hope is a constructive manner to further winter works programs, to resolve unemployment problems, and to try to bring some sense of co-ordination and direction to the economic management of this nation. Unfortunately, to this point the policy pronouncements by the minister have been so negligible as to amount to practically nothing. I do not entirely blame the minister; I realize that he has a vast, complex department to adminis-
Supply
ter and that there is great unhappiness, upheaval and dissatisfaction in his department. But surely by this time we are entitled to have on the record of this House some indication of just exactly what the minister intends to do with regard to constructively reorganizing and defining this great new concept of decentralization which he borrowed from our party.
I see it is now five o'clock, Mr. Speaker. Will there be private members' hour or shall I continue?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps I should call it five o'clock at this point.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill C-124, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (No. 1), without any amendment.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received which is as follows:
Government House, Ottawa 8 February, 1973
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Gerald Fauteux, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 8th February, at 5.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving royal assent to a bill.
I have the honor to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Andre Garneau Brigadier General
Administrative Secretary to the Governor General



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom)- Agriculture-Possibility of financial assistance to Saskatchewan land bank program; the hon. member for

February 8, 1973
Youth Appreciation Week
Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker)-Public Works- Alleged disposal of old barges by Department in Lake Okanagan-Steps to remove; the hon. member for Sault St. Marie (Mr. Symes)-Industry-Possible closure of Abitibi mill in Sault Ste. Marie-Use made of development grants by company.
'
It being 5 o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills, notices of motions (papers) and public bills. As there are no private bills or notices of motions (papers) listed on the order paper, the House will proceed directly to public bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta) moved: that Bill C-13, respecting National Youth Appreciation Week, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that hon. members will agree with me that we hear much more about the troubled youth in our society than we do about all the good things that youth are doing today. On November 14, 1972, I attended an Optimist Club meeting in my riding. Four young people were being presented with plaques which read:
Youth Appreciation Week Citation for upholding the dignity of youth, for sincere devotion to our welfare and for generous and unselfish contributions to our society.
This ceremony was not only taking place in my riding, but also across Canada and the United States. On that same day, a boy in St. Catharines received a plaque and 10 students in the city of Vanier, in the province of Quebec, also received plaques, as well as many others.
Oliver Wendell Holmes once said:
I think that as life is action and passion, it is required of a man that he should share the passion and action of his time at peril of being judged not to have lived.
We can be proud of the extent to which our young men and women today are playing an active role in the continuing growth of our country. In organizations as diverse as student governments, vocational education, civic, social, business, religious and social action groups, these young citizens are learning the ideals of Canada by putting them into practice. Hard work, co-operation, patriotism and individual excellence; all of these come to be cherished by those who participate constructively in this building of Canada, and often this learning has expanded the ideals and consciences of Canadians, refreshing our spirit.
As we move into the second century of our country, the mantle of responsibility and leadership will be passed to this generation of young Canadians. I am convinced that the youth of today will wear that mantle proudly, carry

out the responsibilities of adulthood and leadership with conviction and concern for their fellow man, and reflect great credit on their country.
In recognition of the natural resource Canada's youth represents, and to promote a greater understanding between our generations, I strongly urge the members of this House to allow this bill to go to the committee, and declare that throughout Canada, in each year, the third week in the month of November be known and observed as National Youth Appreciation Week.
I could continue, Mr. Speaker, but I understand some other members wish to speak on this bill. I understand the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier) will be making his maiden speech. I am very happy that he thinks so much of my bill that he is addressing his maiden speech to it. I ask hon. members on both sides not to take the usual course in respect of private members' bills. Let us show the youth of today that we do care. I know all members are in favour of the bill, but let us not be so much in favour of it that we talk it out. I invite hon. members to speak their piece and then sit down so that we can get this bill to the committee.


Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, since I am delivering my first speech in the House, I wish to congratulate you on your election to the important position of Speaker of this House. The tributes paid to you and the praise given to you by the various party leaders during the debate on the Address in reply to the Throne Speech as well as by those who spoke during the different discussions which followed show how much you are appreciated by the members. We know quite well that your position is sometimes thankless and always exhausting. I therefore congratulate you for having accepted at such a trying time to conduct the proceedings of the House, a task which you perform with so much tact.
When I was approached to speak on Bill C-13, I accepted with no questions asked, as it were, because I had no idea what it was all about, not even knowing the number of the bill. And I realized later that the number of the bill was C-13. Since I am the thirteenth of a family of fourteen one can imagine how happy I was about that coincidence since I take deep interest in youth.
A short survey among hon. members would indicate no doubt that most of them approve of a youth week. If we recognize, as pointed out by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds), that the first resource of a country is its people we will agree readily that, surely, the most important part of that resource, without any prejudice to the others, is its youth.
In the explanatory notes to the bill one can read:
The purposes of this Bill are:
To recognize the accomplishments of youth in the home, school, church and community;
To promote more active participation by members of families- To encourage organizations and other groups to publicly show their respect for youth;
At a time when what is going wrong in society is overstressed, I find it entirely in order for an hon. member to recognize the merits of such a proposal and ask his colleagues to support it.
February 8, 1973

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity in recent years to work very closely with youth particularly in the riding I have the honour to represent, the riding of Sherbrooke, and even though it is mainly in the field of sports that I was privileged enough to be associated with youth I think it is still one of the fields where one is in the best of positions to appreciate the real merits of Canadian youth.
However, I should like to suggest to hon. members that the Canadian government has done a lot for youth in the past few years. I should like to list a few of these accomplishments.
For instance, just three or four years ago the Canadian government lowered the voting age from 21 to 18. It has also created summer jobs under the Opportunities for Youth program launched three or four years ago and established youth hostels throughout the country. Interprovincial exchanges also receive some financial assistance from the federal government. These exchanges are made between the various provinces and the two territories of this country, not to mention the contribution of the federal government in the field of international exchanges. Study trips abroad and through this country are also paid by the federal government.
We could also mention the role of the government in the field of amateur sport which was given considerable grants. There is also a national housing policy aimed at helping the students who, in certain cases, have enjoyed preferential interest rates. The loans the students were eligible for have been raised from $1,000 to $1,400, with a $50 monthly tax exemption for a post-secondary full-time student.
Mr. Speaker, we have 84 federal assistance programs for youth in Canada. It would be impossible for me to describe them all at this time but I would like to mention one of them which I think is essential. It is the Young Travellers Program.
This program concerns students who have been selected to travel to various provinces. The federal government, in co-operation with the Secretary of State, the ten provincial governments and those of the two territories and also with several Canadian municipalities undertook a few years ago to organize these travels. Reports published after those travels have demonstrated just how much the students did appreciate those travels and the annual reports express their wish that the government continue this program.
The federal government also intends to implement additional programs even though this is not quite within the scope of Bill C-13 whose purpose is to proclaim a National Youth Week in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I only have one objection: as can be found in the explanatory notes of the bill this youth appreciation week would be the third week of November. As far as French-Canada is concerned, you know that the month of November has always been associated with the deceased and this is why I would not want youth to be associated with November. I should prefer that week to be in April or May, a period of the year more readily associated with the concept of youth.
Youth Appreciation Week
Another point perhaps worthy of consideration, Mr. Speaker, is that if we have a National Youth Week there is a risk that youth might be neglected during the 51 other weeks of the year.
I agree with the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta that during at least one week of the year emphasis should be placed on young people and their role in our country.
There is also another aspect to this matter, Mr. Speaker. Young Canadians work not only in Canada; they also work in other countries. I am thinking of those who work within Canadian programs such as CUSO, for instance, and who do a lot of good. This is seldom pointed out. In some countries, our young people have worked with considerable success, as the leaders of those countries have pointed out; but unfortunately, the Canadian people are often not even aware of their work. I feel that an appreciation week like this one, while stressing what our young people do in Canada, could also stress what they do abroad.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention that during my years as a teacher, there was a poem about youth which always interested me greatly; it was written by Kipling and translated by a famous French writer. I do not know if it is in order in the House, but anyway, I find it is closely related to the point made by hon. member for Richmond-Delta, and I want to recite it. Here it is:
If you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or, being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or, being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise;
If you can dream-and not make dreams your master;
If you can think-and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with triumph and disaster And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with wornout tools;
If you can make one heap of all your winnings And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on";
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings-nor lose the common touch;
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute With sixty seconds' worth of distance run-
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And-which is more-you'll be a Man, my son!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order please. Before I recognize another member, I would like to point out to the hon. member for Sherbrooke that under the rules it is allowed to recite poems but not to read them. Therefore, the hon. member was in order.

February 8, 1973
Youth Appreciation Week


Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, since we are involving ourselves in a great-to-do about youth, I thought as a youth perhaps I should make a few remarks in respect of this suggestion concerning a national youth appreciation week. With due respect to the hon. member who has introduced this bill, may I say that I believe it is a lot of nonsense. It is pure unadulterated crap. We could have an appreciation of old people week, or we might have an appreciation week for this group or that group. There are many appreciation weeks, weeks about this and weeks about that. The mayors of towns proclaim such weeks as do the premiers and others. The result is that no one knows what he is appreciating. Now, we are faced with the prospect of establishing a national youth appreciation week to show that the kind of society and policies we develop are in tune with what is desired by the young people in our society, to take some action so that they are not walking the streets as many of them are between the ages of 20 and 30. In effect, we are to say, "We appreciate you, gang; you are a nice bunch; we raised you to concern yourselves about morals and so on".
There is a great deal of truth in the statement of the hon. member that the youth of this country are often misinterpreted in our society. I agree that often we are too critical of one group and tend to lump them altogether. In other words, if one person does something bad then all in that group are bad. However, we do this about other people also. But I do not believe the members of the Parliament of Canada should be involved in setting aside a week to appreciate youth or anything else. I believe this is a waste of our time. I wish to state very clearly that I am presenting the opinion of the hon. member for Assiniboia. I do not know what my colleagues think about this.


An hon. Member:: Agreed.


William George Knight: I see there is one agreement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That makes it unanimous.


William George Knight: I cannot possibly conceive of the logic of such a. suggestion. I suppose if one were to send the speech home it would be well received. I suppose I could move a motion to have an appreciate farmers week. We should appreciate farmers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Or appreciate members of parliament week.


William George Knight: Yes, for all the mail we are handling. We should have the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) move a motion to appreciate members of parliament for all the work they are doing on behalf of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Perhaps we could establish a national holiday and let members of parliament have that week off so they would not have to handle the cases for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I can tell him that I am getting terribly sick of handling them.


An hon. Member:: We could have a week for the whips.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger).]


William George Knight: Yes. Members could move a motion like that after the whips had given them trouble over not showing up for certain votes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Carried.


William George Knight: That shows the utter stupidity of such a motion. We can probably get four or five members to say they will talk it out. I say, quite frankly, that we should talk out this motion. If we are going to do something for youth in this country, this parliament must deal with real issues which affect young people, real issues which affect their future, such as whether this country become economically independent or whether this country will have a full employment economy. That is what affects young people, not setting up a week to appreciate them. Nonsense-that is all I have to say, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure for me to take the floor, especially during the private members' hour. I must congratulate the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier) who requested permission from the Chair to recite a poem. I think he will realize, especially by listening to the speeches-what is worse is that they are written for future generations-that everything is allowed in the House. The reading of that poem was just like a whiff of oxygen in this majestic and austere assembly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. I should like to point to the hon. member for Hull that the hon. member for Sherbrooke did not read but recite a poem.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I saw him bend his head from time to time, I did not think he was reciting, but it was so beautiful that I was under the impression that he was reading it with much feeling.
And as far as I, a former youth, am concerned, it is always a pleasure to talk about youth. The definition of youth in the dictionary is the following:
The period of life between childhood and maturity
I did not think that, by extension, for instance, one can always remain young, for to keep eternally young is to keep young in one's heart and one's life. This is why while many people are senile today, many others will keep eternally young.
As I said before, this august and austere assembly puts up with speeches of all kinds and patterns. I can even quote examples showing that pollution is not to be found in the air, nor in the fumes from the chimneys, nor in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver or Los Angeles, but rather in the speeches. I believe that more pollution is to be found in speeches from speakers whose brain cells seem confused and whose product is at best quite hazy. Of course, life is often dull and superficial for hon. members, especially nowadays.
I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) for the generous thought he has expressed concerning young people. But young people need more than concern. The standards set for admission to some universities, particularly the medical art faculties, are much too rigid. Yet, medical doctors are
February 8, 1973

needed all across Canada. Our country ranks 26th in the doctor-to-population ratio. Therefore, I wonder whether there are any possibilities of making representations to university faculties and medical colleges in Canada since, in my opinion, they have gathered more dust than prestige over the years and an effort should be made to make admission standards more flexible. For admission to medical faculties, the requirements are 80 per cent marks, which leads us to believe that those who get 80 per cent marks in pre-med are no doubt geniuses, whereas the same students, on completing their classes, will be less interested in practising medicine than in doing scientific research, so that future generations will build robots to look after the citizens' health needs, and that will be rather unfortunate.
All sorts of faculties should also be helped in their planning activities. In the province of Quebec, when only a few teachers were needed, lots of them were trained, with the result that teachers will be unemployed. A few sociologists were needed, thousands of them were trained, and many of them are now jobless.


Miss Begin:: There is one of them here.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: There are some of them everywhere. This is why, Mr. Speaker, the suggestion of my colleague is excellent, but I suggest that more than pious wishes are needed to help our young people. All they want is to be helped. Of course love, whether in novels or in real life, is very important in the life of teenagers. It carries them into another world. Of course some are more mature and since youth is the best time in one's life, it is important to make young people understand that they must not waste those years.
It is often said that it is possible to make a career in politics. But politics is a passing thing which is just a stroke of luck, except for some people, like Sir John A. Macdonald, for instance, who said after the Speech from the Throne in 1867: We have built Canada, we shall now have to build Canadians.
We are now in 1973 and heaven knows how far we still have to go before reaching that objective. Youth can cause problems that affect us directly.
In the national capital area the issue of bilingualism is an important one, but I do not wish to stir up the fire. We will be talking about it in due time. I simply wanted to say to my colleagues representing ridings west of Toronto or from Ottawa to Vancouver that what has been lacking perhaps in the education of Canadians is that they could never understand each other because they could never get together. One must not forget that the jet service between Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal is in operation only since 1960. We can thank Air Canada for offering today cheap excursion fares to western Canada which are going to give us the chance to meet those we never knew, at least in the case of the young. It is less expensive to spend 15 days in Europe than in western Canada. So nobody wants to go there. This might come later; exchanges have already started and I know that this can continue because it means survival for Canada. If we
Youth Appreciation Week
want survival we will have to get together and it is by talking to one another that we get to know one another better.
And I think we have failed miserably since 1867 by not trying to stimulate youth to bring about a united Canada. And when I say "united" I am not trying to play politics because I know that others have different opinions on the subject but I simply want to say that perhaps we missed the boat by not thinking about that.
This is so true that I have met people from Vancouver who were very quite excited about meeting French Canadians in Montreal; they had never set foot in Montreal. Then, all that they had heard had come from the news media and we know that even though they are not biased, they do not always faithfully report the news.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order please. The hon. member is delivering a very interesting speech but I wish to point out to him that the bill before us is not a bill related to the official languages, but Bill C-13, respecting national youth appreciation week.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the news media because they are referred to in the explanatory notes of this bill.
Therefore, I would invite you, Mr. Speaker, always to wear your glasses, which will make it easier for you.
I do not wish to take any more of the time of the House, but I would like to quote a word from Titus: "I lost my time today". He used to say that in particular when he had spent one day without finding an opportunity to help someone.
As a conclusion to my remarks, I wish to invite my colleagues to think over these words in the evening, when they get home. Perhaps we shall have, from now on, stronger speeches and perhaps our sessions will be shorter, more interesting, more practical for many Canadians.
The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) is an excellent former Liberal but, unhappily, he made a mistake, and I am sure that he is sincere when he speaks about Canadian unity.
I would like, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate my hon. friend the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta for his excellent speech and in particular for the bill he brought forward, but as I said earlier, we should attempt to find other ways and means to help the young rather than to praise them for a week and forget them afterwards.


Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to speak on this bill, not because I shall support it but because I recognize much of the good that is intended in it, even if I do not believe it should be before the House for decision. I should like to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier), for his excellent maiden speech. It makes some of us who have already spoken feel that perhaps we should wait a little longer before speaking again. The hon. member's speech was very good.
The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight) said he raised the subject as one of that group called youth. When

February 8, 1973
Youth Appreciation Week
my imagination runs wild I think I, too, can make that claim. Then I realize the facts on my birth certificate and refrain from making the claim. However, I am not too far past the age of being trusted and I hope the hon. member will trust in some degree the points that I wish to make. I express some disappointment in the fact that the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) did not go into greater detail. When a matter with such merit as the explanatory notes of this bill would suggest is presented to the House I think there must be good reason for it. I would have liked from him more examples of fine work of the type done by the Optimists Clubs of Canada. I am a little disappointed that the hon. member has received singular lack of support from his own benches. In all fairness, he has one advantage which is that 50 per cent of his Quebec caucus is present whereas we have only about 15 per cent of ours.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Sydney Clark Fleming: If the purpose of this bill is to try to bring together our young people and those especially amongst them who are alienated with society, then there is some point in discussing it. The explanatory notes of the bill set down a number of purposes of the measure. I should like to skim over a couple of these areas and suggest useful things that could be done. For instance, parents who are proud of their children often fail to express that pride. If we had the kind of week envisaged in this bill, parents could show their children that taking care of them and loving them has not just meant buying them cars and giving them an education, but real love and affection is there also.
Lions Clubs, Rotary and Kinsmen clubs and similar organizations could include sons and daughters in a program and teach them what these clubs are all about. The more mature people of our country also could do a great deal of work on behalf of Canadians generally. Take business and industry for instance: when we speak of youth we tend to mean those in university or those doing social work, but the greatest number is in industry doing their best to earn a living and pay their taxes. Sometimes these young people of 18, 19, 20 or 21 are supporting a wife and family. I *'think a very great effort must be made to reach this group of young people who are often overlooked. Then there is the role of religion. Many of us believe that even though some churches in our society have improved their relationship with the community, they still have a special opportunity to project their teachings and encourage their own young people to go into the community and to show that useful things are being done within the church.
What I am suggesting, Mr. Speaker, is that although we are talking about a national youth appreciation week, really there is opportunity for all sorts of liaison among parents, youth, industry, business and service clubs as well as religion. Perhaps we should be working in the general area where there is a breakdown of communications as between all age groups and sectors. Perhaps this bill should not centre on one specific area.
My colleague, the hon. member for Sherbrooke, gave an excellent portrayal of the many programs for youth, but I should like to mention the LIP program which has offered

many jobs to young people who feel alienated. Many of these programs give young people an opportunity to test their mettle, to put their ideas into action and to experience what it means to earn a dollar, pay taxes, and to become involved members of society. They have been very successful in breaking down the alienation that some young people feel.
Politics, of course, is something close to all of us. When we look within the ranks of our own parties I think we will agree that some of the brightest organizational work is done by young people. They keep us fresh and alive, aware of new ideas and approaches. They do a lot of research not only within university communities but within the more traditional communities of our society. University lecturers, the ones that are Canadian, are very often young people, and that is most encouraging. I read an article the other day which pointed out that many business executives in Canada are in their thirties or early forties, so that is another area where younger people are playing an active role.
I hope, however, the bill before us does not imply that there is inequality in this area. I do not suggest that is what the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta had in mind, but there are problem areas and I have touched on some of them. The hon. member for Assiniboia wondered what would happen if we carried this idea to the extreme. I will not call it crap, as he did. I will not use that word because the intent of the bill is good. We ought to remember that a service group, the Optimists, which works in communities across Canada, is involved and we should treat them with respect.
I agree that it would not be productive if we were to carry this idea forward as an act of the Parliament of Canada because then we should become involved in projects such as senior citizens' week, which might be developed in conjunction with the New Horizons program, or national housewives' week, national workingmen's week, national working women's week or middle-aged people's week. We might even have an hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) week, as he so often sits here through private members' hour, although he is not here now.
I think the cause is good, although I am not sure that by incorporating it in an act we would accomplish the spirit of this bill. I am afraid I cannot offer the excellence of poetry such as several of my colleagues offered earlier. However, perhaps I can offer these few lines, hastily but together, to make my point:
Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
Kids are great,
Other people, too.


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words on the bill now under consideration. I should like in the first place to say to the hon. member how much I appreciate the fact that he introduced a bill for the establishment of a youth appreciation week.
February 8, 1973

As the saying goes, Mr. Speaker, if youth but knew, if old age but could. If we could put that proverb into practice, we would give far more experience to youth. Our young people are like those of yore. They are born with needs to be fulfilled. Those are human needs as all others, but since the beginning of things, there have always been young and old people. Youth has surely the right to hope in its own country.
Youths live on hope and this must be proclaimed by senior people, those who know what life is about, who have the experience of life. This experience must be transmitted to youth. This is the responsibility of all.
Through technology and universities, youths do not lack information on technical matters, the philosophy of life, etc. Youths have just about everything.
Nowadays youths lack initiative from the moral point of view, as it is stated in the bill, and I quote:
... on the influence religion and morals have on the lives of youth and to encourage youths to actively participate in spiritual activities: and
Mr. Speaker, I feel there is now a lack of morality in our universities, in our schools and in our country for the guidance of our youth. If we want to build up a strong country, inhabited by just people, a developing country where we can tell our young people to hope, we should give them the means required for hope, in other words, ethics. Now, morality has to a certain extent been set aside in our universities and school. In my opinion it is lacking in our young people. Why? Because there are not enough "moralists". If a number of them met all the needs of our young people, we could entertain hopes of creating a more just society.
Today's youth do not hope for a just society because they pretend that injustice is everywhere. Youth is given rustic means to earn a living, youth is educated in universities. They come out of there with many degrees; many young people with degrees cannot find their place in life, they are unable to develop naturally as they would have wished, to be in the areas where they would have liked to develop. In summary, they are unable to find their way.
In universities and schools, youth have to be developed in the same way as steel or furniture are produced in any industry, by mass producing them. In universities as in any other institution of higher learning education is mass produced just as steel is.
Mr. Speaker, we are not giving enough consideration to vocations springing up in each individual. Every human being should be individually educated in universities and other places of high learning. People now are mass-educated and thus we are going through a dreadful experience. Many young people are far from being adapted, far from being in the sphere they would like to be. This is due to the economic, social and spiritual lack of balance.
Spiritually we lack balance because when all the young people get their degrees from these institutions of high learning we can well realize that in respect of morals there are many deficiencies. We realize that they did not get a proper moral education, and this has resulted in the uneasiness we see in our society, especially among young people.
Youth Appreciation Week
Also in the economic area, we have many reforms to make for young people. They cannot find their role in society, cannot get married, cannot take up a career of their choice, because the economy no longer lets them. Thousands and thousands of dollars are needed to start any small business. But young people lack capital and cannot face up to the situation and the blame must not be laid only on them but also on the system in which we live. They should have the right to live, to get married and to have a home of their own.
But today, this is practically impossible, because they must pay four or five times the price of a house, because of the present system, where we cannot even give young people the hopes they should have.
If we are to give young people any hope, we are going to have to reorganize our whole economy. We are going to have to adapt our economy to the latest technical and ideological developments. We are going to have to give the young of today and tomorrow access to all that if we are to build a just society where man will be recognized and respected, as it is not the case presently, because initiatives are lost and many young people could do much better in society but in the context I have described we make slaves of them at best.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bill:
Bill C-124, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (No. 1)-Chapter No. 2
At six o'clock the House took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
February 8, 1973
Supply


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. 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, be concurred in.
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, at five o'clock I was commenting on this government's financial policies in relation to item LI2a and mentioning that I personally found it incredible that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) does not believe in forecasting economic conditions. If he truly believes this, then he must be alone among his contemporaries in other nations who hold similar office to his.
I thought that the leader of the New Democratic Party in this coalition government put it pretty well when he said that there was a difference between forecasting and prophesying. With deference, I would say that the Minister of Finance has a duty to forecast and to take the nation into his confidence. Then once having set his goals publicly, he would be able to count on the support of labour, management, provincial and civic administrations, amongst others, to help him achieve what should be common goals for the benefit of all Canadians.
We have had no comment on the policy requests and projections made by organizations such as APEC and the Atlantic Development Council who suggest that a reasonable goal in this region would be 4i per cent unemployment by 1981. I think that would be a reasonable figure. However, as I was mentioning at five o'clock, we have had very little in the way of policy from the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson). All we have had so far in this session, and indeed for years, from this government, are catch phrases.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was minister of justice a few years ago he caught the public's imagination when he said that the state had no business in the bedrooms of the nation. This got him a certain amount of prominence. We now have the Minister of Finance saying that in order to define policies, and so on, he prefers to avoid statistics and to talk in human terms. That sounds good, Mr. Speaker, but what does it mean? I suggest that, like so much of the government's policies, it sounds good but it does not mean very much. If I may quote a phrase used by my colleague for Ottawa West (Mr. Reilly), like so much this government does it is "all swank and no knickers".
My party is on record as having made constructive proposals. In a small way, I made some policy proposals myself twice in the month of January since this parliament opened. But we have had no policy commitments or policy objectives put forward by the government, and I suggest that we are not likely to get any.
The current policy for DREE, which is by its very nature vitally interested in capital works projects, and the type of endeavours that this government is attempting with projects in many ways similar to vote L12a about which we are speaking tonight, is formulated, I fear, by
fMr. Speaker.)
bureaucrats. Let me illustrate what I mean by quoting from a report that is, I submit, very relevant. It covers a matter that is being currently considered by policymakers in DREE and relates to Atlantic Canada's housing policies and what should be done in a meaningful way to implement, shall I say, some of the aims and objectives of the government. Let me quote from the report, which is a current one and which I shall call simply the "Scanada document", to show the House what I consider to be a very good example of what is the ultimate in bureaucratic jargon:
Having realistically primed the Atlantic Canada housing network-
Just get that, Mr. Speaker-"the Atlantic Canada housing network"!
-with demonstrated, "regionalized authoritative responsibility" the federal government would proceed to implement stage two of the proposal. In view of its multiple input, second stage implementation will require skilled timing and sensitive manipulation.
It sounds more like a Masters and Johnson report so far, Mr. Speaker.
Besides majority funding, the federal government's participation will range from firm insistence at one extreme to negotiated compromise at the other.
Isn't that nice?
The report continues:
Under directional control of the newly formed federal-Atlantic Canada Housing Policy Implementation Authority-
Isn't that a nice mouthful?
-teams of proven top flight industrial and financial, managerial and technical skills will be assembled.
This document that I am quoting, as will later appear, has extreme relevance because it is being prepared for government use by highly paid consultants, some of whom, I am led to believe, are not properly authorized under or pursuant to the Official Secrets Act. I also intend to find out what the document cost. I suggest the cost will be very great. However, the best has yet to come. If I may continue to quote from this so-called "Scanada document":
For purposes of this submission, the teams will be referred to as "The Dam Busters" since the name aptly describes their proposed function. Selection and acquisition of the right type of individual will not be cheap or easy, it may even be necessary for the federal government to turn to non-regional-based organizations for assistance.
Now listen to this, Mr. Speaker:
Secondary and/or sub-standard individuals will have to be ruthlessly rejected since under-par performance by the teams will negate the entire revitalizing concept. In scope the "Dam Busters" will represent every direct and indirect activity associated with the housing industry. At predetermined point in time "The Dam Busters" would be simultaneously injected into what there presently "is" of the industry in Atlantic Canada.
That is the type of policy that we are paying to have injected into government policy so as to deal with the very real situation that Atlantic Canada is facing in terms of winter works, housing and so on. If I may just continue to quote this document, it is illustrative of the type of input that is going into DREE as far as regional development policies are concerned. It continues:
February 8, 1973

Hopefully occupying managerial positions, it is reasonable to assume that respective ir.emDers of "Dam Busters" would quickly assess weaknesses within their areas of expertise. Reacting instinctively to challenge, I believe corrective planning would be fast and effective. Equipped with positive planning, supported by federal funds, and stimulated by competitive complementary interaction from their peers in support activities, revitalization is inevitable. Dams will be broken and the flow of viable production will be firmly established.
This report, as near as I can figure out, proposes to make a General Motors out of the Atlantic housing industry. If this is the type of policy input that we are going to be fed as far as the federal government's current DREE program for decentralization is concerned, then I think we in the Atlantic region are in for more trouble than we realize.
However, coming back to the guidelines, if any, in respect of this $350 million expenditure under vote L12a, I wonder if we are not justified in asking for a little more explanation about the benefits that will accrue to the people most affected by an expenditure of this kind. Are there going to be any lasting benefits? Will there be municipal and civic improvements? Will there be wharves, roads, and so on, constructed? I hope so. However, I am afraid what we will have is just another LIP program.
Surely winter works capital programs deserve more careful regulation and policy guidelines than the somewhat impromptu method used by the department in determining who should receive LIP grants. Unfortunately,
very often the people who receive these grants are those who have the biggest "lip". Down in Nova Scotia we know where most of the LIP grants go, as does the government House leader. I hope that the $14 million of this $350 million, which is the proportion coming to Nova Scotia, will be spread around a little more. It seems obvious that we need, when considering proper guidelines and the scope for large-scale capital works projects such as these, government-planned, integrated projects. All federal department projects and not just winter works projects necessarily, well intentioned as they may be, should be integrated.
It is incomprehensible to me that the item we are considering has to be dealt with in this particular way as a mere designation namely, vote LI2a. I think we are entitled to something better than that. We as Members of Parliament are entitled to participate in establishing some of the guidelines and objectives.
As I said earlier, I agree with the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) that the provinces should not be given all the responsibility of deciding how this money should be spent. Our federal prerogative, in this particular instance, is neglected. I can only deplore that and suggest that any government which proposes to spend this kind of money should listen to the suggestions of members in this House. If this government has demonstrated nothing else, it has demonstrated a great propensity for misspending money in many fields, including export development. It has demonstrated its ability to allow the UIC fund to get completely out of control. Unless some guidelines are established with the assistance of members of this House, I fear that the winter works program will be
Supply
no better managed than some of these other programs, and later on we will be looking at the results of the expenditure of this $350 million as we have looked at the results of other programs wondering why so many went wrong.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefiord):: Mr. Speaker, the objective of the motion under consideration is to make credits totalling $350 million for a three-year period available to the provinces, provincial agencies, cities and municipalities so as to help them to undertake winter works and at the same time to fight unemployment.
Firstly, $350 million divided over the three-year period involved, represent about $116 million per year. In my opinion, $116 million per year is a drop of water in the ocean, all the more so if the needs of the cities, municipalities and provincial agencies throughout the country are taken into consideration.
As a comparison, I would mention that the budget of the Olympic Games alone amounts to $350 million, for an event which will last about three weeks. The Olympic Games budget is as high as the grants we are asked to vote for three years to help the municipalities, the school boards and the provincial governments and agencies to fight unemployment.
Some Liberals think that such a small amount will perform economic miracles in Canada. I repeat that this is a drop of water in the ocean. Moreover, until now on the basis of government statements, we have no indication that the provinces will not keep this money for themselves to meet their needs and, for example, to finance the construction of hydro facilities, roads and other projects. Will the provinces be able to keep that money for their own purposes only, or will they have to give up part of it to the municipalities or other provincial bodies? To this day, there is no guarantee that they will not keep it all.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, why is there a three-year period? Because the government goes ahead haphazardly, because it has no stable financial policy with regard to municipalities and provincial governments. Why does it not evolve a permanent financial policy, that cities and municipalities might be able to plan their development and know where they are going?
Some hon. members said that the federal government should plan the development of municipalities, cities and provincial governments. To my mind, as far as planning is concerned, provincial bodies, cities and municipalities have nothing to learn from the federal government because it operates without giving any thought to the future. It patches things up, but too late unfortunately. When there is unemployment, for instance, it wakes up and tries to find temporary solutions to the problem.
When there is unemployment, Mr. Speaker, the government also tries to create credit, like today, to change the plans of the provincial governments, municipalities or provincial bodies.
As we have been telling the House for years, unfortunately the federal government has not adopted a permanent and stable financial policy in connection with provincial agencies and governments, cities and municipalities, the latter never knowing what is in store for them.

February 8, 1973
Supply
When is the government going to establish a scientific financial policy? This is why I consider that the federal government should draft, as we have been suggesting to the House for a long time, a financial policy which will enable municipalities, cities and provincial agencies to plan ahead at all times and not for a three-year period. In fact there will be further developments in the next three years in Canada. There will be other projects of construction of water mains as a result of an increase in population, cities will expand, municipalities will become bigger, pollution problems will still exist and if the present government is still in power, we will be talking about it yet. There still will be several public investment problems. Then, why a three-year period?
Why did the government fail to come up with a stable, permanent and serious financial policy so that municipalities and cities might be able to plan not for three, or four years but for 20 years instead for their water mains construction projects, their rebuilding of streets, their construction or other public works?
These credits of $350 million are further evidence that the Creditistes are right when they ask for the services of the Bank of Canada in granting interest-free loans to provinces, municipalities and school boards so they may finally plan for a long time ahead the development they need. These credits would be put into circulation as and when the projects are carried out by the various public bodies and they would be reimbursed by means of taxes from the taxpayers as and when depreciation, consumption or use of the projects realized with the help of credits granted for development occur in the public sector.
This means that the money or credit would be put into circulation in accordance with the development of public resources; for example, a credit of three million used for the construction of municipal water works would be valid for 50 years and reimbursed only in capital at the annual rate of 2 per cent of the original capital in such a way that in 50 years the original capital invested would be reimbursed. Thus, the taxpayers of municipality "X", the taxpayers of province "Y" would have reimbursed only once their public works, while today we pay 9 or 10 per cent interest to high finance to which the present government, as the preceding ones, gave in exchange for donations to the electoral fund the power to extend to this country the necessary credit instead of doing it itself through the Bank of Canada, as the latter has the power to create the necessary credit for the development of national resources.
The Bank of Canada should finance without interest public developments of provinces, municipalities and school boards. And the savings or loans made from the chartered banks or elsewhere should finance with interest private investments.
Mr. Speaker, here is a financial policy which would allow the government to know where it is going, and would also allow us to know where the municipalities can go with regards to their public investments or capitalizations. Such a financial policy would put a stop to the stifling of the provinces, the municipalities and the public bodies as we have it today.
I have before me the March 17, 1971 edition of the newspaper Le Nouvelliste in which it is said that 48 per

cent of the appropriations of Trois-Rivieres-Ouest, that is $494,600 on a budget of $993,700 are earmarked for servicing the public debt.
I have also before me another newspaper showing that the same problem exists all across Canada, and not only locally. It is the Globe and Mail, dated Thursday, February 4, 1971. On page 84, one can read the following, and I quote:
Charlottetown's problem is how to maintain, expand its services. Debt service charges are a special burden . . .
Expenditures were budgeted last year at $3,230,000 with $1,042,000 for debt charges . . .

Mr. Speaker, I have before me still another newspaper, the Victoria Daily Times, edition of July 23, 1969, in which we find the following, and I quote:

The Crippling Interest Burden.
School board chairman Dr. Carron Jameson's troubled comment.. .
It must come as a shock to most taxpayers to learn that, at present high interest rates, the borrowing of $300,000 for school purposes will entail a repayment of $628,445. But is this adequate justification for arguing that the board should pay its way with cash? Schools are built to last for longer than one year. They will be assets to the children of today's pupils. Since this is the case, why should a generation of taxpayers in 1969 shoulder more than its share of the burden to meet requirements of the next generation?

Mr. Speaker, in the Official Review of Ontario Hydro for the month of January 1969, one can read this:

Another figure which is difficult to appreciate is the cost. Estimated in 'today's terms' the combined price tag works out at $1,035,000,000-
Interest is something else again. If the full amount was financed over 20 years at 7 per cent interest would amount to $1,449,000,000-

Mr. Speaker, this illustrates that in the matter of public finance, this government does not know where it is heading for. Here is another disgraceful example, that of the construction in Moncton, N.B., of a city hall that cost $1,200,000 to the builder, whereas the city of Moncton has rented the building for $329,924 a year, which means that after 40 years the building will have cost the ratepayers $13,196,960 and the city of Moncton will be destitute, having paid $13 million in rent for a building whose cost was only one million dollars.
That, Mr. Speaker, goes to show that all over Canada, in all the provinces, in all municipalities, in provincial agencies, there are urgent, essential needs to be met. The population has great needs to be met. Mayors, aldermen, administrators of provincial agencies are plagued with just one problem, that of financing. As a solution, the federal government brings forward the motion now before the House as stupid as can be imagined.
February 8, 1978

I have here the statistics regarding the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act, 1938, showing that the federal government has made loans under this Act in Canada from 1938 to 1968 totalling $7,035,783.86, demanding reimbursement from Canadian taxpayers of 2,500 million dollars interest over and above the original capital.
Today the government is proposing the same gimmick as the one which was proposed to the Canadian people in 1938. The Municipal Improvements Assistance Act, 1938 is reproduced exactly in the bill under study. That act had forced the Canadian taxpayers to pay over $2.5 billion in interest alone to finance public investments in Canada, in order to encourage the world of high finance, to elect members of Parliament who only know how to say "amen" in the House of Commons, to kowtow to the big financier come election time, just like Premier Bourassa who, come election time, goes and visits the electorate of the province of Quebec and goes to the high financial circles in New York to obtain loans in order to get the citizens of the province of Quebec deeper under.
Mr. Speaker, we advocate in the House today what we have advocated for 20 years; other non-Crediters have claimed it also.
On November 16, 1963, the mayor of the town of Bedford in the Eastern Townships, on this subject of public capital financing, was asking the same thing we now ask the House. He was attending the Canadian congress of mayors and municipalities and he asked for the establishment of a municipal bank that would pull out of their indebtedness provincial agencies, municipalities and school boards. He said and I quote:
1.	The institution, by both the federal and provincial governments of some credit or bank, called provincial-municipal credit or provincial-municipal bank as directed by our provincial government.
2.	The central government should provide capital investments equivalent to two thirds under the form of decreasing participation.
It would be one of the easiest things for the government through a reduction to the minimum of the National Defence program which is very expensive for the country-
Mr. Speaker, there was also a request for the granting of interest-free loans for the financing of public capital. This was published in the newspaper La Voie de I'Est on Saturday, November 16, 1963.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote an excerpt from a telegram, which is in agreement with Creditiste thinking, that was sent to the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) by a Toronto Liberal MP. I quote:
It seems to me the Canadian people have had a bellyful of you chaps jetting around the world spending and offering millions of our tax dollars in foreign aid while we who pay the freight have a tough time watching unemployment take its toll in our have-not areas. It's time you called Mr. Sharp home and called off these Santa Claus junkets by diverting some of these millions to give us back our railways and putting our people back to work. I have a sure-fire plan if you will direct your people to study it for a crash program. As far as we are concerned the honeymoon is over and it's time for action for Canadians, not Africa or Timbuktu. If I am wrong, let me know because I speak for a lot of Canadians. Awaiting your reply,
Respectfully,
Eddie Sargent, MPP, Grey-Bruce.
Supply
lTranslation]
Mr. Speaker, this shows that some people are starting to think like us and to understand that public and private finance are two quite different things, that savings produce capital and that loans must be reimbursed with interests, that capital invested in the construction of sidewalks, schools, town halls, water mains or other projects not yield interest and should not be expected to. This is why we, Creditistes, have a novel solution.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him is now expired.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Nipissing on a point of order.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, am I to understand that because of the Speaker's ruling of yesterday we are to debate each of these individual votes in the same way as we have done today, so that after the vote on each of these items there will be a referral to the committee of the whole House, at which time all these comments will again be made? Is that the procedure?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Jacques Blais: Am I further to understand, Mr. Speaker, that we are to spend two days arguing the same motion, and that although the Conservative members during the committee hearings took up more than three-quarters of the time questioning these individual votes, that procedure will continue here?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I have to make a decision on the point of order. I hope the hon. member will state his case and limit his remarks to the case which he is trying to make. The Chair has accepted the procedure which is recognized as being the practice. We are now studying a different motion to accept the supplementary estimates, which will bring us to the bill on which we will have a debate on first, second and third reading.


Jean-Jacques Blais: In view of the fact that I have received an answer from the Chair, and although I was to speak on this motion, I will forgo the pleasure for the benefit of the hon. member opposite.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I must point out to the hon. member that the point he raised was not a point of order. He stated an argument regarding the limitation of speeches of other members who have the right to speak in this House.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, we are to receive in this House a new piece of legislation following the passage of vote L12a. It is a new kind of legislation concerning the expenditure of money over a three-year period and it calls on us to vote money which the Minister

February 8, 1973
Supply
of Finance (Mr. Turner) when speaking in the committee clearly indicated he would not need in 1973. The minister said he might need $65 million, perhaps $70 million or perhaps $75 million. Our party is prepared for stopgap measures and this is what we are talking about, a vote for $75 million. However, to talk about voting $350 million over a three-year period on what are called supplementary estimates is surely an abuse of the proceedings of the House and is no way to enact legislation involving a problem on which I will speak later.
It is totally irresponsible on the part of the government to ask parliament to vote $350 million for a further three-year period when the government, of its own volition, stated that it does not need the money. Apparently the government is going to put it in the bank. As the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) said, the government will then be able to use the money as it sees fit without having to account for it to the House. Under no circumstances could a responsible parliament contemplate voting for this measure as presented, in view of the obvious fact that the minister declared at the committee hearings that he does not even need the money.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mack-asey) once said that $500 million was only a drop in the bucket. In referring to some of the problems we have heard the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe) say that this is a small amount of money compared to the cost of the Olympic games. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that even if $350 million is only 70 per cent of that "drop", this party recognizes its responsibility to the taxpayers of Canada. This party is not going to vote money that a government clearly says it does not need this year, money that it can come back to parliament and get when it needs it. To set aside money for this year and the year after that under what are called supplementary estimates is clearly an abuse of the process of responsible government and the handling of public funds.
Mr. Speaker, the measures taken in the past regarding winter employment have been stopgap measures, and I understand tjiat the minister is now trying to get away from that practice by attempting to provide for a three-year period. To that extent I compliment the government for looking ahead, but this is not the method by which it should be proceeding. The government should be introducing complete legislation to deal with winter works and winter employment problems.
Since the day Jacques Cartier landed on the shores of this country we have had winter. Winter is not a new phenomenon in this country. As long as statistics have been recorded we have heard about winter unemployment: it is not a new phenomenon and it is high time a government produced a bill on a long-term basis to deal with it. To produce a bill to deal with winter unemployment in a three-year supplementary estimate is a disgrace to this parliament and to this government's attempts to govern.
This whole procedure indicates lack of planning which has produced an inept economy and it would be impossible for this party, and I am sure for members of the party to my left, to vote for such an incompetent proposal.
[Mr. Blenkarn.J


Mr. Lachance:: Would the hon. member entertain a question?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Yes.


Georges-C. Lachance: Would the hon. member tell the House when the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) said that $500 million was a drop in the bucket?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: He was reported in the campaign recently-


Georges-C. Lachance: When and where did he say that?


An hon. Member:: Don't you read the newspapers? [Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. Hon. members know that they must always address the Chair, even if they want to ask a question. I think the hon. member should abide by the rules.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, before supper this evening I had an opportunity to talk to some municipal officials in connection with winter works programs that have already taken place. They say, quite frankly, that if the government of Canada is going to give them money they are certainly not going to look a gift horse in the mouth. I understand that. However, they also told me of the wastage in winter works projects because of the way they have been handled in the past. I understand that there are communities which organize their winter projects in the summertime in the hope that there will be a winter works program. If it comes through, it gives them a few more dollars for the next year's finances but it does not do anything to further employment; the people would be employed anyway, so it does not mean that any new people are employed.


An hon. Member:: That is not so.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I understand that when the program is announced in November, applications are then made for grants. When the people finally hear about the grants there is a great rush to do something. They tell me that they could do a great deal better if they had a long-term plan. In the past these winter works programs have been stopgap measures developed after the snow has started to fly. They are certainly not an efficient way of solving unemployment problems in winter.
I suggest that this government should contemplate some kind of long-term program and bring legislation before the House to cope with the problem of winter unemployment which is continually with us. I suggest that the government should look at arrangements whereby municipalities can apply for grants for projects that will stretch over two, three or sometimes five years; that when the municipalities apply for the projects there should be a termination date of the following June or July. Upon advice that they would receive money, the municipalities could then organize and arrange to employ people whom they would not otherwise employ. The problem is that in the past these programs have only been stopgap measures. It is high time the government recognized winter as
February 8, 1973

an annual occurrence and made arrangements for longterm grants or long-term loans, or both, to municipalities to enable them to undertake the necessary projects.
I was happy to hear the hon. member for Compton say there is a lot of work to be done in this country, because there certainly is. A lot of work could be done in the municipal field, but unfortunately in the past municipalities have been short of money and have had to depend upon assessment against real property for their funds. This is really a cost-shared program, Mr. Speaker, and some of these cost-shared programs have a tendency to be more advantageous to municipalities that are financially well-off and less advantageous to the poor municipalities.
Vote LI2a contemplates that 50 per cent of the direct labour costs will be absorbed by the federal government by way of loan or grant. The problem is that the municipalities must contribute the other 50 per cent of the direct labour costs. We know very well that any project requires more than labour; if it is to be worth anything it will require a great deal of material and machinery. Whilst there is a tremendous advantage to the municipalities, this program does not go far enough. It is certainly discriminatory in that it only looks after those municipalities which can afford to cover half the direct labour cost; but on any project the cost of materials and hiring equipment is almost the equivalent of the total direct labour costs.
I am very happy to see the federal government proposing a three-year program for winter works. However, we should have legislation to handle winter works programs over a long period of time. I cannot possibly accept this method of municipal financing, Mr. Speaker, or this method of legislating by supplementary estimates over three years. Under no circumstances could this party- nor could this House if it were really honest with itself- accept this method of legislating.
I implore members of this House to vote against the estimates. The money is not required; the Minister of Finance says that he does not need it this year, so there is plenty of time in which to present proper legislation. If the suggestion of this party is accepted, $75 million is more than enough to cover the requirements for this year and there is no way that parliament should vote money that is not required.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I feel sorry for the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) who a few moments ago cried out in anguish because the milk from his sacred cow was drying up. I feel sorry for any member on the other side of the House who came here expecting the government to take the lead in long-range economic planning only to find, instead, that the government is dealing in sticky plaster; it is running from problem to problem and trying to patch them with band-aids. That is exactly what this program is.
When one considers that the government ignored the forecast made by the Economic Council of Canada, that in January there were 668,000 Canadians out of work, an increase of 104,000, or 15 per cent over December, and that this government mentions unemployment in terms of percentages and does not think of unemployment in
Supply
human terms, one can understand why the hon. member for Nipissing expressed such discouragement and why he does not like hearing statements such as those made by members of the opposition.
What this government has forgotten is that behind those statistics, behind the words "in due course", there are men and women and families who live in degrading conditions in this country. This program which the House is considering tonight is just a band-aid being used in a situation which needs major surgery.
They plan for three years, those far-thinking men on the government side, and then say they will give this country a winter works program involving $350 million over three years. They have been warned of impending disaster for four years. The problems of the municipalities of this country will not be solved in three years, or even in five. The government of the province of Ontario, which so many people on the other side of the House like to chide, plans its capital needs five years ahead when forecasting. This government's vision extends only to three years.
Some hon. members have mentioned anti-pollution programs. In my constituency the Rideau River has been neglected for 30 years, and the Ottawa River area for 50 years.


An hon. Member:: Even between 1957 and 1963.


Walter David Baker: The government countenances in the capital of this country a transportation system which in some ways is one of the most inadequate in North America.


An hon. Member:: What happened between 1957 and 1963?


Mr. Benjamin:: It's the same old bunch.


Walter David Baker: Our problems will not be met with short-range programs. I am not suggesting the program under consideration is all that bad; I am suggesting only that it is not long range enough, that the period it covers is insufficient and that not enough money is provided if municipalities are to solve problems occasioned by their shortage of finances. For that reason I say this program is a farce. We need more. We needed more four years ago. We needed better planning four years ago. There is no evidence of that planning and that is why we in the opposition find it difficult to accept the program.


An hon. Member:: What, another one?


Walter David Baker: An hon. member comments, "What, another one?". He had an opportunity to speak. The difficulty is that the bigger provinces are likely to take a bigger bite of the pie. The large municipalities, with officials who are administratively competent and can deal with other government officials, are more likely to benefit from this program than smaller municipalities, although unemployment difficulties seem to be greatest in the smaller municipalities, at least in my riding. The largest number of complaints regarding unemployment insurance claims arising out of maladministration that come to my attention come from a small town, Prescott, with 5,000 inhabitants. The greatest number of problems to do with relief comes from the small municipality of Marlborough, with

February 8, 1973
Supply
800 or 900 inhabitants. The program we are considering will not solve the difficulties of these people. That is why I describe it as a band-aid although major surgery is required.
In a press release dated December, 1972, the government suggested that "the objective of the program is to bring about an increase in capital spending and to sustain a high level of employment." Where is the man who wrote that? This program is merely a baby step in meeting the problems of our cities. And, Mr. Speaker, to take even that step the government comes to parliament and asks us to sell our birthright as a parliament to deal with matters of finance and abdicate our responsibility for considering these matters in later years. It is not worth our while abdicating this responsibility for the sake of this program.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: It is necessary for us to remember that governments must be responsible. Governments cannot ask parliament for blank cheques. Governments cannot ignore parliament-and we in this party do not intend that to happen. When necessary we intend to raise our voices so that this government may understand that from now on there is to be a new era of governmental responsibility to parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Although well intentioned, I think this program was ill-conceived and may well turn out like the LIP program. During the question period I have heard the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) make excuses for that program. Letters have come from his department which have been full of excuses. We know that good projects have been ignored because no criteria were set. Ultimately, this House must bear the responsibility for lack of criteria with respect to such programs.
It was been suggested that this program originated in the minds of bureaucrats. I do not credit the public servants of this country with conceiving such an ill-conceived program. The public servants of this country will function best when properly led. The public servants of this country recognize that they are led by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) who is the arch-conservative member on the government benches and perhaps the most conservative man in this House. The problems of our country demand action, imagination and full-time leadership by the minister. And what does he do? He falls back on band-aid remedies; he falls back on sticky plaster. One cannot criticize public servants for being concerned about such programs. With respect to this particular program, the public servants involved are leaders. Perhaps their problems with regard to the present program represent only the tip of the iceberg. Because of such difficulties morale has been low in the public service of this country.
Just look at the problems of our cities, Mr. Speaker. Look at the transportation problems of this city and others. Look at our housing problems. Look at transportation difficulties in general, and at water pollution difficulties. Look at the difficulties encountered with respect to the redevelopment of our parks and the provision of recreational land. Although the present program has been designed to develop employment, it will not solve such

problems as I have enumerated. This program enunciated in the press release with such an air of euphoria will not do the job that the government salesmen, those new salesmen, would like to see done.
There is no imagination here. For a program that lacks such imagination I do not believe the government ought to be allowed credit beyond that which they say will be required for this year. There is a necessity for these programs. They are not the answer to everything, as this government says they are, but they will work as an adjunct to an active industrial society, a society where there is high employment, people can find gainful work and their wages are not drained off to meet the costs of enforced idleness.
These programs can work, but they must be started sooner than this one was started. We should not be debating the matter in February when we could have been debating it in December. As a matter of fact, the last parliament should have debated it in June. It is a slothful government that has put forward this matter. It is a delayed government, a late government and a government that will not be with us very long.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, we have here the presentation by this government of a form of legislation, a bill in fact, under the guise of a supplementary estimate. My colleague, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), traversed this point at considerable length yesterday. I do not want to go into the complexities of the Financial Administration Act in great detail, but at a moment's glance it invites one to look at the item in extenso as it appears in Supplementary Estimates A, laying down all the conditions, the allocations, how the allocations are to be secured, the types of projects and the forgiveness feature.
However, the strangest point, and I think the totally illegal point, is that it makes reference to a bill that has been wiped off the statute books. If one looks at Revised Statutes, 1970, in which should be incorporated the 1963 act, it cannot be found. It has been totally eliminated because the 1963 act terminated in 1966. It was dead. This item could have been introduced as a $1 item. However, for personal aggrandizement the government said, "We are going to make it $350 million."
Maybe this is a clarion call to the voters. Some will say it is a trumpet call. I would say it is whistling past the graveyard. However, there is this trumpeting call of $350 million that members opposite may say they have provided for the coming year. It is going to be something over three years. There is perhaps some $65 million for this year.
I will not repeat the argument of my colleague, the hon. member for Yukon, with regard to the fact that this is contrary to the Financial Administration Act, an act of which I am sure the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has never heard.


Mr. Whelan:: Oh, yes; I heard you mention it before.
February 8, 1973


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am glad. Perhaps the minister will invite his colleagues to acquaint him with the contents of it.


Eugene Whelan: I have enough trouble now.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: We in this House cannot make an appropriation this year to cover expenditures for years to come and include therein provision that some of the moneys that are to be spent this year shall be forgiven this year by way of an appropriation next year. That is totally contrary to the workings of the Financial Administration Act.
I want to give the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) and a few others a little reading lesson. I wish the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) were here. He reads beautifully. He does a real job when he reads, but sometimes those words stick around in Hansard. On October 8, 1968, the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) asked the Prime Minister the following question:
When does he intend to introduce his just society policy to replace the winter works policy, in view of the fact that municipalities are now in a very difficult situation?
Can the house expect an early statement from the right hon. Prime Minister in this connection?
The Prime Minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, the policy in this regard was launched before cancelling the winter works program; this the member should know.
The winter works program has been put aside. On December 13, 1968, as recorded at page 3906 of Hansard, my colleague, the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald), asked the Prime Minister the following question with regard to the amendment of the winter works program:
Is the government considering a suggestion I made to the Prime Minister at the time the winter works program was abandoned, that it might be employed in areas where unemployment in the winter months reaches or surpasses 8 per cent?
The Prime Minister replied:
When we abandoned the winter works program we did so because we felt there were other ways in which to ensure prosperity.
He talked about FRED, ARDA, AIDA and things like that. The Prime Minister then stated:
These are all ways in which we try to alleviate the economic situation. Of course we do not have a system of government in which we have entire jurisdiction over the whole economic policy.


Eugene Whelan: He does read well.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On October 5, 1970, as recorded at page 8758 of Hansard, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) asked the Prime Minister the following question:
Since most of the unemployed will not be very fully satisfied or their hunger assuaged by lists, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government intends to announce any specific undertakings, intends to increase the money available for housing or intends to enter into any negotiations with provincial governments regarding winter works programs, antiquated or modernized?
Supply
Just prior to that the Prime Minister had said:
Mr. Speaker, we are not reviving the antiquated methods recommended by the leader of the New Democratic Party, but there have been a whole host of measures taken over the past year and indeed in recent months.
On November 5, 1970, as recorded at page 904 of Hansard, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) asked the following question:
May I ask the Prime Minister whether the government is giving consideration to a winter works program supplemental to the regional development programs in order to help to alleviate some of the very substantial unemployment we have and will have this coming winter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. As I have pointed out before, the winter works program totalled something less than $50 million. We have replaced it by manpower retraining and mobility programs to the tune of several hundreds of millions of dollars. It is typical of the NDP that they would want to go back to solutions which were discarded and discredited some time ago.
Then on September 28, 1971, as reported at page 8229, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) asked the Prime Minister a question with regard to winter works. He asked:
Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the previous municipal winter works program which was very valuable, as everyone knows, was discontinued without reference to a federal-provincial conference would the Prime Minister consider reinstituting it and making an announcement about it within the next few days?
The Prime Minister replied:
I do not believe the assessment made by the hon. member that the previous program was very valuable is shared by everyone in this country, least of all by the municipalities themselves. They found that very often it was a wasteful program and asked the federal government to bring in better measures, which we did, and we have the manpower retraining program.
Yet the answer today is: Back to winter works for $350 million. As far as the NDP is concerned, the Prime Minister says he is bringing back antiquated provisions which were discarded. I recognize that the NDP were in favour of winter works programs; everyone was until the right hon. gentleman came to power. The previous administration had brought in winter works' programs. But when the just society came in, winter works went out of the window.
Today, though-and here we must believe the words of the former minister of labour-the Prime Minister is communicating with the people and he is finding out that winter works programs are programs which the people want, programs which many of the municipalities want. The Prime Minister told us in 1971 they were wasteful programs. Are these to be wasteful programs now? Why are they being reintroduced? You see, Mr. Speaker, members opposite cannot be credible in this situation. They have carried out a complete about-turn. Of course winter works programs were helpful. They did a lot of good. All I am quoting is what the Prime Minister has been saying about them.


Mr. Whicher:: Anybody is entitled to make a mistake.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

February 8, 1973
Supply


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Ohf, so he made a mistake? Up and down these rows, everyone on this side of the House, Conservatives, Creditistes and NDP members said winter works programs were the answer. Unemployment was just as difficult in 1969, 1970 and 1971 as it is today. Were there any winter works programs in operation? Not a bit of it. All members opposite said was: We have our just society. We shall retrain people, recycle them.
What has happened? The sum of $350 million is to be advanced. This is strictly window-dressing. This winter they hope they can entice the municipalities and the provinces, even at this later date, to come in with programs of $160 million. Then we have to consider the conditions. They are not the conditions of the Municipal Development and Loan Act which was passed by Walter Gordon, though reference is made to that act. It is a dead act, one which does not appear on the statute books. One has to go back to the old statute books to find out details as to definitions. The program comes before us by way of a supplementary estimate and we are asked to rush it through.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Because the provinces want it quickly.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What is required is a proper act of parliament, not just a few lines in a supplementary estimate. Such an act should have set out a winter works program adequately so that we might know precisely what are the conditions to be satisfied and be assured that it is a continuing program, not just a bunch of "ad hockery."
We would then have something on the statute books; there would be no need to keep questioning and badgering the government about a winter works program and risk getting the smart answers we have been given over the years by the Prime Minister. They were shocking answers. According to him, these were programs which were obsolete. But, my goodness, when they got into trouble and found their new-fangled programs were not working, what did they do? They went back to tried and true programs, such as winter works. Sure, winter works are only a palliative, but if the municipalities and the provinces were properly approached and allowed adequate time in which to make their plans, excellent results could be expected.
Nobody will be satisfied with the measure we are asked to approve. I would suggest to the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) that he consult the city of Winnipeg to find out whether that city alone can undertake in this coming year to account for at least $4 million. Is $4 million going to help the city of Winnipeg? Well, that is all Manitoba will get this year-$4 million for the whole of the province. Will that be sufficient? I think not.
Will this amount be sufficient to share among the municipalities? Consider the situation in the province of Quebec. Some $40 million is to be shared this year among all the municipalities of the province. Give them a pittance, as somebody said earlier. Not more than a nickel- pas plus qu'un gros cinq sous. That is the extent of this program. To deal with unemployment on the present scale
(Mr. Whicher]
through winter works, at least half this amount should be taken for the first year.
Mr. Speaker, I object strongly to the action of the government in bringing forward this proposal in its present form, referring to an act which is no longer on the statute books and embodying the terms of the obligations under the municipal works program beneath a heading in the supplementary estimates. Mind you, I am sure the municipalities will welcome any money they can get, but it certainly will not do the job held out for it. It will prove a bitter disappointment. As far as winter works for 1972-73 are concerned, I do not think their value will reach $65 million for the entire country before the period one might call winter expires in this country.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Mr. Speaker, I have listened very attentively to this debate. This afternoon I heard the dual leader of the financial chieftains of the Tory party, the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies). Tonight I have listened to the second-in-command of the financial chiefs of that party. I understand that the real financial chief is their leader.


An hon. Member:: And who is that?


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: My hon. friend asks who that might be. In any event, it is always very interesting to listen to these criticisms that are made of a government that is trying very hard to do what it can for the unemployed in Canada. The Liberal party takes second place to no one in helping the unemployed of Canada. Back in the Diefen-baker years when the hon. member who has just spoken was part of the government I remember the whole western world was shown who were the champions as far as unemployment was concerned. There was far more then, on a population basis, going right back to the depression years, a period of which none of us is proud.
For that matter, I do not think any Liberals sitting here tonight are particularly proud of the unemployment situation that we have in Canada. On the other hand, we are willing to admit our faults and that we have made mistakes. My hon. friend who has just spoken, as well as all the Conservatives who spoke this afternoon and yesterday, said that they never made any mistakes in the past. Their memories only go back to the Liberal government which took power a few years ago. They forget what happened when they controlled the purse strings around here.
Let me remind the House that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) said to this parliament and to the people of this country that his first priority is to create jobs and get the unemployment figures down.


David Orlikow: What were they last year?


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Surely, Mr. Speaker, that is a justifiable enterprise. Surely it is one my hon. friends opposite desire, even though some of them-not all by any means, but certainly some-had the unmitigated nerve to vote against the unemployment insurance bill the other night. I am glad to say three of them did have enough sense to stand up and vote with the government. We on this side
February 8, 1973

are willing to admit our mistakes, and we have made plenty of them.


George Harris Hees: I'll say.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: My hon. friend from Prince Edward-Hast-ings (Mr. Hees) never made any mistakes.


Paul Yewchuk: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) is rising on a point of order.


Paul Yewchuk: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question?


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: When I am finished I will be glad to answer questions. Everybody likes the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings, but the fact is that he never made a mistake in his life.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: He was in the midst of a mistake when he went skiing in Europe but he was caught by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). Some of the members who came here only last month do not remember, but let me remind the House that the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings made many mistakes and he tried to rectify them by going on a skiing holiday in Europe at a certain period of time.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Tell us about the trips you took, Ross.


George Harris Hees: You will make a mistake in the next election.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: When it comes to an election, George, you have only half a chance of winning.


George Harris Hees: That is grade 3. I must say you have a great memory for your old schoolroom chums.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: You do not bother me at all, George. I have been insulted by experts, and I really do not regard you as one.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Let the Chair remind the hon. member that it is customary to refer to other members by their ridings, not by their names. The hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher).


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) is rising on a point of order.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It is always a pleasure to listen to my hon. friend when he makes his bi-weekly parade and is given the opportunity to speak in the House, but it would help us a lot if he would just mention once that we are dealing here with vote L12a.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Bruce.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased my hon. friend brought me back to reality when he said we are talking here about a $350 million vote. I am very pleased to talk about it.
Supply


Fernand-E. Leblanc: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Leblanc) has a point of order.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, the point raised by my good friend from Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) has very much bearing, I think. But on the other hand, I think that yesterday and today you were very lenient in regard to the relevancy of what was said. I think that Mr. Whicher-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: -who has the floor is in order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has a point, but I count on the experience of the hon. member for Bruce to bring us back to the straight and narrow of debate.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: What is it that we are voting on here tonight?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Miller Bell: That is a good question.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: The fact is that we have before us a $350 million estimate. What is it for? I will be very frank with my hon. friends across the aisle and say that in my belief the Liberal Party over the last two or three years did make mistakes and that we do have too many unemployed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: At every opportunity the members of the government have agreed with that. But they intend to do something about it. By bringing this estimate before the House tonight they have shown that they intend to do something about it. This afternoon I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Don Valley. He is an old constituent of mine who has strayed from the narrow path. Nevertheless, I thought he made a very good speech. My advice to some of my Conservative friends is that they should read it because they will learn something from it. One of the hon. member's criticisms was that there was not enough economic planning in Canada; that we did not-


George Harris Hees: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


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


George Harris Hees: I wonder whether the hon. member would be kind enough to bring us up to date on his call for a leadership convention.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. That is not a point of order. I would ask hon. members to give the hon. member for Bruce an opportunity to make his reasoned contribution.


George Harris Hees: Tell us about the convention.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Mr. Speaker, I was just going to say that if I did call for a convention I would be copying somebody,

February 8, 1973
Supply
because I remember not once but many times when my friend the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) called for a convention. As a matter of fact, I would not be surprised if he is calling for one right now.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: If I ever saw a party that needed one, that hon. member belongs to it. If he needs any help, I am sure there are many over on his side who would be glad to arrange such a convention.


George Harris Hees: How soon do you think a convention should be held? What was the date you had in mind for a convention to replace your leader?


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say-


An hon. Member:: You were much better when you were sitting in the rump.


John Napier Turner: You have one of the biggest to sit on that I have ever seen.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: My hon. friend is very good when he is sitting down.


George Harris Hees: He is better sitting down than you are making a speech.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: It doesn't matter which side he is sitting on because nobody would notice the difference.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I want to thank my hon. friend.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Mr. Speaker, perhaps my friends will let me continue for a few minutes. I do not mind these interjections.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I hope you are going to send this back to your riding.


George Harris Hees: Tell us about the leader you are challenging.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: 
An hon. Member:: Don't you remember?


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: The answer to that question is that the money is going to ten provinces and two territories in Canada. It is not going to any country in Africa-God bless them, and we try to help them-it is not going to an Asiatic country, to the United States or to South America; it is going to Canadian provinces and we should be proud of that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: In addition, Mr. Speaker, one might very well ask why this money is going to the provinces of

Canada. Let me say that a certain situation has developed. There is too much unemployment in Canada and this government is going to do its best to rectify that situation.
I am somewhat amazed that members of the Conservative party are opposed to this program because it has been brought in by way of supplementary estimate. One hon. member on the other side-I regret I cannot remember his riding-made a very reasoned speech this afternoon. I excuse his lack of knowledge because he came here only after the last election and perhaps his memory does not serve him well. Supplementary estimates were not put into use just when the Trudeau government took over. The winter works program really started during the Diefenbaker years. I do not want my hon. friends to be cross with me when I tell them that the winter works program came into effect then because there was more winter unemployment than ever in the history of Canada and that government had to do something.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: May I remind my hon. friends through you, Mr. Speaker, that the right hon. member for Prince Albert when he was prime minister of Canada did not bring in the winter works program as a budgetary measure; he brought it in through supplementary estimates. We are now copying what he did. Even the Tories do some things that are good.


George Harris Hees: Better than anything you have ever done.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: This afternoon the hon. member for Don Valley said that this government did not do enough planning. Even some of us on this side might agree. But the provinces of Canada have complained not just about this government but about various governments over the years. They have said they do not know what is being done down here, and they have asked for planning. This government has planned and has agreed to the expenditure of $350 million over the next three years, not just for this winter but for next winter and the winter following. The provinces will know exactly what they are going to get and they can plan their itineraries for winter works not just for this year but for the next two years.
This is a program which must be put into effect. My hon. friends on the other side continue to talk about the unemployment problem in Canada. We admit there is a problem and we want to do something about it. We are asking our Conservative friends to help us do something about it; that is why we are asking for this $350 million.


An hon. Member:: Cut taxes or resign.


George Harris Hees: God knows, somebody has to help you.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: What is the purpose of the $350 million?


An hon. Member:: Don't you know?


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Mr. Speaker, I generally do not use notes, but I should like to quote one paragraph of a statement that was provided to each member of this House. It has reference to the winter capital projects fund and in the introduction it is stated that the purpose is as follows:
February 8, 1973

To encourage a concentration of additional activity during the next two years there is an incentive providing for forgiveness of a loan to an amount equal to 50 per cent of total direct on-site labour costs incurred up to May 31, 1975; and to encourage construction during the winter, a further incentive allows for forgiveness of an additional 50 per cent of direct on-site labour costs between the December 6 to May 31 winter period for the 1972-73 winter, and the December 1 to May 31 winter period for the 1973-74 and 1974-75 winters.
I suggest that is something every member of this House should stand up and support. It is something that my friends on the other side have been complaining about ever since we came here on January 4. They have said the unemployment situation is intolerable. It is intolerable, and we want to do something about it. All of us in this government ask you to do exactly the same. Let me conclude by asking every member to think about the province from which he or she comes when voting on this motion. The provinces have asked for this program and for more planning.


George Harris Hees: They started asking eight months ago and they have asked and asked and asked.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: They asked us to plan this program, not just for this winter but for the next two winters. I suggest that by voting for this motion we will give the provinces exactly that for which they have asked.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Athabasca wishes to ask a question. He may do so with the consent of the hon. member for Bruce. Is it agreed?


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bruce said that this party voted against unemployment insurance when it voted against Bill C-124. It seems to me that he does not know what the bill was all about and I should like to ask him whether he has read it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to hon. members from both sides of the House speak on this item since yesterday but I have yet to make up my mind whether members of the official opposition are for or against it. They have complained that this program should be in the form of legislation. I have not been here very long, but I have the impression that when a supply bill is passed it becomes a statute or an act of parliament. Some of the remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and the previous speaker from the official opposition would not seem to indicate that fact. If I am wrong I am sure you, Mr. Speaker, or someone else will correct me.
Since this is in fact an act of parliament, when we are through with this debate and these estimates we will have a piece of legislation. I do not know what the members of the official opposition are complaining about. I agree with a number of things they have said. Of course, this is 8, 10 or 12 months too late. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) some time ago wiped out winter works, members of the opposition and of our party complained bitterly. There is nothing new about that.
Supply
I agree with members of the official opposition that in this area the government has been incompetent. What else is new? When I listen to them I am reminded of the farmer that had two skunks in the chickencoop: it was twice as bad as having only one skunk. When one thinks of the winters of 1959, 1960, 1961 and 1962 one realizes, as my friend the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) said, the government headed by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) did the same thing. We were months behind. Even though the old parties have been around here for 105 years, they do not seem to realize that Canada happens to be a country which has a northern climate and long winters. This is a country in which we should plan what we will do in the winter, but both the Liberals and Conservatives could not find their backsides in the dark even if they used both hands.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I do not think that is very nice.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I was able to find my backside in the dark a long time ago with either hand. The members of the official opposition have been getting up and bellowing like a moose at fly time in respect of this supplementary estimate. It is the same kind of estimate they brought in in the late fifties, early sixties or in the 1890s. They have not changed. They keep on damming the waters under the bridge. I just do not understand why they find it so necessary to berate the government for doing exactly what they did. This is the kind of thing the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) complained about 25 years ago, whether it was the Liberals or Tories in power.


An hon. Member:: Fifty years ago.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He could have been here then too. This is really a charade. When one listens to the members of both these old parties with their nineteenth century concepts and methods, we find that when one mentions economic planning or a planned economy they say it is socialism and is not democracy. However, when they are in opposition they say it should have been planned and brought forward months before.
When my friend, the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman), said this very thing, particularly in respect of winter works every year for the last four years, members of the government and the official opposition said that you cannot have planning ahead because that is socialism. Now I hear some of my right-wing friends saying the same thing. Why? I say it is not because they believe in this but because there is some noise to be made in their frantic efforts to shove the Liberals away from the trough and get the Tories up to it. They should be patient and wait a little while.
There is no argument about the necessity for planning winter works. The government, private enterprise, the trade union movement and the farm organizations should sit down and plan for one, two or five years ahead; there is so much to be done in this country. There will be municipalities which by the end of May or June will not have been able to complete projects. I will make a prediction that by the deadline for the completion of these projects there will be scores of municipalities in this country which will not have been able to complete their projects whether we have a Liberal or a Tory government.

February 8, 1973
Supply
The members on this side of the House will succeed in getting them to extend the deadline as we were able to do in respect of winter works in previous years. So again I fail to understand why members of the official opposition are so upset.
The panic button will be pushed by members of the government, no matter which party occupies those benches, and the deadline will be extended. You can bet on that. On the one hand, the Conservatives have talked about waste, extravagance and abuse in respect of unemployment insurance. My hon. friend from Grenville-Carle-ton (Mr. Baker) spoke very well about all those who are unemployed in his riding, particularly in Prescott. This is good. This is the nicest thing I have heard a Conservative Member of Parliament say about the unemployment situation for quite a while. I take it he will be voting for this estimate. I am sure the municipal council of Prescott will come up with some projects to put people to work. I am sure, also, that Prescott will try to get more than its share of the money. I wish them well. It will put some people to work and reduce unemployment and the number on the welfare rolls in Prescott. So I can assume that the hon. member will support this supplementary estimate.
The Prime Minister spoke about all the alternatives available when they stopped the winter works program and brought in manpower training, and so on. The hon., member for Bruce admitted that this was a mistake. I ask him to read some of the speeches he made when he said two years ago that was a mistake. It reminds me of the travelling salesman of 1922, with a straw hat and a cane, who said that you had to sell to make work and had to turn business free all by itself so that there would be no unemployment. If he had been selling soap or patent medicine, I probably would have bought some that night. But since then he has turned around 180 degrees. I was glad to hear that admission from the hon. member for Bruce. I never thought I would live to see the day.
Of course, this estimate is a frantic, last minute effort. Everybody here and everyone in this country knows this. But at least it is finally being made. At least some jobs will result by the end of May or June. I suggest that we pass the estimate and get on with it. We must recognize the kind of country we have and that we have difficult winters. Let us call on the resources of the people and of the business interests in this country in co-operation with the government to plan what we are to do. There is so much to be done. Every winter we have these old-line parties hollering at each other, bitterly complaining and attacking the other for doing the same thing they did a generation or 100 years ago. Surely all they are really doing is frantically struggling while being brought into the twentieth century and a planned economy. Even though they are making a great deal of noise and are engaging in a struggle, I hope they will pay attention to the lessons we have learned.


An hon. Member:: Then it will be the twenty-first century.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They are still in 1890. Unless we learn from our mistakes and do the kind of planning in respect of an industrial and economic program which takes into account our winter and our geography, we will have this

kind of situation every winter. You can be certain of it if one of these old-line parties happens to be governing. But at least they have come around sufficiently to throw in patchwork stuff, even though it is much too late. They have gradually learned.
I think that if we were unfortunate enough to still have an old party government ten years from now, we would find them bringing in an industrial and economic plan laid out for the next ten years regarding the number of homes, the miles of roads, steel production, automobile production, farm production, you name it. When this was mentioned in the House by members of my party in the 1940s there were members of the official opposition who behaved as if they were back in 1890 who said that members of my party should be deported because they were subversive. Tonight I heard one of them talking about planning-only one of them.
This vote is, in concept and in theory, the proper kind of thing for parliament to adopt. It is in fact a statute, in spite of the wailings of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), and we should have adopted it sooner. Parliament could and should have met in late November or early December. In fact, it could have provided these extra funds last June in preparation for the present winter; but we did not, and I will not stand here, as did hon. friends to my right who tried to dam waters that have already passed under the bridge. Let us pass this estimate. Let us get on with putting as many people to work as we can for what is left of the winter. I hope that members of the official opposition will then rise and educate me further about a planned economy and planning work for our people.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I want to place a few remarks on the record, particularly after hearing the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Which-er) speak and I looked at vote L12a. I was immediately struck by the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), uttered some time ago, that his policy which the people could lump or otherwise, is just a regrettable side effect of the war against inflation. I think of the frustrations, the anger and the displacement of people which result from such a policy. They say, "Yes, we admit our mistakes." But they admitted them after October 30. It was then that that party came to life and said, "Yes, we are wrong, because we have to listen to those who are really our masters, namely, the people." It is the people who told them that they must be concerned about unemployment, about environmental malaise and all that goes with it, the suffering, the alcoholism, the drug addiction, the murders and the abuses to the person.
When I heard the Prime Minister say today that his government takes direction from the Economic Council of Canada, that they are the people who give him forecasts regarding the direction in which this country should be going, I wondered why the expertise and the wisdom of the people who form the Economic Council of Canada is suddenly being accepted. I should like to put on the record a statement which appeared in the ninth annual review of the Economic Council of Canada, page 89, where reference is made to long-term goals.
February 8, 1973

I have heard so much said by my friend the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) who asked to hear more about long-term planning. Obviously we must have long-term planning if this nation is to be strong, and we must create an atmosphere so that equality of opportunity can exist. We cannot have ad hoc measures brought in through fright and fear, as is vote L12a. The Economic Council of Canada has been giving direction not only to the government but to members of the House, to the people of Canada and to the private sector so that certain goals can be reached. Rather than adopting band-aid measures which in my opinion just add to the frustration when they are brought in late, the Economic Council of Canada said this at page 89:
In our First Annual Review of 1964, we formulated five general goals for the Canadian economy: (1) a relatively high and stable rate of growth; (2) a viable balance of payments; (3) an equitable distribution of rising incomes; (4) a high level of employment, defined as a situation with a maximum of 3 per cent unemployment; and (5) reasonable price stability defined as a maximum increase of 2 per cent per year in the gross national expenditure price deflator. These goals did not reflect the historical experience of the Canadian economy. Rather, they were intended as ambitious bait attainable targets that would provide direction to policymakers over the long term. Their achievement remains highly desirable to this day.
Let us look to the south of us and see what they do rather than adopt band-aid measures such as we find in vote L12a. On February 2, 1973, a significant. event occurred, namely, the announcement that the United States of America had a rate of unemployment of 5 per cent, which means nearly full employment. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) looks at me with surprise. I am saying that this is just what it is. In our terms this would be reaching a full employment figure. The rate of unemployment in the United States is drifting down, but here it is drifting up. I wonder why this is so.
Why has the United States been so successful in dropping their rate of unemployment, while we have been so unsuccessful? As a matter of fact, our effort has been dismal. I will tell you why. It seems to me that the United States has accepted the fact that high unemployment is a national problem and that they should use all the expertise and wisdom they can muster because they realize the frustrations that occur as a result of high unemployment, the possible revolt and in the long-run, perhaps, the possibility of civil war. The United States has faced the problem. What do we hear from our government? On one hand we hear that the land is strong, on the other we see procrastination, waffling, sliding away from responsibilities.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being ten o'clock, it is my duty to bring to the attention of hon. members that in accordance with Standing Order 40 a motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been made and seconded at this time.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, before we go on to the "late show" may I ask whether I am correct in understanding the House leader as saying that we will be going on with
Adjournment Debate
the business of supply tomorrow? Do we also have an understanding that we will defer the votes on all of these motions and take them at a later date?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is agreeable, if it is agreeable on all sides that when discussion is completed on any particular item the vote will be deferred until all the items are ready to be taken at one time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There have been discussions and I think it correct to say that this is acceptable. Perhaps it should be made an order of the House now so that we will all know it, namely, that the votes on each of the nine motions occasioned by the notices of the opposition will be taken when the debate on those nine motions has been concluded.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the suggestion made by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). Is it unanimously agreed? It is understood that an order of the House cannot be issued without unanimous consent, and I would invite hon. members to indicate immediately if they agree.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.
[English}



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, tonight I shall try to pursue my question on the "late show" over the enthusiasm of members of the House. What I want to pursue is the question I asked of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) on January 12 regarding arrangements between the federal Department of Agriculture and the Saskatchewan Department of Agriculture concerning the land bank program. At that time I asked the following question:
In view of the need for assistance faced by young people who start farming and in view of the representations made to the minister by the government of Saskatchewan for financial assistance for its land bank program, can he say if any financial assistance for this program will be forthcoming?
The minister said that he was considering this, but there would be no special arrangements with the province of Saskatchewan over those with any other province. I do not think that the province of Saskatchewan wants any special or particular status. I think that what we are saying is the federal government should consider the wishes of provincial governments in their planning whether it be agricultural, economic or social.

February 8, 1973
Adjournment Debate
Since the federal government is determined to go ahead with the small farm development plan and have signed over half of the provinces, I think they should perhaps take a different point of view for a province like Saskatchewan. The provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba are opposed to the plan as it now stands because they feel quite sincerely, as I and many others do, that it is not going to aid and assist farmers to stay on the land, or young farmers to get started. Rather, it is going to speed up the demise of the small farm all across the Prairies. It is going to take three farms to make two, and two farms to make one, and farms taken from older farmers will be sold to those who can afford to buy them.
I feel that the efforts and energies of the federal Department of Agriculture should be directed to aiding and assisting provincial programs. The provincial land bank will also be purchasing land from farmers, but in contrast to the small farm development plan will be channelling that land into the hands of younger farmers who want to start out, or into the hands of small farmers who need more land in order to make viable farming units. The only major difference between the two plans, as I understand it, in negotations between the two departments is that the small farm development plan is strictly a development agency whereas the land bank plan in Saskatchewan is a Crown authority. It leases land to the farmer for five years when he is starting out and he has the option to purchase the land at an interest rate of 5 per cent. Because of the option to purchase clause, land is available to those without much capital, to young people starting out and to small farmers who need more land to make their operations viable.
I urge that the government and the Minister of Agriculture take into account the points of view of the Saskatchewan government and look at the merits of the provincial land bank scheme. I think they will come to the conclusion that they should be helping farmers by funds and by organization. There are two or three benefits. First, there would be more funds which could be borrowed in a more efficient manner. Second, there would not be any duplication of service and a greater amount of expertise would be available to the provincial land bank personnel. Finally, a provincial land bank program as presently constituted would be more localized than it would be if run federally. Governments in this country must move in the direction of more local autonomy. We must localize government administration and make people feel they are closer to the decision makers rather than farther away.
I hope the government will take these three points into consideration. The entire question of the transfer of farmland on the Prairies as well as across the country is important. The number of farms in this country is decreasing rapidly. According to the census, between 1965 and 1971 the number of farm units in this country fell by 15 per cent. The populations of our small rural towns and cities and other rural areas are diminishing instead of growing. If we are to keep Canada alive and flourishing, our farming community must be viable. One way of doing this is by helping farmers with schemes such as the land bank scheme of Saskatchewan. The federal government must be flexible in this area. It must begin listening to the provinces and regions if it is to keep this nation together as a viable country in the years to come.


Mr. Leopold Corriveau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) expressed his concern about the young people who want to settle on the farm, and about federal help to the Saskatchewan land bank program.
I share his concern for the young people who would like to make a career of farming and earn a living from it.
As the hon. member doubtless knows, the federal small farms development program is now in force in several provinces, including Alberta, Ontario, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. It is of considerable help to the young farmers.
I trust that, in spite of difficulties, an agreement can be worked out with Saskatchewan so that the two programs might complement each other.
Negotiations are underway with Saskatchewan, and I hope that a quick agreement can be reached, in order that the young people of Saskatchewan may benefit from the same advantages of the small farms development programme as their friends from the other provinces.


PUBLIC WORKS-ALLEGED DISPOSAL OF OLD BARGES BY DEPARTMENT IN LAKE OKANAGAN-STEPS TO REMOVE
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) in the House the other evening made the statement that it pays to be clean. This prompted me to ask the minister during the question period whether it is government policy with regard to the environment to bury old barges and other refuse in beautiful Okanagan Lake. Mr. Speaker ruled this question out of order on the basis that it was not urgent. But because of the urgency that was contained in this question, which Mr. Speaker did not understand, the question was rephrased the following day to point out the immediate hazard to navigation and safety caused by the attempted disposal by sinking of these barges.
Three old barges had been floating in Okanagan Lake and the Kelowna and District Safety Council, deeming them a hazard to navigation, asked the Department of Transport to take them out of the lake a few years ago. They were towed to a shallow part of the lake and beached, where they were left for some years. This still did not satisfy the safety council, as in their opinion the barges were still a hazard to navigation in the lake. They therefore kept pressing the Department of Transport to have them removed from the lake.
These barges were derelict in nature and their ownership was questionable. One was 170 feet by 50 feet, another 60 feet by 30 feet and another 80 feet by 50 feet. The Department of Transport convinced the public works department to call for tenders for the removal of these barges from their resting place in the lake. It is understood that two tenders were received, one for removing them entirely from the lake and the other for towing them out into the lake and sinking them. On hearing about the sinking, the Kelowna safety council immediately raised objections as this would create some form of pollution in
February 8, 1973

the lake, which of course was not in the best interests of environmental control and the ever pressing attempt to keep this beautiful lake from becoming polluted in any way.
However, because the tender to sink these barges was lower, the Department of Transport accepted this tender without any consultation with people in the area concerned about these matters. The first the safety council, or anyone else for that matter, knew of what was happening to these barges was when they discovered that they were no longer in their former resting place. Interested citizens then went out in their boats to see if they could find out what had happened to the barges.
They were able to discover them by sighting, from boats on the surface of the lake, drums that had been attached to the barges to float and then had been sunk with the barges. Apparently the company which contracted for the removal had gone around Kelowna buying up all the old drums they could, taken these out and attached them to the barges so they could float, then pulled them out in a straight line about 300 yards off shore and sunk them by taking some of the drums away. Many of the drums were still attached and some local skin divers went down to inspect what had really happened. These drums were attached with flimsy ropes. They let five of them go and the five drums came up out of the water like torpedoes.
The minister said that the barges were not a hazard to transportation, nor were they a contaminant. Because of the questions raised by people in the area in the past few days, the drums have now all been released from these barges but this has in no way satisfied the people of the area. They believe this to be a shocking display, by supposedly responsible departments of the federal government, to be contaminating the lake with these old barges in what may prove over the years, as they continue to disintegrate and dead-heads appear on the lake, a certain hazard to transportation. It is also a shocking example and the setting of a terrible precedent at this time when people are crying out for environmental control. People are now saying that if the federal government can dispose of garbage in the lake, why can't they?
I call on the departments responsible in the federal government to practice what they preach, to become responsible and remove these barges from the lake. This is the kind of thing that should be happening, in my opinion, in make-work programs. Let us mean it when we say it pays to be clean. Let us not be secretive about what is going on. I ask the government to consult with people and organizations such as safety councils. They are responsible; they want to help; they want things done properly.


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Dube). I am pleased for another reason as well. I was born and raised on the shores of Lake Okanagan. My ancestors were there to greet many of those who came later. When the hon. member speaks of the beauty of this area, I can with some knowledge agree with him.
Adjournment Debate
There are two points I wish to make tonight in connection with the question raised by the hon. member. First, a contract has been let, funded by the Department of Transport, in the amount of $2,745 for the removal of loose or potentially hazardous material from the barges. Second, the removal of the air-filled barrels is being carried out by the original contractor at his own expense. It was felt that this was his responsibility because this method of sinking the barges was originally adopted by him.
The work commenced on February 5 and a Department of Public Works engineer inspected the progress being made on February 6. I do not have an up to date report but I am advised that the removal of the barrels should have been completed in one day and that the entire work should have been completed within one week.
It is a regrettable situation, as the hon. member stated, but I should like to remind the House that this problem goes back about 12 years. It is not new; it is one which existed when another government was in power, so let us not introduce any political partisanship here. Mistakes were no doubt made along the way, but another government also had a chance to correct them. I intend to pay personal attention to this question. I think it is a wrong practice to sink barges in water as a means of getting rid of them. It is a practice which really ought not to be followed.


INDUSTRY-POSSIBLE CLOSURE OF ABITIBI MILL IN SAULT STE. MARIE-USE MADE OF DEVELOPMENT GRANTS BY COMPANY
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to elaborate a question which I addressed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) in the House yesterday in relation to the threatened closure of the Abitibi paper mill in Sault Ste. Marie. A few days ago the following notice appeared in that paper mill; it was addressed to hourly-rated employees.
Effective February 18, 1973, the following conditions must be agreed to in order to protect the operation of the mill at Sault Ste. Marie:
1.	When the mill is operating less than seven days per week, we will revert to all clauses in the six day agreement as to hourly rates, statutory holidays, wire time, premium pay and working conditions.
In the event continuous operations are resumed, the continuous operation rates and conditions applicable will apply during such period of operation.
2.	The floating holidays to be reduced by three.
3.	The premium costs for the Abitibi disability benefit plan will be shared on a 50-50 basis by the company and the employees on the actual rates projected by the insurance carrier for this division.
4.	Remove the upgraded classifications from the papermakers wage scale for running groundwood specialties and double stacks.
5.	Extend the present agreement for one full year to April 30, 1974. The situation will again be reviewed on February 1, 1974.
This notice has been given to the workers and to the union and the company refuses to discuss what in effect amounts to an ultimatum. I am frankly appalled by the attitude of the Abitibi Pulp and Paper Company in a day and age when supposedly we have progressed to enlightened labour-management relations. As I say, it amounts to

February 8, 1973
Adjournment Debate
an ultimatum to the workers, instituting a pay freeze for one year, extending the old contract and reducing fringe benefits. No discussion has been permitted. The company will not talk to the union nor will it make any public statement.
In effect, the workers are being made the scapegoat for what the company claims are the marginal profits at Abitibi or Sault Ste. Marie. Yet the company provides no proof of this claim. I call upon it to open its books for public scrutiny so that the public and the workers can compare the figures of costs and profits. Is it only labour costs which have given rise to the predicament in which this plant finds itself? Can it be the inefficiency of the mill due to outdated equipment which Abitibi failed to modernize? Has the company been reinvesting its profits in the mill in order to keep it a viable or competitive operation? Or could it be market conditions? And are those conditions temporary or long term?
What choice do the workers have, confronted with this ultimatum? To accept it is to accept the blame for the problems of Abitibi without any proof. Naturally, the workers rejected the terms of this ultimatum. Had they accepted this ultimatum to stay on the old contract under threat that the mill would be closed down, what is to say that next year the company would not pull the same trick and say to the workers, "Stay as you are or we will close the mill"?
The company will make a unilateral decision on February 16. The board of directors will meet on that date and decide the fate of 500 employees and their families in Sault Ste. Marie; they will decide whether they are to continue working or be thrown out of work and into the unemployment lines. This could be an economic catastrophe of major proportions in my constituency. I am afraid that it appears to me and to many people in Sault
Ste. Marie that the company's policy appears to be "profits before people".
Therefore I put these questions to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Firstly, what measures does his government plan to take to prevent such overt intimidation? Secondly, what contingency plans has his department, should-and perish the thought-the company close the mill and throw 450 men out of work?


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate and share the concern which the hon. member
for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) has expressed about this serious problem in his constituency. I am sure he realizes that the company and the unions in this case are engaged in some kind of collective bargaining, however free or unfree it may be in these particular circumstances. I think the important point that should be made is that all matters of this kind fall entirely within provincial jurisdiction. The federal government has no authority whatsoever to intervene in this labour dispute, nor has it in any other labour dispute except the few that involve workers under federal jurisdiction, largely in the transportation industry.
As to possible action by the Department of Manpower and Immigration in this situation, that will have to await the unfolding of events. The department's officers are following the situation closely and are prepared to act immediately in any problem requiring assistance in the adjustment of any workers who might be affected. Until the parties have resolved their differences, however, and pending the emergence of a real or anticipated lay-off situation, it would be impractical and improper for the department to attempt to intervene in any manner. Should a need develop for the services of the department, all applicable programs and services will be made available to assist in any way we can.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Friday, February 9, 1973