1966-06-02

Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I bring to the attention of hon. members the presence in the Speaker's gallery of members of the Fifth Canadian Mounted Rifles, here to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the death of their regiment's first commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel George Harold Baker, M.P., killed in action on June 2, 1916.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, by leave I move, seconded by Mr. Hellyer, that the following reports of the Canadian Wheat Board be referred to the standing committee on agriculture, forestry and rural development: annual and supplementary reports of the Canadian Wheat Board for the crop years 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-191, to amend the British North America Act, 1867, (Canadian Bill of Rights).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the British North America Act, 1867, by adding thereto as part of the federal constitution, with regard to the powers of parliament, a Canadian Bill of Rights in substitution for the act of parliament, chapter 44, passed in the year 1960.
This latter statute has been to a certain point ineffective, from the fact that it is not part of the Canadian constitution and that its
application has been rather limited because most of the time the decisions of the courts have been to the effect that its provisions apply only to legislation adopted by parliament since its coming into force.
Not only new legislation but that which is already on the statute books should be interpreted in the light of the principles which will be now contained in the constitution itself, and this is what the present measure seeks to achieve.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADA STUDENT LOANS ACT


Mitchell William Sharp: that the house go into committee of the whole at its next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Canada Student Loans Act to increase provincial allocations for the loan year commencing July 1, 1965 and subsequent loan years by authorizing the Minister of Finance, on application by a province, to determine a supplementary allocation for that province in an amount not exceeding 20 per cent of the basic loan provision for that year and by increasing to $58 million the basic loan provision for the loan year commencing in 1965; and to provide also for a certain change in connection with the administration of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: that the house go into committee of the whole at its next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the establishment of a health resources fund to assist provinces in the acquisition, construction and renovation of health training facilities and research institutions and for the appropriation in connection therewith of the sum of $500 million to be credited to the fund in such amounts as from time to time are required and to provide for contributions therefrom to the provinces; to provide further for the establishment of a health resources

June 2. 1966
National Security
advisory committee consisting of 11 members and for the payment of reasonable travelling expenses of its members.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, as I stated yesterday I intended to do, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard), to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing an urgent matter of public importance, namely the misuse of secret files of the R.C.M.P. as evidenced by the public statement of Premier Lesage. He said that the R.C.M.P. security report on Mr. Vachon in the possession of the Quebec government, discloses him to be a security case. At the same time I would deal with the policy of the federal government in condoning the use of rumour and hearsay based on unproven police reports which libel the character of individuals unaccused by due process. This procedure invades despotically the legitimate rights of the individual to liberty under the law.
I do not have before me the French language version of this motion. As soon as I have it, I will make it available.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the right hon. Leader of the Opposition kindly address the house on the question of urgency of debate.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I will restrict myself entirely to the question of urgency. I should like to point out immediately that under our system of parliamentary government the preservation and maintenance of freedom, and any derogation from that freedom, are matters that are always urgent. Parliament will not, if it is true to its mission, allow bureaucratic practices to destroy the civil rights and the reputation of the individual. The urgency of this matter will be understood when I point out that unless this is controlled, McCarthyism and fear will be generated in the individual and, indeed, an intolerable invasion of human freedoms will result if security files can be used for political or personal vendettas.
The police state is the negation of democracy. Oligarchies of bureaucracy could, by using the security of the state as an excuse, permit the spoliation of character, the dearest possession of a human being. Discussion and public

knowledge are the only recourse and protection against uncontrolled invasions of human freedoms.
It might be argued that this question could be dealt with when the estimates come up. Your Honour I am sure will agree that if a matter like this arose in the United Kingdom the procedure at Westminster would immediately assure that the government would make available time for an early discussion. Not having that same procedure here, the only way in which it can be brought before the house without delay is to move the adjournment, which I have accordingly done on the general ground that when serious invasions affecting the rights of individuals take place the house should give first consideration thereto.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be no doubt that the matter raised by the right hon. Leader of the Official Opposition is important and urgent. On the face of it there seems to have been a misuse of R.C.M.P. files, such a file having been used by the premier of Quebec to discredit Mr. Arthur Yachon, who was president of the Quebec provincial police association. It certainly would be a serious thing if in this country premiers or any other persons in government were allowed to use R.C.M.P. files in order to discredit organizations with which they had a difference of opinion. Therefore this is a matter of great import not only to this house but to the people of Canada.
It seems to me that the urgency of debate would lie in the fact that this motion will give the Prime Minister and the ministers more directly responsible an opportunity first to give the facts to the house and consequently to indicate when these files were made available to provincial authorities; and second, to inform us as to why they were given and what protection is provided by way of an insistence that these files shall be used only for prosecutions and surveillance under due process of law.
If Your Honour decides that this matter is sufficiently urgent to allow the government to make a statement, then we will welcome it. If Your Honour decides it is not of sufficient urgency to call for a debate of this kind, I certainly hope the government will either call the estimates of the Solicitor General or that the Prime Minister will provide some opportunity so he can assure the house and the country that there will be no repetition of what appears to have been a disgraceful misuse of public, confidential documents.
June 2. 1966

[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, as to the urgency of debating the question raised by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, our group is wondering whether there really is any urgency, because we have heard Mr. Vachon state on television that he was postponing the matter till after the election.
It seems to me that, if there were any urgency, Mr. Vachon could have engaged immediate proceedings against the premier of Quebec. Now, he stated himself that he was postponing this until after the election.
We are also wondering whether the R.C.M.P. has not the right, indeed the duty, sometimes to provide some explanations or some evidence to the provincial police.
As reported by Le Devoir, the premier of Quebec merely says that the basis of his statements-and those are Mr. Lesage's very words-is the evidence provided by the provincial police. Have the provincial police received the information from the R.C.M.P.? If there lies the urgency, we believe it has no basis at this time at the point this matter has now reached.
That is why we do not see the purpose of the house adjourning its business to discuss this matter. Let us give time to the authorities to clear up the matter. Besides, it is not for this house, which has no evidence, to discuss this question at this time.


Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) because I am convinced that the matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) is not only important but urgent owing to four reasons:
First, it is an exceedingly serious charge, as it is suggested-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I remind the hon. member that he must not deal with the issue itself but discuss the urgency of the debate and state whether it is urgent to postpone the ordinary business of the house this afternoon to discuss the matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition.


Maurice Allard: I thank you for your advice. The issue is quite important and urgent and the discussion should start this afternoon. It is also urgent to initiate it for four main reasons.
National Security
First, because the accusation is of the utmost gravity. If there is to be respect for federal as well as provincial authority and if the people are to respect legal authority, such accusations involving the security of the state must be considered. The accusation made by the premier of the province of Quebec involving the R.C.M.P. and the Solicitor General, and the timing of such accusation during provincial elections in Quebec and within five days of the vote, is sufficient ground to state that there is urgency to debate the issue.
I would relate this accusation, Mr. Speaker, to another accusation, that of the fake certificates. It is urgent that this question be brought to light and that the house debate the question, not after, but before the vote.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member please restrict his remarks to the question of the urgency of the debate.


Maurice Allard: That is precisely what I am doing, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect. If you will let me finish my remarks, my conclusion will prove the urgency of initiating a debate this afternoon.
In this regard I was making the compar-ism that this is exactly like in 1962, before the provincial elections. Serious accusations were made just five days before the vote.
The accusation made by the premier of Quebec is exceedingly serious for it involves the security of the state. In fact, it questions the authority of government, of the premier of Quebec and the respect of authority by the population.
This debate is urgent. If it is delayed or if consideration of the Department of Justice estimates is postponed until after June 5, I say this debate will not serve any useful purpose. The common good is at stake here and, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the motion of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. I hope we will have the opportunity to debate the question this afternoon.
Unfortunately, I hear hon. members from this side of the house, who are unconcerned by the seriousness of the charge made-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. At. the present time the hon. member is straying away from the matter under consideration.


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, as you have stated, the issue to be decided is the urgency of debate. In order to

June 2, 1968
National Security
deal with this point adequately I must put certain tacts before the house very briefly. I wish to make it abundantly plain that no member of this government has communicated directly or indirectly with any member of the government of the province of Quebec in this matter, nor has there been any departure-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Nugent:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the Solicitor General is absolutely out of order. If he wants a debate let us have a debate.


An hon. Member:: You don't want to hear the truth.


Mr. Starr:: Let the Speaker decide.


Mr. Speaker:: There should be no debate on the substance of the matter. I believe that until now I have obtained the co-operation of other hon. members who have taken part in this discussion. We have limited the discussion to the question of the urgency of debate, and I am sure the Solicitor General will want to do the same thing.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I want to say, if I may, that there has been no departure from the normal practice.


Michael Starr: Order.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, he is defying the ruling of the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will have to ask the Solicitor General to co-operate with the Chair. I have received excellent co-operation from hon. members of the opposition who have strictly limited their contributions to the urgency of the debate, which is not what happens all the time. Of course what I mean is that on this type of motion it is very difficult for hon. members to limit themselves to the question of urgency of debate. I am sure the Solicitor General will want to do the same thing.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, may I say with respect that the point I am making is that the urgency of the debate will depend upon whether there has been a departure from the normal practice. If I can establish-*


Michael Starr: No, no.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I assume the argument the Solicitor General wants to present is to prove there is no urgency of debate.

I can say I have reached a decision now, and that is that there is no urgency of debate, so I do not think there is any point in the Solicitor General presenting his argument.
I have listened to the point raised by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. He knows, and we all know, in what circumstances the ordinary business of the house can be adjourned. It has to be a very specific matter of sudden emergency. I am not trying to minimize in any way the importance and seriousness of the subject matter raised by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, but to my mind it does not fill the requirements of the standing order and of citation 100 of Beauchesne. The point which has been raised is more in the nature of a grievance than the type of question which merits and warrants the adjournment of the ordinary business of the house. For this reason I have to rule against the motion.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, June 2, 1966
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Robert Taschereau, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 2nd June, at 5.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
sir,
Your obedient servant,
A. G. Cherrier
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General [DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, before calling orders of the day, in view of the fact that there will be royal assent I wonder whether the house might not now consider making an order to come back at seven o'clock this evening, in order that we might have a supper hour for a change.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: That meets with our approval, so far as the government is concerned. We will adjourn for private members' hour.


Mr. Speaker:: The suggestion has been made by the hon. member for Skeena that after royal assent the house return at seven o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: At eight o'clock.


Michael Starr: No.
June 2, 1966


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Ontario.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, we could not agree to that. We agree, however, to adjourning until seven o'clock, after the house returns from the other place.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There will be an order of the house to suspend private members' hour this afternoon.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Labour in a position now to give a more favourable report as to the probability of this calamitous strike in Montreal being brought to an end? If not, in view of the suggestion by the minister that some form of compulsory arbitration was passing through his mind regarding the settlement of strikes, does the government intend to take proceedings similar to those that were taken by the government of Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent during the period of office of that government?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I can only reiterate that the mediator is in session at the moment. My deputy minister is in attendance and is assisting him in the discussions.
With regard to the second part of the hon. gentleman's question, I think the house will recall that when my estimates were before the house last week I put forward not just one suggestion but others as well for the consideration of hon. members. If and when government policy has been decided with regard to this matter it will be announced.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question. Having regard to the fact that this strike has now gone on for 22 or more days, and is paralysing this nation in certain particulars, when does the government intend to act?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the government has acted. If the right hon. gentleman has any constructive suggestions for further action they will be welcomed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: You need the help.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Michael Starr: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the answer given by the Minister of Labour just now I will reiterate the suggestion put forward in the question. Also may I suggest that instead of the Minister of Labour calling the people involved together for two or three hours and then allowing them to go, he call them to Ottawa and under the collective bargaining procedure sit with them until a settlement has been reached. We used to do that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I thank the hon. member for his suggestion.



NATIONAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the great concern that has arisen out of the accusations made against Mr. Arthur Vachon with regard to the abuse of R.C.M.P. files to discredit him, and the concern that there might be a repetition of the abuse of such files, would the Prime Minister be prepared to make an early statement as to what guarantees he can give the house that there will be no repetition of this, and that files given to provincial authorities-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member would limit his contribution to one question at a time.


An hon. Member:: Based on the facts.


Mr, Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Then I will ask the Prime Minister whether he would be prepared to make a statement assuring the house and the country that there will be no repetition of any misuse of R.C.M.P. files by provincial authorities.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, the hon. member knows he cannot make a statement of that sort, or attempt to make a statement, while asking a question. The question is out of order on that score.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he would be prepared now or fairly soon to make a statement about the Vachon case.

June 2, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to consider that last question.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister give consideration to reviewing and examining the terms of reference of the commission which is going to look into the matter of security, with a view that there will be a special directive to the commission to consider the use which may be made of files such as have just been mentioned, also with a view to going into the right of remedy of those people who may have suffered from an improper use of such files.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the royal commission on security procedures will undoubtedly wish to go into matters of this kind and into matters which are of very great importance concerning security procedures. There is no doubt about that. At the last federal-provincial conference there was discussion between the federal government and provincial governments respecting the exchange of security information between police agencies.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Prime Minister yet prepared to announce to the house the composition of that commission, and the date upon which it will commence its work?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. I would ask the Prime Minister how soon he hopes to be able to give the house the terms of reference, and whether the terms of reference will direct the commission in question to look into the matter of safeguarding such security records when they are placed in the hands of provincial authorities.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the terms of reference which are now under consideration will, I assure my hon. friend, be wide enough to cover questions of security procedure.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the last one, and refers to the appointment of this commission dealing with security. Cannot the Prime Minister take the questions that have been asked as a warning that it is imperative for this commission to be set up immediately? Has he no idea when this commission may be announced?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am as anxious as my hon. friend is that this commission be set up immediately and get to work, because it will take a long time for the royal commission to go into this matter in the thorough way it should be gone into.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General endeavoured to make a statement when I moved a motion to adjourn the house. I now ask him, has he been in touch with the premier of Quebec and the minister of justice of Quebec and asked them to explain how they came to say that Yachon was a security risk and that the R.C.M.P. report was before them when they made those statements?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think that question should be asked at this time. To my mind the information the right hon. Leader of the Opposition is seeking now is not the sort that should be sought on orders of the day.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask one last question. I should like to direct a very simple, perfectly straightforward and I think urgent question to the Solicitor General. Is there an R.C.M.P. file with respect to Mr. Vachon which was delivered to the attorney general of Quebec?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, in discharging my responsibility I propose to follow the excellent example set by the hon. member for Kamloops in declining to say whether there is a file about any individual, what any file may contain and whether it was passed to anyone else.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Apparently the government has learned some lessons since the Munsinger case.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister, in view of his most laudable expression of purpose in the administration of his department, has he got in touch with the premier of Quebec and the minister of justice of that province to complain about them having said that there was such a security file received from the R.C.M.P.? Has he condemned them?
June 2, 1SG6


Lawrence T. Pennell: I did not say that, Mr. Speaker, but may I say that at appropriate times the manner in which information is exchanged between various law enforcement agencies is the subject of discussion between officials and responsible ministers.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Musltoka):: have a question for the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Has the minister a report to make in connection with his attendance at the committee of the council of resource ministers, preparatory to a national conference on pollution to be held this fall.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: That conference was announced quite a long time ago. At the meeting in Winnipeg we reviewed the final arrangements for the conference to be held in October and November in Montreal. Most of the study papers are now with the secretariat and preparation for the conference is progressing quite normally.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. My question concerns the possibility of a further conference being held in 1967.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I do not recall whether this was in the communique, but there is a possibility that following the pollution conference we may have a more general conference on water problems.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: A further supplementary question. Will the minister assure us that there will be representatives of the various governments as well as experts at the conference in 1967?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that this is not a very urgent question.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The question is urgent and I would direct it to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister inform the house if he has received a letter from Hon. J. W. Gardiner, minister of resources for Saskatchewan, expressing the opposition of the Saskatchewan government to the export of Canadian water? If so, is this policy in accord with the proposed national water policy of the federal government?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a matter of very general policy, and the question cannot be asked at this time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys to be clear as to the answer he gave to an earlier question. Did the minister say there would be a further conference of resource ministers at the time of the proposed conference in October and November? That is to say, will it be part of the same conference, or will there be a conference later in the year?
Second, did I understand him to say that the subsequent meeting will deal with the question of a national water use policy?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, one question which was debated was when this more general conference should take place, and it was decided that it should take place only after the conference on pollution.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But immediately after, or later?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, a year or so after.



INQUIRY AS TO REVISION OF NATIONAL POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. In view of the opinions expressed yesterday by the Edmonton Chamber of Commerce, is the minister giving reconsideration to the need for a revision of the national oil policy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that this is the same type of question and should not be asked at this time.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO AGENDA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday I asked the Prime Minister whether he had ready the agenda for the federal-provincial conference to be held in Victoria on June 16, and he said that it would probably be ready by Wednesday, yesterday. I wonder whether it is now available to the house.

June 2, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did have it ready yesterday, but I do not think my hon. friend was in the house when I was in a position to give a reply. Therefore perhaps he will forgive me if I am a day late in respect of that reply, which is to confirm what is already known to the house, that the federal-provincial conference will take place on June 16 and 17 as part of the commemoration of the centenary of the union of British Columbia and the island of Vancouver.
The main item on the agenda will be the question of federal assistance to university financing. None of the provinces has proposed that any other item be added to the agenda although they, as well as the federal government, will still be free to raise in the usual way questions of particular concern to them under the item "Other Matters".
As the conference will be only a day and a half in length, and part of that time will be devoted to ceremonials, it is not likely that we would have much time to deal with other matters because one item on the agenda is of such great importance.
Perhaps the house would be interested to know that my colleagues the two ministers from British Columbia will represent the federal government with me at the various ceremonies. In view of the nature of the agenda other federal ministers attending will be the Minister of Finance, the Secretary of State, the President of the Privy Council and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the nature of the occasion for the holding of the federal-provincial conference, can the Prime Minister inform the house whether any representatives of the government of the Yukon and Northwest Territories have been extended an invitation to attend?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to look into that.


Mr. G. L. Chaiierton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the right hon. gentleman a question concerning education. Will the discussion include discussion of the program of scholarships and bursaries?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that matter will come up during the course of the discussion, but the main subject on which the provinces would like to have a decision reached at this particular meeting is aid to
[Mr. Brand.)
education apart from scholarships and bursaries, though that matter will undoubtedly be discussed too.


George Louis Chatterton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Do I take it that the matter of bursaries and scholarships will not necessarily require the consent of the provinces?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It will not necessarily be settled at this particular conference. It is a matter, of course, primarily for the federal government.



REQUEST FOR GREATER USE OF ALTERNATIVE SHIPPING ROUTES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melfort-Tis-dale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance in his capacity as the minister under whose jurisdiction the Canadian Wheat Board comes. Would the minister impress upon the wheat board that they should ship more grain through Churchill, Hudson bay, and Vancouver so that the carryover for this crop year will not be as large as it seems it is going to be? Will he impress that on the Canadian Wheat Board?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has made representations of a general nature which I assume the minister has noted.


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Speaker, this question is urgent.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister has indicated that he is considering a list of business for the house to deal with before a possible summer recess, can the Minister of Finance say whether the proposed legislation respecting the regulation of pension plans which come under federal jurisdiction will be included in that list?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I know I have placed this before the Prime Minister. What disposition he and the house make of it is really not in my power to say.
June 2, 1966


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister say what he has done with this very justifiable request?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I indicated to my hon. friend-I know his interest and patience in this matter-that I hope to be in a position at the beginning of next week to make a statement on the proposed legislative priorities.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport of which I have given him notice. Did the St. Lawrence river pilotage service fail to supply a pilot for the passenger liner Alexandr Pushkin last evening for the Quebec-Les Escoumains passage, thus compelling the ship with over 700 people on board to proceed to sea through the night without pilotage service?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the hon. and patient member for Royal for giving me notice of this question. In view of the fact that a question of safety may be involved I think I might be permitted to read the information I have been given on the subject because I have no information of my personal knowledge, as hon. members will readily understand.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, any pilotage I have been doing lately has been done here in Ottawa.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I apologize to hon. members for taking up the time of the house with these diversions.
When a pilot was requested to conduct the Alexandr Pushkin from Quebec to Les Escoumains the dispatcher assigned a pilot to the vessel expecting him to board the ship in the normal manner by taking the pilot boat from its usual berth. The pilot at the request of the ship's agent, went to Lauzon where alternative boat facilities apparently had been arranged. We understand the pilot was persuaded by officials of the corporation of pilots for the lower St. Lawrence to return to
Inquiries of the Ministry the normal boarding station. There he was met by a picket line which prevented his boarding the pilot boat.
No one from the pilotage authority gave any order cancelling pilot service for the Alexandr Pushkin or for any other ship. Except for two isolated instances on Monday, May 30 there have been no other cases of this sort of interference.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Is picketing still in existence, and could this occur again?


John Whitney Pickersgill: In the city of Quebec?


David Vaughan Pugh: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The information I have is that at the present moment there is quite a good deal of mass picketing, or there was earlier today.


David Vaughan Pugh: Then are steps being taken to see that pilots will be put aboard vessels?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I might be permitted to say, Mr. Speaker, that it is my understanding that the National Harbours Board is seeking an injunction to have legal picketing only permitted at Quebec from now on.



RESEARCH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is based on the announcement made by the Prime Minister yesterday with regard to impending legislation affecting medicare, and is addressed to the Minister of Industry who has responsibility in this house for research matters. Will the government seriously consider increasing its assistance to medical research, thereby helping to keep teaching staff and doctors in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question is of a very general nature and I suggest it ought not be be asked now.


William Heward Grafftey: There is a shortage of doctors facing the nation, and I cannot see that anything could be more urgent.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the difficulty might be removed just as quickly if the question were placed on the order paper.
June 2, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION



COMPLAINTS RESPECTING PROGRAM ON YOUTH

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Order. I do not think this question is of such urgency that it should be asked or answered at this time.']
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It is prompted by complaints I have received about what appears to have been a highly licentious program depicting sex and fh orals among our young people, which was broadcast last Sunday night at ten o'clock. How many complaints has the Prime Minister received about this program, and will he undertake to look into the matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest this question should be placed on the order paper.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: In the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has a statement been received by the Canadian embassy in Moscow protesting what has been described as an anti-Soviet campaign in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have some doubts whether this question should be allowed at this time.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: In the
absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. The report that a Canadian newsman is one of four people who have been refused admittance to South Africa is a matter for concern. Can the Prime Minister tell us the name of this newspaperman, and is the government taking any action with regard to the incident?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think this question is of such urgency that it should be asked or answered at this time.



CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Terence James (Terry) Nugent: My question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Could the minister inform the house whether payments under the proposed Canada Assistance Act would be greater than payments under the Canada Pension Plan during the transitional period before the plan matures?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I doubt whether this question is extremely urgent. The hon. member might place it on the order paper or, if he thinks there is urgency, it might be debated on the adjournment motion.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ian Watson (Chaieauguay-Hunting-don-Laprairie):: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Would the minister ask his officials to look into press reports that animals in transit at the ports of Montreal and Quebec have been left unattended as a result of the strike, and are facing starvation?


Mr. Speaker:: The minister has noted the suggestion made by the hon. member.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: My
question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the country is anxiously awaiting the presentation of legislation affecting the interest rates which banks can charge on ordinary loans, can the minister advise the house what progress is being made with such legislation?


Mitchell William Sharp: As the house is well aware, the revisions of the Bank of Canada Act have been presented and it is our intention to present legislation providing for the revision of the Bank Act which deals with this question.
June 2, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry if so, can he report the results of these consultations?



BANKRUPTCY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Lalulippe (Compion-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice.
In view of the fact that Canadian businessmen suffered losses of one half billion dollars in bankruptcies in 1965 and that the government, for its part, lost $150 million in revenue, can the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member put his question-


Henry P. Latulippe: It seems to me it is urgent since the government itself lost $150 million-


Mr. Speaker:: I do not object to the question. I suggest that at this time the hon. member should put a question and not allege facts.


Henry P. Latulippe: Can the minister advise the house what progress he has made with his representation in this regard?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minisler of Juslice):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice is well aware of the problems caused by bankruptcies, and I intend to make a statement in this regard during consideration of the amendments to the Bankruptcy Act.


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question. Can the minister or his colleague, the Solicitor General, confirm that the R.C.M.P. is continuing general investigations into bankruptcy frauds at the moment?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Another leading question.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: The R.C.M.P. has for a number of years conducted investigations into bankruptcy frauds, and is continuing to do so.



PAN-AMERICAN GAMES-REQUEST FOR INCREASED SUPPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Its urgency arises out of the construction problems and pressures involved. Has the minister this week received any further representations from Winnipeg seeking increased federal support for the 1967 pan-American games, and,


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question should be placed on the order paper.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Postmaster General, to whom I gave notice a while ago.
Has he received, in the last few days, a request stating the serious grievance of the Federated Association of Letter Carriers, Local 47?
If so, what emergency measures does the Minister contemplate to prevent the dispute from dragging on?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the grievance is based on claims for overtime pay. I have asked the representatives of the Quebec district to look into the matter and report to me.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour in his capacity as the minister speaking for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In view of the rapid worsening in the home building industry resulting from the dearth of mortgage money, as evidenced for example in Toronto-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member
should ask a question.


Reid Scott: I am attempting to do so, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I should remind the hon. member that according to the rules of the house questions should not be prefaced by statements of the type the hon. member is making now.


Reid Scott: I naturally accept that ruling, though I was under the impression one had to preface a question in order to indicate
June 2, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry that some degree of urgency was attached to it.
In any event, in the light of what I have said as to the worsening situation in the industry, is the minister now prepared to instruct C.M.H.C. to make available sufficient direct housing loans to the building industry to meet this critical and potentially dangerous situation?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot possibly accept the inference in the latter part of the question, because I do not think the facts as stated, by the hon. member are accurate. No major change is expected in present policy, however.


Michael Starr: I wish to ask the minister whether he thinks 600 loans to home builders in the Toronto metropolitan area are sufficient.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is argumentative.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Has the minister any evidence of C.M.H.C. contracts in the maritimes, apart from mortgage loans, being held up since the tight money policy was introduced? If so, what is the policy in this regard?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: There is no information of any such difficulty in any part of the maritimes.


Reid Scott: A supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of the importance of the housing question in Canada, and in view of the fact that the Minister of Labour will obviously be preoccupied-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is not asking a question.


Reid Scott: Then I will do so now. Would the Prime Minister give serious consideration to the creation of a separate ministry of housing under a full time minister?



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. R. Tolmie (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the announced intention of a group of Irishmen from Buffalo to re-enact at Fort Erie the Fenian raid of

1866, does the government plan any emergency action to counteract this threat to our national security?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As
a supplementary question, would it be possible that when the gentlemen in question are visiting Canada they could be given a copy of Walter Gordon's "A Choice for Canada"?


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: It is possible, Mr. Speaker. I will bring the questions to the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and also to the management of the race track who, I am sure, will give the visitors a run for their money.


Michael Starr: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is in no way a criticism of you, sir. I know you have a difficult task on oral questions, but surely you have ruled some questions out of order which in the opinion of everybody in the house, had far greater significance than the one you have just allowed to be answered.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I bring to the attention of the hon. member for Ontario that so far as I could see this was one of the last questions to be asked. I thought the hon. member for Welland was very patient to wait for over half an hour to be recognized, and it was the feeling of the Chair that since we had almost reached the last question a bit of levity might be in order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think levity in the middle would be just as welcome sometimes.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair suggests it would be welcome at any time.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the statement he made yesterday to the effect that the parties to the Air Canada dispute were meeting yesterday, has he any report to make on that meeting?
June 2, 1966


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I can only report that spokesmen for the parties, the president of the air line employees' association and one of the vice presidents of Air Canada, are in session at this moment, I believe, with one of the senior officials of my department in Toronto.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates, $6,795,400.
The Chairman:: This item appears at page 178 of the blue book and was last under consideration on Friday, May 20.


Mr. McIntosh:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to voice my protest against the designated area policy of the government. In fact it is a policy which should not be entertained by the Department of Industry at all.
When making an assessment of any policy one usually divides it into two parts, one showing the advantages and the other the disadvantages. This I have done. In the advantages column the only merit of a policy of this type that I can see is that it provides a certain amount of relief to unemployment, which has nothing to do with the Department of Industry.
The disadvantages are many. The results of this policy so far as industry is concerned include discrimination between communities, patronage on a large scale, subsidizing inefficient operations, increasing the cost of production with increases in taxes for those who pay taxes, creation of municipal problems that did not exist previously, creation of new industrial problems that industry did not have to contend with previously, curtailment of the nation's natural economic development, an adverse effect on the problems of our competitive position with regard to world markets, a further contribution to the problem of inflation which the government is trying to combat and, lastly, such a program and policy hinder normal industrial development.
When the minister presented his estimates he stated some sound principles which we hoped his department would follow. I suggest to him that if his department had followed those principles in regard to the policy of designated areas I would not be standing on my feet today. The implication of such a
Supply-Industry
designated area policy is actually contrary to the principles enunciated by the minister. The whole program of designated areas has the opposite effect to what the minister is trying to achieve, if we are to go by the principles he has outlined.
As recorded at page 5374 of Hansard for May 20 the minister said:
The department was established in recognition of the pressing need for Canada to attain an efficient expansion of our manufacturing industries.
How can industry attain efficient expansion when the government bribes industries to locate in areas where it is less efficient for them to operate?
The reason I use the word "bribe" is that another hon. member, when speaking on the minister's estimates, said that in his constituency an industry had been closed because it refused to move to a new site in Montreal. This was said the last time the minister's estimates were before the house. It was stated that the industry in question would not be given contracts unless it moved to Montreal. If this is not bribery I do not know what is.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Another statement made by the minister was that "we must at the same time ensure that industrial efficiency improves". I suggest that the present designated area program does not lend itself to improved efficiency in any way. In fact, it is a retrograde policy delaying the improvements which industry realizes it must achieve for competitive reasons. A perfect example of such retrogression took place in my own community as a result of this ill-conceived policy. I believe the minister is aware of it. It has to do with an asbestos plant that was going to locate in my own constituency, indeed, in my own home town. The industry had decided to locate in this place because of three main factors, ample water supplies, ideal waste disposal facilities, and close proximity to the American market which it hoped to develop. However, because of a saving of half a million dollars, in fact, closer to three-quarters of a million dollars, I believe, in capital expenditure and because of the fast write-off, the industry located elsewhere as a result of the government incentive to do so.
It can easily be seen that the result in that case is contrary to the principle the minister laid down and will not bring about the improvement in efficiency he wishes to achieve. Certainly this industry cannot be as efficient in the new location as it would have been had it been able to locate where the

June 2, 1966
Supply-Industry
three factors necessary to the industry were available. The industry, in order to take advantage of the incentive under this program, the $600,000 and the fast write-off, took a short-term view of its future and decided to locate elsewhere. I suggest to the minister that because of the designated area policy industry today throughout the whole of Canada is taking a short-range view with respect to location, which in the future could be detrimental to Canada.
In his opening remarks the minister also stated that the aim of the Department of Industry is to ensure that this influence is positive and helpful. I ask the minister to tell me, on the basis of his experience already with the designated area policy, helpful to whom?


Mr. Drury:: To Canada.


John (Jack) McIntosh: In respect of the case I have just cited the minister has not been very helpful so far as our community and that industry are concerned. He certainly has not been helpful to the municipality affected because at the place where this industry was going to locate provision had been made to absorb the additional children there would be in that area. In the area where the company is now going there will be a great many problems. Problems are being created where they did not exist before. This may apply only to small communities, but if the minister wants diversification of industry this is where industry must go rather than be centralized in the large centres.
I suggest to the minister that it is not a positive program as has been stated by him, but a negative one. If the minister allows the designated area program to continue he will be creating new problems which some future government will have to solve. Possibly the minister has the idea that the present government is not going to be in office too long and is creating these problems for a future government. In other words, and I am not being facetious, I think the minister will realize that the problems I am outlining certainly will become major ones in the not too distant future. I say that if the minister was honest in his presentation of these estimates he would say that his designated area program was not designed to benefit industry in the first place. As I said before, the program is an effort on the part of the government to deal with the unemployment problem which should have been left with the Department of Labour.

I would ask the minister and the government to study closely the words of the hon. member for Saint John-Albert. The article in the Saint John Times-Globe of May 19, from which he quoted, referred to the Atlantic provinces but it could apply to the prairie provinces as well. It points out the harmful effect on communities, not only harmful at present but for the future also, of such a program. The article is worth repeating and I take the liberty of doing so now. The article reads as follows:
Denial of the incentives is crippling the centres that could lead these provinces in an economic renaissance . . . Established industries have moved out of these centres to get aid; potential new ones have been lost. The cities are being bled in the name of healing and the whole region is weakened.
Former speakers have also stated, and I think the minister must have taken note of this, that the formula he is using is absolutely wrong. The last time the minister's estimates were before the house I believe the hon. member for Provencher said that the formula as the minister had enunciated it was not even being followed. As I understood the information given to the house, it was based on unemployment figures as well as family income figures.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Non-farm family income.


John (Jack) McIntosh: So far as I am concerned the formula is wrong because, as other members have pointed out, the unemployment and home income figures used do not apply in the same way in each province. In one example in respect of Manitoba I believe it was pointed out that in the case of one designated area where an industry was allowed to locate and get the incentives, the income figure was larger than in other areas in the same province. In my view the formula had not been followed in that instance.
Before these estimates are passed I hope the minister will give a commitment to the house that he will do away with this program at this time. If he would do so, I do not think he would have any difficulty in getting his estimates through.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman, the minister's estimates are now before the committee and I intend to keep my remarks relatively brief and related to a subject on which I have been dealing with the minister for a number of months now. It is a happy coincidence that I can bring it up at this time because the minister has under his jurisdiction the National Research Council, the Department of
June 2, 1968

Defence Production and the Department of Industry. These three agencies of government relate to the subject I wish to touch upon briefly this afternoon, a subject with which the minister has dealt ably in so many ways over the past months.
Research, the Department of Defence Production and the Department of Industry are all related to the problem of automobile safety and highway safety. Over the past months much has been done in these three departments in this regard. I repeat that I intend to keep my remarks on this subject relatively short this afternoon. I think all members of the House of Commons, together with the people of Canada, have come to recognize that the problem of automobile and highway safety and automobile and highway deaths and injuries constitutes a national and international epidemic. The automobile is the greatest killer of young people between the ages of 18 and 35 and the third greatest killer of all our people, exceeded only by heart disease and cancer. We recognize that we have an epidemic involving the driver as the agent, the road as the atmosphere and the car as the microbe, and that we must approach the problem in a scientific, epidemiological way.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
There is a problem of jurisdiction involved, and the minister has mentioned this before various house committees. Provincial governments must educate better and safer drivers. They must continue to build better and safer roads and they must insist on regular and meaningful annual or semi-annual inspections of automobiles. While the federal government can help with uniform codes and take the lead in this regard with the approbation of the provinces, all these matters do fall under provincial jurisdiction constitutionally.
We are able to refer to this subject today during the consideration of the minister's estimates because I firmly believe that the federal government alone can bring the construction of automobiles under the rule of law. Whether we are talking about the matter in a legal or constitutional sense, certainly in a realistic sense the United States found that only the federal government can invoke uniform standards relating to the production of safer automobiles at the manufacturing level or on import. It is in relation to the minister's responsibility for industry that I refer to this subject under these estimates today.
Supply-Industry
I am fully aware of the fact that the classic role of the Minister of Industry is to assist and encourage industry to expand, develop and do a generally good job in Canada. In looking at things in detail one realizes that the Minister of Industry is placed in a difficult position, and I imagine the government has recognized the jurisdictional problem facing it in formulating mandates with regard to scientifically proven safety standards in the automobile industry at the production stage.
We have now reached the question whether it is the Minister of Industry, the Minister of Transport or the Minister of National Health and Welfare who should enforce standards. I say on an optimistic note that some agency of government is going to have to invoke mandatory standards of safety in the automobile industry within a very few months.
We have talked about what provincial governments can do. I firmly believe that if the federal governments of the United States and Canada live up to their responsibilities, with the co-operation of opposition members, the public and the industry, and state to the industry that it must put already scientifically proven safety features in automobiles at the production stage, this one step alone will cut highway deaths and injuries by 50 per cent. That does not mean to say that we should neglect the problems associated with developing better drivers, better roads and annual inspections of automobiles at the provincial level, but I wash to emphasize the real role the federal government must play in this regard.
I should like to congratulate the minister for the initiative he has already shown and for his efforts which have led to the convening of a conference of provincial authorities in the near future on the subject of automobile safety. I certainly hope that at that time the problem of jurisdiction can be ironed out. In my opinion it will be relatively simple to iron out the problem because the federal government already has jurisdiction over foods and drugs and in respect of issuing mandates as to safety standards for aircraft, ships and rolling stock on the railways. No matter what the constitutional or legal position is, I think it is going to be a relatively easy job for the federal government to get approbation from the provinces to act as a central authority with respect to mandates as to safety standards right across the nation in terms of telling the industry that it must put scientifically proven safety features in automobiles at the manufacturing level.

June 2, 1966
Supply-Industry
I want to note two recommendations contained in the brief in this regard which was presented to the Prime Minister after the terrible slaughter that took place on our highways last year on the July 1st week end. Before doing so I want to thank the members of all parties who have endorsed this brief and the people who spent so much time in researching it and helping me to put it together.
One of the recommendations was that the government act immediately to create and establish a national accident research centre. One reason we have made so few inroads in terms of combating this international epidemic is that we know very little about it. Once an accident has taken place we do not know too much about what has caused a death or injury.
What happened in respect of the air accident at Ste Therese a little over two years ago which killed over 100 people? We immediately roped off the site of the accident and, at a cost to the federal treasury of between $4 million and $5 million, we put the aircraft together bit by bit and held a judicial inquiry with the result that we got some information which will help us to reduce the number of similar accidents in the future.
Every holiday week end in Canada over 100 people are killed on our highways. Within 10 or 15 minutes of the accident the morgue wagon takes the corpses to a morgue or funeral parlour, as the case may be, and the automobiles are towed to the junk heap. We know nothing about what happened in terms of the reason for an accident which has caused death or injury. Not one cent of private or public money is spent on research to find out what happened. When we are travelling in aircraft-the minister and I have chatted about this-we are 10 times as safe as when we are travelling on the highways.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I think it is six times.


William Heward Grafftey: I suggest it is approximately 10 times as safe. Why is that the case? In Canada and in the United States millions and millions of dollars are spent on licensing safe pilots, building safe aircraft at the production stage and providing federal inspectors who tell the aircraft companies what safety features must be included in aircraft at the production stage, just as we do in respect of ships and rolling stock.
We spend millions of dollars in formulating and enforcing safe aircraft rules; yet the simple automobile, in which all of us here

today will ride at some time or another, falls outside the rule of law. I do not believe that the people of Canada or the United States people are going to tolerate jurisdictional disputes between the provinces or states and the federal government while the automobile remains outside the rule of law.
We have discovered that very little private money is being spent on research in this regard. In 1964 in the United States Senator Kennedy obtained information in the U.S. senate commerce committee to the effect that General Motors of the United States had made a profit of $1,700 million but had only spent approximately $1,250,000 on safety research.
What happened in 1952 or 1956-I am not sure of the year-in regard to polio? We spent millions of dollars on research in respect of the epidemic and had the co-operation of all governments, scientific people, legislators and the public. Yet even at its worst the polio epidemic only killed between 2 per cent and 4 per cent of the number of lives that are claimed annually on our highways. We spent millions of dollars in research in respect of that epidemic and we licked it. Yet we spend nothing to conquer the greatest killer of our young people and the third greatest killer of our population at large. We are going to have to increase our research spending in this regard and we must have a national research centre.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Would it be too much, for instance, to ask that before July 1 next we say to every police officer in Canada: Make a meaningful report on death-producing accidents. Tell us something about the driver. Tell us something about the immediate circumstances in which he found himself before he became involved in the death-producing accident. What kind of vehicle was he driving? Why did he get into the accident? What kind of road was he on? What caused death or injury to him?
We know nothing about these matters now. Would it be too much to ask that the wrecks of cars involved in accidents be brought to a national research centre and that photographs of these wrecks be taken. Various farsighted coroners throughout the North American continent descend immediately on death-producing accidents and get the real facts and meaningful data which show why the accident occurred and why injury or death was caused.
June 2. 1966

I believe that a national accident research centre, not only for research into automobile accidents but other matters connected with accidents, would go a long way to help us move forward in this regard. It is largely because of the little bit of research being done at the U.C.L.A., Harvard and Cornell crash research centres that I and many others interested in this field sincerely feel that if safety standards for automobiles were controlled by mandate at the production level, this would cut the death and injury rate by approximately 50 per cent provided the provincial authorities co-operate at the same time in the other areas of safety in terms of the driver, roads and annual inspection of vehicles.
The second suggestion I make is this. Today the minister has under his jurisdiction many officials who are drafting safety codes in the area of automobiles, roads, and drives. My remarks as a federal legislator will relate only to the automobile. These codes are now being drafted, as the minister has informed the house on many occasions, under the aegis of the Department of Defence Production. It is my impression that the sooner some public authority builds a prototype safety car the better.
I am not going into the question of blame. I feel that the industry in years ahead will sell just as many safe cars as it is selling stylish cars today. I believe that safety can be sold Whether it can be sold or not, I believe it is incumbent upon the industry in our modern society to include safety features in its products. I believe a prototype safety car must be built by public authority. Members might ask me why. I remember that when we testified in New York a few months ago, the same night the industry made the announcement relating to collapsible steering columns and double-braking systems in cars. No doubt this will be an advance in this regard. I am not competent enough, nor do I know enough about the details, to make an objective judgment on whether this will be really significant. But I will say, and not in a dramatic, accusing way, that I believe the advances we will see in the 1967 models have been known to the industry for approximately ten years.
Suppose the food industry tomorrow morning at nine o'clock said to the government: We will be good little boys and take a little bit of poison out of the food the public have been eating for years and years. Legislators and the public at large would then have the
Supply-Industry
right to ask how much poison was in the food in the past and how much was to be left in it in the future. Until governments and public authorities set up criteria based on prototype standards which they develop and correlate, we cannot make a correct judgment in this regard.
People sometimes think it is dramatic to take the position of whipping the big boys in industry, but I am not trying to do that. But at the same time I do not think anything as important and big as the automobile industry can be left to police itself any more than we can leave the food and drug industries to police themselves. So I believe that, first, standards must be mandatory and must be based on code regulations. If these code regulations are to be really meaningful, they must be based on objective criteria put together by governments.
This is why I believe that a prototype safety car must be built by a public authority. I would encourage the minister to do everything humanly possible to take the lead in this regard and offer Canadian aid, whether by direct financial assistance or co-operation by the National Research Council in respect of research projects, to bring the New York prototype safety car project to a successful conclusion as soon as possible.
I have referred to the New York prototype safety car. Many people ask me, "Why can't we do it in Canada" or, "Why can't it be done somewhere else?" Mr. Chairman, highway and automobile safety know no party or national boundaries. It is an international epidemic that we face. In my view the government of the state of New York is the only one in the western world that has made any real advances in terms of bringing such a car to completion. It has spent a couple of hundred thousand dollars in getting feasibility studies through the lower and upper houses in New York state and having them approved. It is interesting that an aircraft space agency has the contract to build the first seven prototype safety cars and crash them. I appeal to all hon. members; Let us move in this regard.
We are living in 1966, a year in which we can put men into orbit around the earth and bring them back, when we can almost put them on the moon and bring them back in safety. Yet we permit this slaughter to continue on our highways. Can we not stop it? I think we can if the government acts, and it can act even before Washington. Everybody says: Does it matter what Canada does? The

June 2, 1966
Supply-Industry
United States will do something in this respect and whatever they do will affect us. I think we hold-the minister can correct me here if I am wrong-between 7 per cent and 10 per cent of the North American automobile market. If the government and the minister took the lead in this regard the industry would pay a great deal of attention.
In the United States, the G.S.A. fixed standards in this respect. The federal government there purchases approximately 50,000 to 55,000 vehicles a year. By fixing standards for government-purchased vehicles the United States woke up the industry. Surely if Canada co-operated with New York, which has a population almost as large as that of our country and involving about 20 per cent of the automobile market, we would certainly make the industry look up and take notice.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I believe it is imperative, first that we move quickly to establish a national research centre of this type and, second, that we co-operate as quickly as possible with New York in the completion of a prototype safety car. Canada can take a real lead in this regard. Would it be too much to ask that this be done? Have we not the technical know-how to conduct meaningful research at the present time if we from next January 1 collect all automobiles that are involved in death-producing accidents and tell police officers to give us the type of meaningful report to which I have referred?
Police officers have a very difficult task in this regard. When a car is involved in a death-producing accident the police officer usually has several important things to do. He has to get the body to the morgue and the automobile off the road so that traffic may start flowing again. Under present-day circumstances it is almost too much to ask him to fill out a meaningful report which would help us correlate and centralize data that we could use in research. I want to congratulate some of the more forward-looking coroners and police officers in Canada who are making initial and pioneering attempts in this regard. Some day we will have ratings for automobiles, whether the industry likes it or not. When we buy an automobile we will know which are safe and which are not as safe. Police officers will look at cars that have caused a death and note the mileage. They will record how many miles the car had been driven and how many such vehicles were sold and registered at a particular time. We will have safety ratings on cars.

People have come to me and said, "Grafftey, you are crazy. If I want to drive an unsafe car, that is my business in a free world." It is nobody's business in a free world to drive an unsafe car. You can kill yourself if you want to but you cannot go out on the highways and kill innocent women and children who may be involved in an accident with you. When we consider that 87 per cent of all injury and death-producing accidents occur at speeds under 45 miles per hour, it is my belief that the federal governments of Canada and the United States have a real role to play in bringing the automobile under the rule of law immediately.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The minister has already done much in that respect. I repeat that it is my belief that the next two things to which priority should be given are the establishment of a national research centre and the completion of the building of a prototype safety car. I am sure that as we move ahead in this regard the minister will have the co-operation of every member of the house.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I have been quite impressed by what has been said by the member for Brome-Missisquoi on the subject of automobile safety. It is something to which most people do not give much consideration until it is too late. It is too late to do anything after a calamity has befallen you or a member of your family has had a bad accident.
In his book Ralph Nader states facts implicating the automobile industry in abuses. I was particularly impressed by the example he gave of a woman driving down a street in a Corvair at a speed of less than 30 miles an hour and the car went out of control and rolled over. She lost her arm as a result. All this happened when she was driving at a speed at which one would have said it would be impossible to upset a car no matter what one did. Everyone who reads this story will probably think immediately of the criminal negligence that must take place in the automobile industry.
Of course most people do not think about safety. I presume if we really considered it seriously we would not drive. We are all aware of the fact that when you drive down a very busy highway and see an ambulance and a number of vehicles around a bad accident, traffic slows down to a crawl for 10 to 20 miles. But memory is very short and soon thereafter the previous speed is resumed.
June 2, 1966

At one time I was driving a new Meteor in northern Ontario on roads that were mainly unpaved. Most of the time I drove at high speed. Every 200 or 300 miles I had to stop at a garage and have the shock absorbers in the rear end of the car repaired. One day the mechanics fixed the shock absorbers-they welded in new plates and tore pieces out of the frame, etc.

and after they put the car back together I noticed that the shock absorbers did not extend sufficiently to allow for a connection. Actually they did not have enough distance between them to allow for full play and every time the springs extended to their full capacity the shock absorbers proved to be about four inches too short. In discussion with the representative of the Ford Motor Company I found out that this was certainly a problem but it was not the responsibility of the company to do something about it. What had happened was that the model had been changed and the shock absorbers did not fit the new model. They were obviously not built for that car. It was a leased car and I refused to drive it any further because of its unsatisfactory condition. Later on a man was killed in it. I am sure that its poor condition was not only due to the fact that, as the police found out, the speedometer was registering 15 miles an hour below the actual speed so that when I thought I was driving at 70 miles an hour I was actually going about 90.
No wonder I was having trouble with the car. In my opinion the shock absorbers were not built for the car. I presume this was the case in most of the cars in that series. The engineer of the Ford Motor Company in charge of maintenance was not the least bit interested in doing anything about that particular car and was prepared to admit that the shock absorbers were not appropriate. However, he was not willing to make recommendations for improvements.
It seems to me that Ralph Nader probably dealt with only a very limited number of real problems. I think the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi will be remembered in Canada for quite some time if he is able to bring the attention of a sufficient number of thinking Canadians to this problem. The automobile industry has been able to get away with a lot of ballyhoo on expensive radio and television programs instead of producing a piece of satisfactorily engineered equipment.
Supply-Industry
I think the matter of safety is one that affects Canada and that there should be legislation. The hon. member mentioned the fact that the state of New York is far ahead of all other areas in the matter of safety and is spending money on the building of a prototype car. I think that Canada, even with its limited resources, should be able to spend $1 million to have the National Research Council do work on this project.
The National Research Council need not work along the same lines as the state of New York but could do research of its own. I do not suggest that we should build tanks to ensure safety on the road because we would then have to instal so much equipment in the form of safety belts and so on that the purpose would be defeated because nobody would use them. I know this is a problem. I have a shoulder harness in my Volvo automobile but I never use it. My son tells me it is very good. At one time he was in a car which overturned and probaby that is why he now says the harness works very well and is very comfortable. I think this is a psychological problem. I do not think it will be solved by putting people in safety helmets and giving them football uniforms to withstand the shock of an accident. It would be better to eradicate unsafe projections in cars.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
It seems to me the National Research Council might also take a look at a number of other causes of accidents in Canada. There is a stretch of highway No. 17 west of North Bay leading to Sudbury on which probably more deaths have occurred than in any other area. Some of the trouble seems to stem from the fact that the very white concrete absorbs the light, and the road is also very straight. The road is built in concrete sections 20 to 40 feet in length and a continuous noise is created as tires pass over the joints. The white line dividing the highway creates another problem. The types of lights used and the desirability of having automatic dimming devices and more readily accessible types of controls are factors which should be taken into account. Certainly correction of these faults must be taken into account by any person driving an automobile, and protection in this regard must be provided to those driving cars in our nation.
I was very surprised at the ignorant attitude publicly displayed by the president of the Chrysler Corporation who, in referring to the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, said, "Who ever heard of him? What does he know

June 2. 1966
Supply-Industry
about automobiles?" Many people do not know the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi. People tend to be more familiar with members from their own part of the country and less familiar with members from other parts of the country. They do not have a national outlook. However, when the president of the Chrysler Corporation singled out the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi he did two things. First of all, he made people aware of the fight taking place not only in Canada but elsewhere with regard to automobile safety. He made people aware, for example, of Senator Kennedy's interest and those interested in university safety programs, including Ralph Nader and others. Like many other people, having heard of the problems that exist I read Ralph Nader's book on automobile safety. Having read it I am convinced that much can be done.
Another thing that the president of the Chrysler Corporation did was to make people examine the silly argument used by the automobile industry that the fault lies not with the automobile but with the driver. I agree that if the automobile were left in the driveway nothing would happen. None the less, not all accidents happen at 100 miles an hour; not all accidents happen in adverse weather conditions. If accidents occurred under such conditions, with the driver also intoxicated or overly fatigued because of long driving, there might be some argument for the automobile industry. Nevertheless, when a person sitting beside the driver hits his head on the radio control panel or on another instrument and is killed, that does not indicate that that person was drunk, fatigued or anything else. It indicates that the automobile was poorly designed.
If the automobile industry gave away its automobiles there might be some excuse for some of the things said. But it charges a fantastic amount of money for automobiles. The Canadian government gets in taxes about one-third of the money from automobile sales. It therefore has a major responsibility to see that the Canadian public is not being hosed. The government does not take its responsibilities seriously. We are willing to give the automobile companies $50 million. For what, may I ask, Mr. Chairman? Certainly not for safety.
When we talk about safety in terms of $100,000 the government is still not willing to provide it. I hope that the committee will take a look at this problem even though the

minister has not looked into it. In this connection I heard an extraordinarily silly argument in committee this morning. An official of the department said that the house would not grant more money for such purposes. These estimates have not been reduced. If we had reduced them we would probably have an election because a want of confidence motion would be involved.


David Vaughan Pugh: How would you vote on the want of confidence motion?


William Arnold Peters: I know how I should vote. In the past we have reduced items in the estimates to $1, and the hon. gentleman asking the question was on the other side of the house at that time. I am sure he voted the opposite way to me. It all depends on what you are reducing and who is doing the reducing.
If the minister asked for another $100,000 for purposes of safety, I am sure that no member of parliament would oppose his request. Perhaps the minister will stand up and tell us why he has not asked for this money. Is a jurisdictional problem involved? Does it not come under his department? Frankly, I am not sure whether it should not come under the National Research Council. I know that the Minister of Industry has some interest in the automobile industry but I am not sure of the exact jurisdictional boundary. In any event, will the minister give specific answers to the questions that have been asked? I am prepared to agree to the voting of an increase of $100,000 in these estimates if the minister will ask for that sum.
I should also be prepared to support the hon. member who just asked a question if he desired to request that $100,000 be added to the estimates for an automobile safety program. Frankly, I do not know how it could be done because if the hon. member were to do so he might be out of order, but if the minister did so it might be in order. Fundamentally it depends on whether the minister feels that such a program is worth undertaking and, second, whether he has the jurisdiction to do what I suggest. I think we should know the answer to that.
There are other problems I should like to raise but other members may wish to comment on the very important matter raised by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi. I should therefore like to give other hon. members and the minister in particular an opportunity to delve into this problem. I hope the minister will inform us fully how we can go
June 2, 1966

about establishing an automobile safety program, whether he is prepared to support such a program and, if necessary, whether he is prepared to move an amendment to these estimates to make such a program possible.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I rise to take a few moments of the time of the committee. First of all, I endorse 100 per cent what the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi has said concerning the need for an automobile safety program in this country. I commend his words very strongly to the minister. I hope the government will have the good sense to take his thoughtful suggestions seriously and to act on them. I too have given this matter serious thought, as I am sure all other hon. members have.
I want to speak for a few moments about another subject. I refer to automation. Whether we like it or not, automation is going to play an increasingly important role in our lives from now on.
As we know, Mr. Chairman, automation produces greater efficiency and greater productivity, thereby lowering costs and lowering selling prices. Automation should make it possible to increase sales greatly, both here in Canada and in the export market, through lower selling prices. But if these increased sales are not sufficient to provide enough additional jobs to absorb those who lose their employment through automation, mass unemployment could develop as a result. It would then be a dismal failure.
Automation will be a success from the national point of view if we can teach the people who are displaced the skills they will need to fit them for the more technical jobs which automation will make available to them. The benefits of change will be fully and properly shared only if we consider the needs of the people who are affected by automation and if we organize our policies in such a way as to reduce hardship and insecurity to an absolute minimum.
I think we all agree that no humane society can permit workers to be made jobless on a large scale through no fault of their own. Our future success as an industrial nation is going to depend on the way we are able to plan both on the national and on the company level to provide our people with the opportunities of acquiring the skills necessary to enable them to take their place in the technical world in which they are going to live.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I believe that the government has a very real responsibility in this regard and that it
Supply-Industry
must set an example to Canadian industry by the way it treats its employees who are affected by automation in their direct employment by the government, or as employees of the crown corporations which are creatures of the government. In order to do so, I believe that the government would do well to study what is being done in this regard by large United States companies which are giving great leadership in this matter.
I was very much impressed, Mr. Chairman, by the description of the responsibility of industry in this regard which was given by Mr. Clarence B. Randall, the recently retired chairman of the Inland Steel Corporation of the United States. He described this responsibility of industry in the following words:
Our responsibility is to prepare the man who is being displaced for another task that will require a higher level of skill and which will exist after the change in the method of production takes place.
In the United States, Mr. Chairman, individual companies and unions have made considerable progress in this connection. For instance, the Kaiser Steel Corporation and the United Steelworkers have agreed that displaced workers should be guaranteed salaries up to three years and placed on an employment reserve. Another example is given by the Armour Meat Packing Company and its several unions. They have set up a fund between them to study the effects of automation on the employees of the company and to retrain affected workers.
These, Mr. Chairman, are merely two examples of the kind of forward-looking steps which Canadian companies should be taking at this time so that the steady transfer to the more automated society in which we are going to be living in the future may proceed without causing hardship to those displaced through no fault of their own. Therefore I strongly urge the government to give leadership to all Canadian companies in the interests of their workers, the companies themselves, and the country. I urge the government and these Canadian companies to follow the excellent example set by companies such as those in the United States which I have mentioned, thereby making the transition to an automated society in Canada as easy as possible.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I believe that such an attitude and such a program are the least we can do for our fellow workers as we move together along the road to progress.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the item carry?

June 2, 1966
Supply-Industry


John (Jack) McIntosh: No, Mr. Chairman. I would hope that the minister would answer some of the questions which have been asked before this vote carries. When he does answer, would he differentiate between what he terms a rural family income and an urban family income? Does he realize that what might well be called an urban family income in Quebec and Ontario cannot be looked at in the same way in the west? The radius of service of a community is much greater in the west than in this part of the country. For example, cities in eastern Canada may be five to six times larger than communities in the west and service a very small area whereas in the west a town of 15,000 can serve a radius of 100 miles. Perhaps the minister will explain the formula he uses, which I say is discriminatory.
I hope the minister will also give a commitment in regard to discontinuing the designated area program. It is doing nothing but hurting the economy of the country and it will do greater damage in the future.
I observe that the hon. member for Peterborough is now present and I should like to say that I was quite taken by his speech except for one part to which I should now like to refer. He said that he had had excellent co-operation and so had the people from his area who had come to Ottawa to inquire how industry could co-operate with the Department of Industry.
I am sure it is not the minister's intention that industry from the various regions should come to Ottawa to co-operate with the Department of Industry. My idea is exactly the converse, that the Department of Industry was set up to help industry. In view of the hon. member's remarks I would ask, if it is the opinion of the government that industry should come to Ottawa and try to help the department? If so, what is the use of the department? Is it just a fulfilment of Parkinson's law where you have civil servants doing something just for the sake of doing it, and that is all?
I would also ask the minister to explain to the committee how the designated area policy is helping industry. What are the results of the policy? As I said before, it is of assistance to the unemployment situation but it does not solve the unemployment problem at all. Perhaps it just moves the problem from one area to another.
Because of the instigation of the designated area policy by the minister, people in certain regions of the country now find that their
[The Deputy Chairman.]
incomes are decreasing as a result of the intervention of the minister's policy. I do not think this is fair to the people in these regions. I would ask the minister to make the commitment now that he will discontinue the designated area policy. I see that the minister is shaking his head, indicating a negative reply. Therefore I would ask him to give the committee his reason before this item passes.


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be very brief. At the beginning I should like to thank the minister for receiving all the delegations I have brought to Ottawa to see him when we were pressing for the inclusion of northwestern Ontario and the constituency of Kenora-Rainy River in the ADA program.


An hon. Member:: Were you successful?


John Mercer Reid: Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, we were unsuccessful in getting our area designated. In one particular case an industry claimed it would only come there if the ADA program were extended to the area, but when it was not it came there any way, which proves to a certain extent that in my area we may be suffering from some sort of inferiority complex.
I have one suggestion I would put before the minister, and I realize that there are constitutional obstructions in the way. I believe that when the ADA program was first brought down it was instituted for the specific purpose of helping to cure the problem of unemployment, which at the time was quite rife throughout the country. I think this has been accomplished to a large extent. Our economists and statistical staff tell us that in certain industries we are suffering from a form of overemployment. In other words, there are now labour shortages.
However, there are areas, such as our natural resource areas, where this does not hold true at all. There are people there who are unskilled and do not have the necessary mobility to move around. If they do have this mobility the effect is that they move to other areas, with a consequent lack of population in areas such as mine which has a low unemployment record because those who are unemployed leave the area. This is very unhealthy. It hurts our economic growth and makes it more difficult for new industries or for a new mine to open in the area in order to bring people back to fill the jobs which would be created and which are already available.
June 2. 1966

I have two suggestions to make. First of all,
I should like to see the ADA program, now that its primary purpose has been accomplished, expanded and become some sort of program to encourage economic growth in areas such as Kenora-Rainy River, northwestern Ontario and other regions not directly adjacent to economic areas such as Winnipeg, Montreal and Toronto.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
My second point, though perhaps this is not the appropriate place to make it, is that in my area there is a very large Indian population. These people are untrained for work. Nevertheless there are examples in my riding as well as in other parts of the country where, with the proper supervision and training, such people can be absorbed into industry. Perhaps the Department of Industry could look into the possibility of providing training programs, or introductory programs, to help our Indian people. While there is a shortage of skilled workmen in our area there is a tremendous surplus of unskilled workmen, most of them Indians. It will be impossible to integrate these native people into our society unless we are able to provide for them the necessary economic incentives.
I fully realize that activities of this kind must be carried out in co-operation with the provinces concerned and that sometimes the provinces are not very co-operative. If the provincial minister responsible for this important type of development is not ready to work with the federal authority, then the effect in a province such as my own can only be deplorable. Nevertheless I would urge the minister to investigate the possibility of extending the program so as to fill the gap which now exists.
I turn now to consider a further problem which has arisen in my area. As a result of the regional development policies of the Ontario government we are included in an organization called the Northwest Ontario Development Corporation. The fact which faces us is that Winnipeg in another province is our natural economic centre. Thus there is a conflict between ordinary economic forces and political forces, and this makes things extremely difficult.
I know that the minister is fully aware of the situation. He has written voluminous letters to myself, to Senator Benidickson and to others who are interested. I leave these thoughts with him in the hope that in the future an alternative arrangement may be worked out.
Supply-Industry


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, industry is for various reasons, a matter of interest in the region where I come from. The first one is that we are expecting an industrial explosion in the next few years, thanks to the announcement made by the provincial government about the establishment of the steel plant to be called Sidbec. Also, because we are one of the most important distribution centres of electrical power in Canada. In addition, we have six technical schools training skilled workers, which will make things easier for the industries coming to settle in our region. We have industrial commissions and we followed with great interest the legislation passed here in 1963.
I must say at this time that we are happy about the minister's intervention in the field of industry. We had the opportunity to congratulate the government in this regard. I am not trying to flatter it and I will make three or four constructive criticisms in that spirit later on.
I think that the legislation dealing with the designated areas should be amended right now; it probably did some good when it was implemented, but the time has come to revise it in the light of new conditions. Some things which seem illogical are happening. Here is a case in particular. In my region, more exactly in the city of Cap-de-la-Madeleine, a neighbour of Trois-Rivieres, the following incident happened a few weeks ago.
The members of the industrial board of the city of Shawinigan, located in the riding next to that of Champlain, lured an industry away from Cap-de-la-Madeleine, which is not yet in my riding but will be at the next election, it seems to me that this industry moved precisely because of the fiscal advantages offered in the so-called designated areas. I find it strange that this legislation can succeed in getting an industry to move such a short distance away, that is 15 miles from us, solely it seems because of the fiscal advantages it found in Shawinigan, at the heart of a designated area. Was the region made a designated area because the hon. member for Shawinigan is the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance or because before that he was the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister? I am not blaming the people of Shawinigan for looking after their own interests; I am not blaming the hon. member for using his influence. I am talking

June 2, 1866
Supply-Industry
about the legislation as objectively as possible. I mentioned the case to illustrate what I mean.
I studied closely the standards which determine the choice of a designated area. It seems to me that something is wrong with regard to the region I represent, that is Trois-Rivieres, Cap-de-la-Madeleine. We are supposed to be one of the cities where the average salary is the highest in Canada. We come in fourth or fifth place, but that does not give the whole picture. If we got that far, that is the fourth or fifth place as far as the average salary is concerned, it is due to the paper industry which pays higher than average salaries. The fact is that a large number of our wage-earners draw less than average wages and that we have a greater percentage of out-of-work people than in neighbouring constituencies.
The conditions are such that designated areas should be reconsidered. I do not suggest that they should be abolished, on the contrary they should be extended; that is the scope of the legislation should be broadened because of certain factors. The Trois-Rivieres and Cap-de-la-Madeleine district is the centre of an urban area of 360,000 inhabitants where all those who are unemployed elsewhere in the area flock and try to find some work. I imagine that elsewhere in Canada, there are other similar urban areas which would deserve the consideration of the government with respect to tax incentives.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
On the other side of the municipality, in my own constituency there is Trois-Rivieres-Ouest which is part of the semi-rural section where a casern plant coming from California was to be established. They had bought the land and I believe that in the area where it would have been located, this would have been beneficial to everybody. Finally they decided to settle further off, in Louiseville. I am not exactly holding this against Louiseville, because I know it was needed there. But I find it strange that, for so short a distance, only 12 miles further, fiscal arrangements can be granted whereas they are refused 12 miles closer. This was a very serious American concern. Such legislation should probably be amended.
Mr. Chairman, what was called the Area Development Agency, if I understand correctly the report published by the Minister of Industry on the operations of the department

which was published, I think, last January 31, stipulated the following:
The Area Development Agency, which develops and administers programs to foster industrial growth in certain designated areas of Canada, has been organized into two main groups. One of these consists of area specialists who concentrate on particular regions of the country. These officers work with the operational branches of the department as well as with federal, provincial and municipal departments and organizations in promoting regional development. The other group administers the special incentives for designated areas.
I think we have reached the point where this Area Development Agency should not only be concerned with the designated areas but it should increase its co-operation with the Department of Industry, with the provincial departments and also the area representatives, and the industrial commissioners of the municipalities.
I believe that there should be closer contact. I have personally noticed that the Department of Industry can do all kinds of things, but neither our municipal councils nor our chambers of commerce are aware of it. In order to enable them to benefit fully, the scope of the operations of the Area Development Agency may have to be widened and their advertising increased.
Now, I am being rather brief because others want to participate in the discussion and I should not like to tax the patience of the committee. I spoke a while ago of the designated areas under the present legislation.
On moving industrial plants, something in Hansard caught my eye a few days ago. I see that it is not only back home that people complain about those things. In 1964, the mayor of Galt wrote a letter begging the government to prevent the act from being used to move existing industries within too limited an area. That, to a certain extent, is what I mean too.
Now, Mr. Chairman, before closing I would like to make another suggestion to the Minister of Industry. I would ask him to take it in the spirit in which I intend it. Looking over the literature I get from the Department of Industry, I note that out of, let us say, 30 high officials in the department, only three are French Canadian.
Far be it from me to want to play nationalist, jingoist or separatist, but in all frankness, and with all the serenity possible, I say that if we want to overcome the difficulties which are inflicted upon us and achieve mutual understanding between the two main ethnic groups, it might be wise to recruit more qualified French speaking staff for the upper
June 2, 1966

echelons in that department. Please note that I am not necessarily blaming the minister, I merely wish to make a constructive suggestion. It is not a question of removing the people who now hold those positions to give them to someone else, but rather one of recruiting qualified French Canadians when the time comes to fill vacancies. I did mention qualified people.
I know that it has been said in the past that we lacked qualified people; it has also been said that French Canadians were not anxious to join the civil service, but I believe that this time is now over. If qualified officials are needed in the department, it is surely possible to find some, so that within a reasonable time, without any rush, without dismissing anyone, in the group of 30 senior officials, we might find half a score of French Canadian names.
These are the constructive suggestions that I wanted to make. I will sum them up; Co-operation between the Department of Industry and municipal, industrial, provincial and regional agencies; review of the whole scope of the act concerning the designated areas policy; and extension of publicity concerning the activity of the area development agency.
Third and most constructive criticism: would it be possible to recruit more French speaking people for senior positions in this department as in others.
To conclude, I wish to congratulate once again the Minister of Industry, not only in my name, but also on the behalf of municipal councils and chambers of commerce who spoke of the fine job done by the minister for the past three years.


Mr. Southam:: Mr. Chairman, I felt I would be derelict in my duty if I did not take advantage of the discussion on item No. 1 of the estimates of the Department of Industry to support the proposition put forward this afternoon by my colleague, the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, speaking on safety in motorcars. I have taken an interest in this subject for the past several years, particularly since a former Conservative member, Dr. Kucherepa, some years ago-I believe in the session of 1958-59-put some informative remarks on Hansard with respect to the problem of automobile safety.
My interest in this matter culminated in my placing Bill No. C-26 on the order paper on January 18, the subject matter of which has been referred to the standing committee
Supp ly-Industry
on justice and legal affairs. 1 take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi for having taken the initiative in bringing to public attention this very serious problem facing society today. I am sure it was gratifying to him that the hon. member for Timiskaming and the hon. member for Northumberland supported his stand on the matter.
There is not too much I can say at the moment because I think the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi covered the subject matter very thoroughly, but it seems to me there is an inconsistency in the minds of the public with respect to safety, and particularly with respect to the various modes of transportation by air, water, rail, bus and automobile.
If there is a fatal air crash in which 50, 75 or 100 people are killed, immediately there is a great public outcry. We spend hundreds of thousands of dollars having our aeronautical boards, engineers and departments of government investigate to see if there was a mechanical defect. Air line officials themselves also carry out investigations. We also do the same thing if there is a disaster at sea. But every week end there are 50, 60 and some times 100 people killed in fatal accidents on the highways, and because they are killed on a helter-skelter, hit-or-miss basis all over the country the public does not express the same concern.
The first law of nature is self-preservation. Why should we not be just as concerned about fatal accidents on our highways as about accidents in the air or on the water? This is an important area for discussion. As time goes on I am sure public opinion will wholeheartedly support members like the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi and others who have taken action on this matter.
It is heartening to see the lead taken by our friends across the border in the United States, particularly in the state of New York. It was interesting, after reading the latest reports of the U.S. Senate committee which is investigating this matter, to note that the chairman of that committee, when presenting a recommendation to the United States Senate, made reference to the fact that it was not only the nut behind the wheel but the nut in the wheel about which we should be concerned.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I think it can be said simply that there are three areas. There is the nut behind the wheel, as we so commonly refer to the man who may be reckless in his driving, there are

June 2, 1966
Supply-Industry
the roads themselves and the laws and regulations in respect of traffic on the highways, and then the vehicle itself. I think one reason more action has not been taken along the lines of what people have in mind is the fact that if one automobile company decides to introduce some safety measure this automatically involves a greater cost in bringing the vehicle to the public and as a consequence the vehicle is not quite as competitive. If we follow through with this new concept of considering the matter from a legal point of view and bringing in mandatory legislation with regard to safety devices on cars, automatically it will take in all vehicles sold by manufacturers in Canada or the United States and all cars imported into Canada. It would consequently make them competitive and we would thereby be removing the economic factor which apparently has been instrumental in retarding the advance of safety devices in automobiles.
I think such a move on the part of the government would be greatly welcomed by automobile manufacturers. If we were to take a definite stand I am sure this would be welcomed by the public and it would make the automobile manufacturers competitive. I should like to support what was said by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi and the hon. member for Timiskaming to the effect that we should increase our budget of the Department of Industry and look into the matter of setting up some type of safety bureau or research centre in Canada which could make a thorough study of this problem. I am sure the government would receive widespread acclaim from the public if it were to take this action.


Reid Scott: Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the representations which have been made this afternoon by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi who also appeared before the justice and legal affairs committee while it was studying the matter of auto safety. The hon. member made a most impressive and useful contribution. The hon. member for Timiskaming and the hon. member for Moose Mountain who also appeared before this committee made a very impressive and important contribution.
I wish to participate in this debate to ask the minister to give serious consideration to divesting himself of responsibility and authority in the whole field of automobile safety. I will come back to the urgency of automobile safety in a moment. I should like

to make the point right at the beginning, however, that as things stand now in the Department of Industry the minister is responsible for automobile safety and also at the same time is responsible for the administration and conduct of the United States-Canada auto parts agreement. As everybody knows, that agreement is dependent upon the good will and voluntary co-operation of the United States automobile industry.
The main effect of this is that the minister really is a captive of the United States automobile industry. In Canada, because of this agreement, we no longer have any control whatsoever over the automobile industry and the direction it is going to take. As a result of this the minister himself is, as I say, really a captive of the United States automobile industry. One of my friends says he is a prisoner. I would not go that far, but certainly he has a conflict of interest, I suggest, between the need to administer the new agreement and make it work and the need to act as a policeman in respect of the automobile industry in the area of safety itself. Consequently, if the minister is left with the responsibility of dealing with automobile safety I do not see how he can adequately fulfil this function, even with the best intentions in the world. I do not say that he would deliberately neglect it, but I think the more one examines his department and the auto industry, the more one is impressed by the fact that he simply will not be able to be a captive of the United States auto industry on the one hand and try to act as a policeman in the field of auto safety on the other hand.
I know all ministers are empire builders and are reluctant to divest themselves of certain areas of authority and jurisdiction. However, if the minister really is anxious, as I am sure he is, to deal with the problem of automobile safety, I think he should consider seriously passing over authority in this field from himself to perhaps the Solicitor General, the Minister of Justice or anyone else except the Minister of Industry because, as I have said, I think as we proceed we will find that he simply will not be able to act as a policeman in the auto industry at the same time that he is going to go to the industry to seek its co-operation and big-hearted help in making the auto parts agreement an effective instrument in our economy and in the automotive industry of Canada. I suggest very seriously that the minister give this point consideration.
June 2, 1366

The other matter, which probably has been raised by other members while 1 was not in the chamber, is a mandatory scheme of automobile safety. Already in our examination of the subject it is becoming increasingly apparent that we should have a mandatory scheme, not only from the point of view of the public but also from the point of view of the manufacturers as well. Any information we have been able to obtain so far indicates that if you have a voluntary automobile scheme it will be a failure. Experience in the United States has indicated that the automotive industry itself, because of its competitive nature, will not and cannot adhere to a voluntary scheme of automobile safety. Unless you bring in a mandatory scheme which puts all the automobile companies on the same basis and forces all automobile companies to put the same safety features in their cars, it seems to me you will not have a scheme which will be successful. Because they all are so competitive with each other, not one of them will do it, and even if one should do it the others will shortcircuit it in order to obtain a competitive price advantage.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
The automobile people themselves are now coming to the conclusion that the most effective system of safety standards would be a mandatory one requiring all automobiles to have the same number of safety features. I doubt whether the public yet realizes just what an enormous problem this constitutes in our country. The tragedy is that it is one which is capable of solution. No doubt it already has been pointed out that in the past ten years over 35,000 people have been killed in automobile accidents in Canada and 948,000 have been injured. By the end of this year almost, 5,000 people will die and another 150,000 will be injured. Between 1966 and the end of 1970 26,000 Canadians will die on our roads and more than one million people will be injured. Automobile accidents are now the leading cause of death and injury in this as in many countries. It is estimated that about half of all our cars are going to be involved sooner or later in injury producing accidents. The cost to the public in terms of lost income, personal suffering and accident claims amounts to a fantastic and staggering total.
As I said earlier, studies have already shown that the whole problem of automobile safety confronting this country is of the first magnitude. We have all been following the investigations taking place in the United States which have pinpointed even more
Supply-Industry
dramatically the problem that has been created. It has been said that a good many deaths and injuries and a good deal of suffering can be prevented. For example, 87 per cent of all traffic accidents and 45 per cent of highway fatalities occur at speeds of less than 40 miles per hour. It is commonly thought that the real problem in this regard relates to high speed, cars roaring along the highway, but that is not true. The major killer and producer of injuries is the car travelling at less than 40 miles per hour.
The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi has documented this situation on various occasions both inside and outside the house and has shown that the real causes of accidents and deaths can be related to instrument panels, steering assemblies, faulty windshields, door structures and the lack of headrests on seats. These are all items involving safety features which could be made mandatory, and the total cost of installing them in cars on an assembly line basis is estimated at between $100 and $150 per car. In spite of this, we in this country seem prepared to sit silently by and permit this carnage to continue year after year, resulting in high insurance premiums, deaths, injuries, suffering and heartache to the people of Canada.
It is not necessary for us to document this whole situation in more detail at this stage. I am sure the minister is familiar with the statistics, and in view of the representations he has received I am sure he is about to rise and announce a strong program for his department in relation to this whole matter. In order that he will have an opportunity to do so I will now sit down.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Chairman, I feel I must say a few words about Canadian industry, its financing, and the sale and marketing of its products. This is the subject I would like to deal with in the house.
Mr. Chairman, I believe the aim of industry is to manufacture and sell as much as possible; to manufacture as much as possible with the least effort. In Canada, as in many other countries, we have this facility of manufacturing many products by automation, employing scarcely any manpower.
I could mention the case of an industry which I know very well, which employed 800 people some ten years ago whereas now there are only about a hundred, although production has increased tenfold.

June 2. 1866
Supply-Industry
This is the result of automation, which is right here before us and which we must face. This is what I would like to talk about: automation and industry.
Since automation, that is science or technology, is replacing man, will we use more manpower to help develop industry, or shall we create a new industry with new technical means? One must not be against development and automation, but I must say we cannot create employment and give everyone work in Canadian industry, because the aim of the latter is not to create employment but to meet the demand. This is the aim of industry, which has certainly understood its purpose. It has reached its goal.
Now we must face the problem of manpower. People most earn their living, they must accept industry.
We have designated areas in Canada where there is a shortage of manpower. Again, I could mention the case of an industry which pays about $1,500 a week in salaries and manufactures $10,000 worth of products. Do you think $1,500 can buy for $10,000? I put this question to the hon. minister, and I think he will be able to answer it. This is the state of the economy across Canada.
With regard to our designated areas, we want to develop industry in every way. Concerning industry, Canada has created various bodies to help industry, such as AR-DA or IDA, as it is called, which I believe can help industry independently of the provinces.
We know that ARDA is the body concerned with joint programs and that all those programs must be submitted and accepted by the provinces, after which the federal government contributes to a certain extent to the development of industry.
In connection with the industrial areas where it is desired to set up and extend industries, the first question which comes to my mind is the following: are goods lacking in Canada? Does industry manufacture enough goods to meet the needs of the Canadian people? I would say yes, because we now have industrial surpluses which have been accumulating for approximately 15 years and cannot be marketed.
I know that there may be a shortage of goods in various industrial sectors. For instance, in the steel industry, there might be a shortage of steel; it is perhaps not being produced in sufficient quantities, but it is our duty to build steel works so as to produce

enough steel. It is our duty and it is the duty of the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury).
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
There is no shortage of goods in Canada. In 1965, for instance, statistics indicate that from $51 to $52 billion of goods were produced, of which $35 billion were marketed, exported and sold. The balance is in warehouses, on shelves and remain unsold. It is up to the Minister of Industry to increase production and develop industry. He must also look after the consumption and the sale of those goods. This may not come exclusively under the Minister of Industry, but other departments are concerned. On the other hand, I feel it is the duty of all ministers and citizens of Canada to look sifter the distribution of goods, and to see to it that goods are sold according to the needs of the Canadian people.
We have a great number of citizens in this country who manage to reach a certain degree of affluence, who manage to buy products by means of loans. They profit by progress and science on credit, by borrowing money. We want to develop industry in designated areas, but we find that industrialists have no money and the governments have to guarantee their loans to assist industry.
I am not against assisting industry. If consumers had money to pay, we could do without all those socialist regulations and plans which bog down citizens.
Mr. Chairman, I know several industries in those designated areas, which want to expand and could do so. There are industrialists who were born in parishes or in certain areas where they like to live, but they cannot expand their industries under the present system. Under the new program of the Department of Industry, industries are granted 10 per cent for expansion and construction purposes. If an industry moves to another area, it becomes a new industry and can get one third of construction and equipment costs. Why not grant one third to existing industries which want to expand but cannot do so by themselves.
There are always restrictions and conditions which result in a very small number of industries and companies being able to avail themselves of the advantages afforded by the government. If advantages are offered let them be such that people can avail themselves of them.
Why do industries lack money? Why do industries no longer find capital in Canada?
June 2, 1366

It is precisely because the federal, provincial and municipal governments, the school boards and the church councils get what little savings may exist in Canada, and when one wants to develop an industry, there is no money, no capital left.
The government has absorbed all the capital by way of taxes and debentures. Thus, Canadians and industries are deprived of their assets to the point that several industries can no longer operate without getting into debt. Almost all industries are financed. A large number of them can operate only thanks to the Industrial Bank, which can be of great service but not to every one, because its interests are too high and its reimbursement period is too short. For short term reimbursement, you have to make profits to pay back the Industrial Bank. But when you make profits, you must pay taxes which, added to the reimbursements, put you in an almost impossible situation. So, many industrialists and businessmen are unable to borrow because taxes are too heavy, the reimbursement period is too short and interest rates are too high.
I would ask the Minister of Industry to take a look into the Industrial Bank to see if there would not be a way of extending the reimbursement period. There should be loans payable in 20 years. Seven or ten years is not long enough to reimburse $300,000 to $500,000. It is impossible to do so.
I think the minister has already realized it. He has all the facts before him. I know he is aware that many industries cannot operate because those interest rates are too high. They cannot sell their products because the consumer cannot buy them, having no money left after paying too many taxes and too much interest. All Canadians lie at the mercy of the government. They cannot meet their own needs because they have no money. When governments put money into circulation, they come and get more than we have. The situation is getting more confused all the time. That is not the way to solve the problem.
If we want to settle the problem of industry in Canada, Mr. Chairman, we will have to take the required steps. Industry is on the same footing in the province of Quebec as everywhere else in Canada. The industrialist has had more advantages then the farmer and yet it had to run into more debt. Industrial debts are enormous. All these financial interests, all these taxes contribute to increase the cost of living and to create 23033-373
Supply-Industry
inflation in Canada. Inflation is due to the unbalanced system we have. That system must be balanced. If there are in Canada a hundred million products for sale, there should be as much money in the hands of our citizens to buy those products. It is just the opposite our government and the economy gave the Canadian people.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
This cannot go on in the same way forever. Even though new industries are being developed, these will not go far if they cannot sell their products. And they will not be able to sell them because wages they pay are not high enough to allow people to buy their production.
Then, we will have to give dividends or discounts compensated on prices. These dividends or compensated discounts should be granted by the Bank of Canada, the official body that can also be used to create capital and to put into circulation the required money in order to create the buying power needed so that our products are in good demand in Canada.
We can rely on different countries to sell our products, but everybody knows that when you export to other countries you have to import for just about the same amount. Thus, international trade does not make much difference, as far as production by the people of Canada is concerned. There has to be Canadian purchasing power in the hands of Canadians, in order to sell Canadian products.
Such are the solutions the minister should suggest to the government. If some others have found other remedies, they should be brought forward. Nobody has yet been able to find means of solving our economic problems, so as to solve the distribution problem.
There are almost no problems as far as production is concerned. All the minister has to do is to ask for the production he needs and I can assure you that he will get it.
I can tell you that when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) is telling us, for instance, that production is at a maximum in Canada, that it is almost impossible to produce more, I say this is not true. The Minister of Finance talks nonsense when saying such things, because I know a large number of industries which could double their production in a few days, in a few months. Then comes the question of labour: well, we have all those people busy on winter works, which are

June 2, 1966
Supply-Industry
useless. That kind of work doesn't give anything, it is wasting the people's money.
If those people were employed in industry, they would be working for Canada and producing something. Many citizens are on social welfare, but I am told that the moment they begin to work, they lose their social benefits. These people could produce something but, as it is, they are not.
Canada's productive force totals seven million people, of which approximately three million are not earning enough money to pay income tax. This means that those Canadians are not working very long nor very often. It also means that they could produce ten times more. There are strikes throughout Canada, people curtailing production; all those problems could be solved and the hon. minister would have many things to do in that field. I am not putting all the blame on him, as he is not the one who invented the present system, but he is not doing much to set it right. The present system is not working anymore, it is fundamentally obsolete; it is working only for those who are controlling money and credit, in brief, it is adding to the wealth of those who are controlling money and credit and to the impoverishment of the rest of the population.
This is why strikes happen; people are altogether too poor.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I wish to tell the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac that he is wasting his time, and I wish he wouldn't. Now, it is not incumbent upon me to settle his problems; perhaps he had better direct his speech to my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp).


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Chairman, I may reply to the minister that if I am wasting my time, he is also wasting his, for he does nothing to improve the situation.
If there is need to talk to the Minister of Finance, let the Minister of Industry do it, for he is in a better position than I; besides, it is his duty.
So, Mr. Chairman, there are still many things I could say, but I believe I have spoken of the main ones. I feel that if we seek mutual understanding, if we really want to serve the Canadian nation and the industry itself, we could find the necessary means, and use those which are at our disposal, to settle the various problems that beset industry, production and consumption.
There are two problems, production and consumption. The main one is consumption,
[Mr. Latulippe.l
since production is not lacking at the present time. I am not against new industries, on the contrary, I want them to be created, but I wonder how long they could operate, or sell their products, if consumption cannot be financed.
We have accepted technique, science and progress in all fields, but we should especially welcome technique, science and progress in the economic field on a national scale.


Mr. Laflamme:: Mr. Chairman, I would like for a few moments to discuss the estimates, but not along the same lines as the member for Compton-Frontenac (Mr. Latulippe) because in spite of the little knowledge I may have, I do not know how he came to the somewhat eccentric ideas he attempted to outline, which, in my opinion, one could not make head or tail of, and which did not relate at all to the estimates of the Department of Industry.


Henry P. Latulippe: You have heads and tails; what solution have you found? People are starving.


Ovide Laflamme: I would like, Mr. Chairman, to draw the attention of the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) on a special point concerning my riding. It is a problem which, I know, now holds the attention of the minister and, especially, that of many voters in my riding. It concerns the Valcartier arsenal which, since about 25 years, served to the production of ammunitions for the Canadian government, and which the Department of Defence Production decided, two years ago, to sell to private enterprise; the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) is especially interested in it since this is an attempt, I submit respectfully, to create, within private enterprise, an important industry which will have for effect, not to decrease but to increase employment and the number of employees which, unfortunately, have been decreasing there for a few years.
The Valcartier arsenals have been producing ammunitions for more than 20 years and required at certain times the services of at least 3,000 male and female employees. There are now only about 350 employees in Valcartier and many of these plants are not operating, precisely because it is not necessary that they operate to full capacity to carry out contracts with the Department of Defence Production.
Now, as a whole, even if the staff now working in that plant has some apprehension
June 2, 1966

concerning the sale of this industry to private enterprise, I think they should understand that if the industry is sold to private enterprise, the whole industry will be able to manufacture, in addition to ammunitions, other things which could compete with the general civil production with which, we must admit, it is impossible for the government to compete.
I respectfully submit that the Minister of Industry, in his forthcoming dealings, should point out to the buyers the importance of respecting the vested rights of present employees.
I am convinced that the rights of the present employees being respected, the buyers will not only be in a position to keep the present employees at the Valcartier arsenal, but in a near future, they will rehire from 2,000 to 3,000 employees to reach their previous strength, because precisely a great number of those mills could be used for civil production where the Canadian government cannot compete against private enterprise.
I wish to congratulate the Minister of Industry for the conscientious work he has been doing in that field for some time.
I, for one, am convinced that this decision will be welcomed by the general public, and that the acquirers will thus be able to get a maximum production out of this war plant which can thereby be changed into a peace plant.
I also think that, generally speaking, the department acted wisely in adjudicating the production of ammunition to private enterprise, so that it could bet the lowest possible competitive price.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I can well imagine the minister being a bit impatient and I do not blame him.
There are two things I wish to mention. In my district quite large quantities of excellent birch are being destroyed. I can think of one instance of nearly a million feet of lumber being cut for which there is no market. The local people have made several efforts to see if they could not establish a furniture factory in the district to utilize this and other very suitable woods for the manufacture of furniture. I should like to direct the minister's attention to this matter and to ask him if he can do anything about it. I should also like to ask him to provide some information in this regard to the persons interested.
Supply-Industry
There is another matter which I mentioned to him privately, a few days ago, can the minister tell me whether any research has been done with respect to the small chippers for chipping culled logs so that they can be sent to the pulp mills? At the present time machinery is available to do this but it is much too expensive for the ordinary tree farmer or small operator. Will the minister look into the situation and see if something can be done to provide this type of machinery on a smaller scale than that at present provided to the large industries? With these few remarks I shall take my seat.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall vote No. 1 carry?
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful indeed for the remarks, or most of them, which have been made during the course of this discussion. I appreciate some of the flattering comments and I am particularly grateful for the number of suggestions that have been made for the future guidance of the department in the execution of its programs.
This is a new department and, I suppose, in terms of government it is very new indeed. Neither the officials nor myself are persuaded that all the answers have yet been found, but we are looking for them and consequently we appreciate new ideas. This does not mean that we shall accept all suggestions, but at least we shall look at them.
One general question asked by the hon. member for Villeneuve respecting the Department of Industry was: How is it that Canadians appear able to afford, as outlined in the estimate book, the sum of $25 million for defence development but only a very much smaller sum indeed for civilian development? At page 178 of the blue book of estimates this item appears under vote No. 5:
To sustain technological capability in Canadian industry by supporting the selected defence development programs . . . $25,000,000.
Under vote 10 the following appears:
To advance the technological capability of Canadian manufacturing industry by supporting selected civil (non-defence) development . . . $8,770,000.
This does not in any way indicate a greater predeliction or preoccupation with defence equipment development in industry as opposed to civil development. The problem that exists with relation to the support of development projects in defence industry has been in existence for a considerable number of years and consequently more people are familiar

June 2, 1966
Supply-Industry
with it. Some people are in a position to take advantage of it successfully, and the department is more capable of effectively administering it.
Vote 10 has to do with a new program which, for practical purposes, is entering its second full year. While last year there was provided in relation to the operation of this program the sum of $5 million, the figure is now $8,770,000. We expect that as this program acquires public acceptance, that is, by the manufacturing public, and as the department acquires more skill in administration, the amounts set for the support of advancement of technology in the civil field will grow. The necessity of growth in the military field is not quite so apparent.
In relation to the department two other major items were mentioned. One was the area development program, and its operation, and the other was the automobile safety program. I might deal with the second program first.
I should like to felicitate the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi for the very excellent work he has done and is doing in bringing home to the Canadian public the extent to which this is a problem in Canada and for making clear that statistically, in relative terms, what he talks of is a greater problem here than in the United States. He has done a very valuable service in bringing this problem to public attention and directing public attention to it. The government for its part, and I happen to be its spokesman on this subject for the moment, is undertaking to provide some practical and acceptable solutions to the problem.
The first step in providing suitable solutions to any problem is to find out what the problem is and what is known about it. Then you must organize all information. When you have a background of information you then endeavour to bring intellectual effort to bear on the problem in the hope that a solution can be worked out co-operatively in the best interests of all concerned.
I am glad to say that the National Research Council has just completed a review of current knowledge in this particular field relating to what has been somewhat disparagingly called the nut behind the wheel, the nut on the wheel and, finally, the place where the nut falls off the wheel, which is the road, under these three headings nine technical reports have been issued by the National Research Council. Should any hon. member be interested in them I should be only too it.

delighted to make all nine volumes available to him. These volumes contain a very valuable summary of the current state of knowledge in this field and provide an indispensable background for anyone trying to find effective solutions to the problem.
For its part the government, in co-operation with the Traffic Accident Research Foundation and the Canadian Highway Safety Council, has commissioned a draft automobile safety code, as it has been so far called, which will be submitted to the scrutiny of a conference to be held in June. Members at the conference will examine the draft code on the strength of the reports providing basic information about the driver, the car and the environment on the road. This conference will be composed of representatives of federal and provincial authorities concerned with highway safety, also of various private and semi-private organizations in Canada concerned with traffic safety and, finally, some other individuals who have demonstrated an interest in safety. There will be an expose of the problem at this meeting. There will be suggested parameters which it is hoped the conference will accept. If they are accepted steps will be taken to try to bring them into force.
Referring to what was said by the hon. member for Timiskaming, who in a way indicated the nature of the problem, I may say that we have in this country a number of statutory speed limits. One would assume that a safe car should be designed for travelling at those speeds. Owing, no doubt, to special circumstances involving time, some drivers, as indicated by the hon. member for Timiskaming, do not pay attention to those speed limits. Therefore it is clearly not possible to design cars from the safety point of view to be driven within the statutory speed limits, because there will be people who will pay no attention to such statutory limits. Clearly it is not enough to provide the safety devices in cars that he suggests. The mere provision of those will have no effect if they are not used. The hon. member has indicated that although he has incorporated a shoulder harness in his car he has never had occasion to use it. As I recollect, his son used it after he had turned the car over. I do not think anybody would deliberately turn a car over. That should not be a prerequisite of or a prelude to using a safety harness.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


William Arnold Peters: I hope he was not just testing
June 2, 1S6G


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The hon. member for Timis-kaming also expressed some doubt where the focal point with the federal government should reside, as did one of his colleagues. The hon. member for Timiskaming suggested by implication, and the hon. member for Danforth suggested quite explicitly, that the Minister of Defence Production was the wrong minister to be in charge of this program. I share this view. I think that unquestionably there is a problem connected with the administration of a department whose task it is to work in co-operation with a particular and very large industry, yet at the same time be responsible for imposing mandatory obligations upon that industry and, further, perhaps having some responsibility for enforcing those obligations. It might make more sense if within the federal government the department which now is in the process of developing and administering safety programs in respect of other forms of transportation, and which has a great deal of experience and expertise in these other fields already, might contemplate taking over that particular task.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. Shall I rise, report progress, and request leave to sit again later this day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Vancou-ver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), Penitentiaries-request for appointment of female deputy commissioner.

The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette): Winter works-Notre Dame de la Guadeloupe, Que.-Amounts paid by the federal government; the hon. member for Ro-berval (Mr. Gauthier) :	Income tax-Lac-
Saint-Jean-Investigation requested concerning discovery of bank notes.
Royal Assent


[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, 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:
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
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 bills:
An Act respecting The Trustee Board of The Presbyterian Church in Canada.
An act to give effect to Term 29 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada.
An act to amend the Northwest Territories Act.
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1967.
Mr. Speaker:: Order. It has been suggested that it might be better, before we suspend the sitting, to resume the business which was interrupted by royal assent.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.


[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates, $6,795,400.
Maurice Rinfret: The committee will resume at seven o'clock.
At six o'clock the sitting was suspended.


[Stage Direction]
The committee resumed at 7 p.m.
Maurice Rinfret: Shall vote 1 carry?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, we were listening to a statement by the minister and I believe he should be given an opportunity to complete it.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I had indicated some views on the question of automobile safety, and had stated that in terms of focus for federal government action the Department of Industry was not the most appropriate department. Consideration is being given

June 2, 1966
Supply-Industry
to what would be a more appropriate department to look after this.
A question was asked whether more money is needed to get an automobile safety program under way. I do not think at the present moment that shortage of funds is in any way hindering what has to be done, namely the acquisition and organization of information, and the development of a program after having sorted out the various jurisdictions. I think we are taking productive steps to organize the information, to get agreement on jurisdictions and to launch a program. The government is seized of the importance of this particular problem facing Canada today to at least as great an extent as other hon. members.
The next item examined was the area development program, and observations respecting it were to some degree contradictory. This would indicate to me that a program, which those who find themselves outside of designated areas desire to have abolished, and those who are alongside designated areas seek to have extended to them, is a useful and successful one.
However, I should point out in respect of a number of the representations which were made that there is a fundamental basis to this whole concept. It is a measure in an area in which the federal government has jurisdiction, namely the field of unemployment, and the program is one designed to bring some measure of relief to areas suffering from high chronic unemployment.
We measure this unemployment in two ways as accurately as we can. The first is through registrations under the national employment service. Where the number of registrations in an N.E.S. area rises above a certain figure, or is above a certain figure for a sustained period in relation to the total labour force in that area, then automatically the area qualifies for the incentive benefits.


Mr. Winkler:: Was not the principle of development also an important factor at the time the Prime Minister made the announcement in the house?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The functions of the area development agency as a whole relate to industrial development and area development, but the designated area program is limited to being a program related to unemployment. One of the reasons for this is that under our constitution the provinces regard economic

development, and the determination of priorities for economic development within a province, as being a matter for the provinces not for the federal government. If there were to be a move into this particular field, an attempt on the part of the federal government to set priorities for economic development, this would be a matter of concurrent jurisdiction with the provinces, administered as is the ARDA program.
The ARDA program is for the purpose of encouraging economic development of rural areas within a province. Hon. members will recall that under it the initiatives for programs within a specific area are taken by the province, not by the federal government; and the criteria are determined by the province, not by the federal government. This is in a sense the classic shared-cost program, in which the determination of criteria and the administration of the program rest with the province, or provinces, and the role of the federal government is largely confined to assisting in financing the projects.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)


Eric Alfred Winkler: Can industrial plants be built under that scheme?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Industrial plants can be built under ARDA. There is no limitation in respect of the purposes or objects for which ARDA funds are used. I think this is a useful and interesting distinction. It indicates first the nature of the constitutional problem and why this particular incentive program is based on unemployment. Whether based on national employment service registrations or on areas where the national employment service registry is an accurate index, recourse to unemployment figures is an aid in considering the average level of non-farm family income.
I was asked by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek where the statistics with regard to non-farm family income were derived. The statistics were obtained from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, and their definition of a non-farm family is accepted for the purposes of those statistics. Non-farm family income is used, because in cases where the non-farm family income is very low there is an assumption that even though within the family there may be people who are unemployed but not registered, the numbers involved will depress the average non-farm family income, and consequently in this way indicate to some degree, where there are not
June 2, 1966

accurate national employment service registrations, the level of unemployment or underemployment. That is the reason this is used.
The purpose of this program is not to raise the family income level; it is to relieve unemployment. The income figures were used and spoken of lightly as another way of measuring unemployment or underemployment. If this is understood, it is quite clear that one cannot take into account, as any criteria or as any basis for the program, other economic factors such as rate of economic growth, slowness of economic growth, or indeed rate of population growth or lack of it. All these are measures of economic growth of an area and, as I say, the determination of priorities in respect of economic growth within a province is something which the provinces control, and which under their constitution they regard properly as being within their competence and jurisdiction, and not under federal jurisdiction.
A number of members from the maritime provinces have represented that in order to make this an effective program to stimulate economic growth, there should be designated the metropolitan areas in the maritimes, notably Halifax, Dartmouth, Fredericton and Saint John. Even though unemployment was at a very low level both in regional and national terms in these metropolitan areas, to designate these areas, on the grounds that these areas currently of low unemployment are at a disadvantage in relation to other areas in the maritimes with higher employment, would mean that the deliberate advantage conferred on areas of high unemployment with a view to alleviating this would disappear. The program having as its basis the bringing of jobs to those who are without work would fail completely.
Recognizing that in some areas the incentive program will not be the answer and will not effectively reduce unemployment, if it exists there, members will be aware that the government has made available to the individual an alternative program, should he wish to make use of it, which would provide assistance to persons without work to move from the area in which they or their families are to an area where there will be job opportunities. These two approaches are not conflicting; they merely supplement one another and provide a desirable choice to areas which have some high unemployment.
There was some representation by members from some of the westerly areas that
Supply-Industry
comparisons of designated areas with smaller areas not too far geographically removed from them appeared to disclose that conditions inside the designated area, and just outside, were substantially similar. This of course would be expected because it is rather rare that one finds an area of high economic activity and low unemployment, and then just right across some invisible boundary line an area of high unemployment and low economic activity.
These changes tend to occur rather gradually in geographic terms, and in moving from an area of high economic activity and low unemployment to an area of low economic activity and high unemployment there will not be a corridor; as one proceeds in distance there will be a merging or a gradual transition from the first condition to the second. So, wherever the line is drawn, conditions immediately adjacent to that line and on either side of it will be substantially similar. Obviously the line has to be drawn somewhere, unless the whole country is to be designated. Obviously right adjacent to the line there will, understandably, be feelings of invidiousness in that the man on the favourable side of the line has an advantage which his almost neighbour just across the line does not enjoy, although the neighbour feels the conditions where he finds himself are substantially the same-and indeed they are.
The criteria for the delineation of these areas has been the national employment service areas, largely for the following reasons. In their present configurations they are supposed to represent areas of homogeneous economic activity; each is supposed to be an economic unit. Second, over a number of years there have been gathered for these areas, on an area basis, the kind of statistics on which we have to rely. Indeed these are the only records we have on which to determine which area qualifies for designation and which does not. If one is to operate a program based on objective measurable criteria and standards, he must rely on statistical evidence which has been gathered over a period of time. I accept the difficulty there is in comparing conditions close to and on either side of a line of demarcation, but I do not know of any way to avoid them.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
We are continually receiving representations as to the appropriateness of the N.E.S. areas, and I heard some new ones in the current debate. These are reviewed as the

June 2, 1966
Supply-Industry
representations are made and periodically, following discussions with the soon to-be department of manpower, which will be responsible for the operation of the national employment service, changes are made in the boundaries of the N.E.S. areas where it appears that the existing boundaries produce social inequalities or social injustice. This forms part of the periodic review which is carried out in respect of the qualification of N.E.S. areas for designation or de-designation.
I think I indicated in my opening statement that this program had to date been a very successful one. In order to provide incentives, one must offer advantages to a limited number of people; and the more limited the number of people, the more effective are the incentives. These incentives are now offered to areas of Canada comprising some 15 per cent of the total Canadian labour force. If, as has been suggested by some members-


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Chairman, would the minister permit a question?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Just a moment. If, as has been suggested by some members, large, additional centres of population are to be added, the incentives become diluted, in the sense that they are available to a much larger segment of the population of Canada, and obviously the areas which are currently most disfavoured will tend to fall even more into disfavour than they have in the past. I think one has to try to resist the temptation to enlarge the areas, or the number of people to whom the incentive area program is available, if one really has a concern or preoccupation for those areas which are seriously, and have been for a long time, effectively disadvantaged.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I have a question in connection with the minister's remarks about the areas which have been seriously affected over a long period of time. Since the minister said that the program was so successful, I wonder if he could list the accomplishments of a few of these programs in the Cape Breton industrial area in general? The minister also referred to the government program of moving workers to areas where employment was available, and referred to it as a very good choice for these people. Is he not aware of the fact that it is a matter of no choice at all? Also, I would like to hear the minister list the successes which have taken place in Cape Breton, which is one of the worst areas in the country in this regard.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I have not the details of the effects on the Cape Breton area-


Donald MacInnis: Then would the minister mind listing the successes anywhere of the program?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I have not the details of the effects on the Cape Breton area, Mr. Chairman, but I will undertake to provide those later on. In so far as the mobility program of the department of manpower is concerned, when the hon. member says there is no choice I suggest that he perhaps does not understand the manpower mobility program. This is a choice offered to the person who is unemployed. He has an opportunity to receive financial assistance in moving from where he is to an area in which there are employment opportunities.


Donald MacInnis: Would the minister not agree that the only time such a choice is accepted is when nothing else can be done by the person affected?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am not presuming to make judgments as to why people exercise these choices. I am just saying that a choice is provided and the government has a program which is designed to encourage manufacturing industry to establish in the designated area and provide, as a consequence, employment opportunities. It offers at the same time and in the same areas financial assistance to those who, for reasons best known to themselves, desire to leave that particular designated area. Both of these steps are aimed at lowering the level or numbers of people who are unemployed in a designated area. I do not presume to say why it is that people avail themselves of either of these alternatives; I am merely saying that the government has provided these choices.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister a question. Since the plan was instituted have there been further negotiations with the provinces-I have in mind particularly the province of Ontario-in regard to the revision of the boundaries of designated areas? Has such a meeting taken place, and has such consideration been given to this matter?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Chairman, we have not been consulting with the government of Ontario in relation to the delineation or termination of boundaries of N.E.S. areas. This is an area in which the federal government, the N.E.S., is the master, if I may use this term, of the delineation of the area.
June 2, 1966

In looking at the suitability or the inequalities, if there may be any, of these areas, factual information in this regard is sought from a great variety of sources, and presumably one of them may well be the provincial government authorities.


Mr, Winkler:: Mr. Chairman, is the minister saying that he does not know whether the department sought the advice of the provincial departments in establishing the areas, or considering amendments that should take place in this regard? Were the provinces not consulted in the first instance with regard to statistical matter or whether they had recommendations to make in regard to the areas that should be chosen?
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The N.E.S. areas have been in existence for a great many years; I am not too sure how long, but ever since the national employment service was organized. To the best of my knowledge neither the advice nor the consent of the provincial government was sought at the time these areas were delineated. When the hon. member asks me whether the advice of the government of Ontario was sought as to which areas in Ontario should be designated and which should not, the answer is no. This is not a joint program. This is a federal government program under the control of the federal government and it is related to the relief of high chronic unemployment. The federal government is in possession of the most accurate statistics in relation to unemployment that are available in the country. They have been obtained from the national employment service and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.
I suggest that no useful purpose could be served by an endeavour to convert this program into a joint program with the provinces, and that there is no point in seeking the consent of the provinces in order to change designated areas or designate new areas.


Mr, Winkler:: I am grateful to the minister for that information, because apparently I have been grossly misled. It was my humble opinion that there was to be some liaison between the department of economics and development of Ontario, and the minister and his departmental officials.
I must disagree with the minister when he says that he has the best statistical information available at the disposal of his departmental officials and government agencies. He knows how I feel about the area in which I 23033-374
Supp ly-I ndustry
live, which was not designated. If one were to make a comparison between that area and other areas that have been designated he would realize that there has been discrimination of such magnitude that one can only conclude that the minister and his departmental officials do not know what is taking place. I take strong exception to this discriminatory action. I disagree entirely with the explanation he has given as to the reasons for the difference of treatment.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: I should like to put a question to the minister.
I referred to two cases this afternoon and I would like to have the views of the minister. Is it in accordance with the spirit of the act, designed to help designated areas, that an industry established in Trois-Rivieres after having bought a property within a mile of that city, should move seven or eight miles farther because of fiscal agreements, and that another, established in Cap-de-la-Madeleine and already in operation, should move 12 or 15 miles downstream toward Shawinigan?
I wonder whether this is not a typical case that the government should look into when the minister will consider amending the act.
What are the minister's views on the matter?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Well, it is precisely to help in such cases.
Now about the moving from Trois-Rivieres to Shawinigan, there is a regulation, a condition that in order to be eligible to the benefits, 90 per cent of the equipment, of the machinery must be new. Used equipment and machinery may not be moved. The machinery must be absolutely new.
So that if a plant is located and operating in Trois-Rivieres, it cannot be moved to Shawinigan with all the equipment and machinery that was being used in Trois-Rivieres and still be entitled to the benefits, because the regulations require that the machinery and equipment be new and, for that reason, it is not possible to move machinery and equipment out of a non-designated area into a designated zone or area, and still eligible to the benefits.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: It is interesting to note that the case in which I referred industry was already located, and normally it would have

June 2, 1966
Supply-Industry
expanded or enlarged there; but because of the advantages provided by this program this new development took place in an area 10 or 12 miles away. I am aware of another case where an industry has purchased an area of property because they felt it was an advantage to them for future development. However, this industry has been attracted by this program and influenced by an industrial commissioner to develop, as I say, 10 or 12 miles away. Surely there is something wrong with a government program when it deprives an area of the development which would normally take place because of certain advantages offered.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I think the hon. gentleman understood me when I said that this program will not cause industry which has already located in an area to move to another area. The program is designed to attract or persuade entrepreneurs who would, in the ordinary course of events, contemplate the setting up, expansion or creation of new facilities in non-designated areas, to move instead into designated areas. However, in relation to either expansion of or addition to existing facilities, there is no contemplated transfer from one area to another.
If there is going to be growth in Canada, what we are interested in is encouraging a part of that growth to take place in designated areas. Statistically we have found that of the total new industries developed in Canada since the program started, only 15 per cent has been developed in designated areas. It is difficult of course, to say how much of that new investment would have been taken in these areas in any event, but the proportion is probably quite small.
There is an indication that this incentive program has been successful in encouraging at least 15 per cent of new investment, or a large fraction of it, to locate in areas of high chronic unemployment rather than in more favoured areas. In respect of the cases the hon. member has mentioned in Trois-Rivieres and Shawinigan, and the case mentioned by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce, let me say that you are both seized of a problem relating to the drawing of the line between non-designated and designated areas. The line must be drawn somewhere.


Donald MacInnis: Would the minister permit a question? He has referred to the 15 per cent of new development which has taken place in designated areas. Is that an indication of his description of a successful program, and does he not think

that the 15 per cent would have located in these areas in any event?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member had been listening to my explanation he would know that I said there was no way of deciding what percentage of the 15 per cent would have located in these designated areas in any event. In any event employment conditions have improved in certain designated areas to the point that it is now possible to dedesignate them, and this indicates that the program has been effective in at least some areas. There is no question that this program tends to be more successful in some areas than in others. There are some disadvantages which exist in relation to some designated areas which do not exist in others, and some designated areas enjoy more in the way of economic advantages than others. The rate of improvement has been higher in some areas than in others. Unfortunately this rate of improvement is not equal across the board.


Donald MacInnis: Everything apparently boils down to the fact that the minister considers that the 15 per cent figure indicates the success of the program.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Fifteen per cent of total new investment in Canada has taken place in designated areas.


Mr. Schreyer:: I am not in a position to argue the relative success or failure of the designated area program across the country, but may I ask the minister whether he would not agree that in the case of Manitoba, for example, the program has no relevance and it is difficult to see how it can have relevance as long as it is based upon or oriented toward unemployment statistics. From what the minister has said I understand it must apparently be so because of the constitutional requirements. And yet it is a fact that in Manitoba, areas of high chronic unemployment and underemployment-and there are large areas of that kind-are ones in which there is an inadequate national employment service coverage and registration. Consequently, to my mind at least, it is difficult to see how this program could ever be applied in regard to such areas. The only areas which could conceivably be eligible under the designated area program at the present time would be precisely those industrial metropolitan cities like Winnipeg, Brandon and so on, which, in most likelihood, will never require the assistance of this designated area program. However, vast parts of the province could use this
June 2, 1966

program as long as it is oriented toward or based upon registration of unemployment, and yet they will never become eligible because no data is available.
This brings me to my second question, Mr. Chairman. It is my understanding that the legislative assembly of the province of Manitoba passed a virtually unanimous resolution requesting the federal government, through the aegis of this designated area program, to apply it to all of the province. I do not think that this was done facetiously or in a bantering manner. I wish to ask the minister how he was able to deal with this particular request, which was endorsed by the provincial legislature.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I do recognize that there are areas where the N.E.S. registrations are not an accurate measure of unemployment in the area, as I have tried to explain earlier. In a sense, the more an area is rural the more this tends to be the case. It is precisely for that reason that recourse is had to D.B.S. which makes a much more profound study of non-farm family incomes. An examination of the average level of these incomes tends to indicate concealed unregistered unemployment or underemployment. By looking at both N.E.S. registrations, which may or may not be accurate, and the average non-farm family income, one is able to get a fairly good measure of unemployment in the area.
As I have indicated, this is not an economic development program. It is a federal program designed to provide employment opportunities through industrial growth in areas suffering from high chronic unemployment. There are a number of other schemes, of which ARDA is one, where projects aiming at economic growth through industrial, agricultural or forestry development are jointly conceived and undertaken with the provinces.
In so far as the government of Manitoba is concerned, the federal government co-operates with the provincial government in developing economic development programs which constitutionally must be joint and collaborative affairs. In those areas of Manitoba where it has been statistically determined that there is a relatively high chronic unemployment measured by either of the two tests I indicated, the federal government provides a program of incentives aiming at the creation of job opportunities through the establishment of new manufacturing industry or the expansion, to an appropriate degree, of existing manufacturing industry.
Supply-Industry


Mr. Winch:: I wish to ask the minister a question. In view of the fact that the minister exercises his functions in the dual capacity of Minister of Industry and Minister of Defence Production, can he tell me whether he has been able to bring about an extension of the Canadian manufacturing industry or the establishment of new manufacturing concerns. Can he give us any examples of cases in which he has been successful in doing so? My opinion is that he has been rather successful in co-ordinating the two ministries of industry and defence production. Can he give us any information on the correlation between these two fields of activity, and on any success achieved in the maintenance and extension or the establishment of new industries?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I rather think of the role of the Department of Industry as being the establishment of a climate or an economic framework in Canada, which will lead to the creation and expansion of manufacturing industry in this country in an efficient and progressive manner. I think what the hon. member is trying to have me speak about is the role of promotion.


Harold Edward Winch: Yes, in the area of defence production, because of your authority in that field.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The hon. member wishes me to speak about the promotion of individual manufacturing concerns. I think it is rather dangerous and at times invidious when governments endeavour to claim any measure of credit for the establishment of new manufacturing operations when in fact the responsibility for either the expansion or the establishment of new manufacturing operations is that of the entrepreneur, the man who puts up the risk capital. He is the fellow responsible for this, not the government. The role of the government is to endeavour to establish an appropriate economic framework in which this kind of operation by entrepreneurs and by private enterprise can and will take place.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)


Harold Edward Winch: I am afraid the minister did not answer my question. He holds a cabinet position in a dual capacity. In one he is Minister of Industry, and in the other he is in charge of defence production. As Minister of Defence Production and Minister of Industry has he been able to correlate those two functions so as to tie in with the Department of Industry the expansion of manufacturing concerns? Has he been able to bring new

June 2, 1966
Supply-Industry
manufacturing into the country, as Minister of Defence Production and Minister of Industry? I may not be expressing my question very well, but has he had any opportunity of doing this? If so, can he give us any examples of how he has worked to correlate his two functions?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Quite obviously the government, including myself, will endeavour to correlate the work of all government departments toward the objective of expanding production, as well as making more efficient manufacturing industries in Canada.
There have been cases where, as a consequence of orders placed by the Department of Defence Production, through our ability to place substantial orders for defence equipment there have been established in this country manufacturing facilities for articles which previously were imported. It is interesting to note that the function of the Department of Defence Production will be taken over by the department of supply for the whole of the federal government.
That is the defence production side of the operation. Through the work of the Department of Industry, assistance has been given to firms whose business has been initiated on a defence basis for the production of defence equipment-because plant and machinery have been set up, and trained personnel have been with the firms because of defence orders -to set up other types of business-


Harold Edward Winch: Have you done that yet? Can you give us any examples where this ideological position has been carried through?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Would you like me to name a company?


Harold Edward Winch: Give us an example. The minister is not talking about the future? I take it that he is talking about what is happening now.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: This has been done.


Harold Edward Winch: What has the minister done? What has been done to tie in defence production and the Department of Industry, in bringing about the expansion of old, and the introduction of new manufacturing industry?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I have just endeavoured to explain how this is done. I take it the hon. member wants an example. Does he want the name of a company?


Harold Edward Winch: I want to know what the achievements have been.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: We are making progress. I cannot give you figures of investment, production and growth covering all these things. We have not any specific program directed toward this combination of functions. I propose at a later stage to provide some more information indicative of the success of this work.


William Arnold Peters: As I listen to the minister I become more and more confused as to what this program is doing, and what the intention of the minister is in accomplishing anything under the terms of designation.
Before saying anything more may I express my appreciation of the remarks the minister made previously. I do not want him to beware of Greeks bearing gifts, or anything like that, but we do appreciate the remarks he made about the changes he would recommend in his department, in terms of automobile safety, in the light of the problem which was discussed earlier this afternoon.
Dealing with designated areas, the minister made a number of very odd statements. I hope that he will bring his officials down, to sit by him on the floor of the house so that we can go into the various designations he has dealt with. Frankly, I want to know why every one of the areas involved was designated. I may be wrong in my assumption, and the minister must know if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that designations took place in a joint meeting of the provincial and federal authorities. It is also true that the areas so designated were not designated on the basis of unemployment districts, or with relation to non-farm incomes. There are designations in the second part of appendix D of the order in council that were based on the census statistics of the revised criteria. Those are the ones that I believe have no relation to the criteria that the minister has talked about today.
I should like to know on what basis the areas have been chosen, and I should also like to know what has been accomplished, in areas that have been designated, that can be directly attributed to the revised criteria of this plan. What industries have been brought into the areas? Those are questions the minister ought to answer.
What was done in specific areas? How many areas have been designated for only a period of time, and how many areas fall into
June 2, 1966

the category of the two areas close to my riding, those of Rouyn-Noranda and Timmins, both of which are designated areas and both of which received absolutely no benefit from the plan, whereas other areas not designated apparently could take considerable advantage of this plan.
It is very interesting to note, and I think the minister will have to explain, why there should be in the province of Quebec 22 areas, and in the province of Ontario seven areas, the areas generally speaking in Ontario being no worse than those in Quebec. In terms of unemployment insurance there does not seem to be any particular difference between most of the areas in Quebec and the ones in Ontario. I should like to talk about some of these areas specifically. However, before I do that I should like the minister to bring his officials with him so that we can discuss these areas individually.
I am well aware that these estimates are not going to a committee for discussion. I am faced with the situation that developed last year when largely through a mistake on my part, we allowed the passage of the designation program. The minister at that time said, as reported at page 3126 of Hansard for June 30, 1965:
I did undertake unequivocally to table the estimates because this is within my control. I have learned in a very short parliamentary experience not to give undertakings as to what the house may or may not do. I will use my best endeavours to see that these are referred as early as possible after tabling-and I do undertake to table them immediately-to the house committee. Specifically, I think it has been understood, Mr. Speaker, with respect to this question of tabling and referral, that the government undertakes that the order in council designating the designated areas in clause 2(c) will be tabled on the resumption after the summer recess and referred to the standing committee on industry, research and energy development. This will include an opportunity to discuss the criteria.
Mr. Chairman, the minister did not prevaricate. He said that you can never understand what is going to happen here. Neither can we. We were interested in coming back in the fall and discussing this matter last year. As we all know, an election intervened, bringing another session and another parliament. I assume therefore that the minister is not bound by the commitment he made in that previous parliament. However, I believe he has an obligation to bring these criteria before the standing committee. That has not been done, and as there is no indication that it will be done I think we must discuss the matter in detail in this committee. Therefore
Supply-Industry
I suggest that the minister bring down his officials, because we will be asking about specifics; if the minister does not do so he may have difficulty answering some of the questions.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
The minister said this program had no relationship to the joint federal-provincial programs. He said this program is operated by the federal government, specifically in the field of unemployment insurance responsibility, over which the federal government has jurisdiction. I do not think that is true, Mr. Chairman. I think the program has been administered in conjunction with the provinces. There are people on the staff of the minister's department attached to the various programs, some of whom I could name. They are working in close conjunction with the economic development agency in the province of Ontario.
When the Prime Minister decided consideration would have to be given to a modification of the criteria, a committee was formed on which he asked a number of senior civic officials to sit. This committee will be negotiating not only with the officials of the minister's department but with officials in Ontario, and they are not going to be satisfied at all with this buck-passing from Ottawa to Toronto and then back again. Eventually we will find out exactly where the breakdown occurs.
If what the minister said today is his interpretation of what his department is going to do, then we need look no further. If he is not going to co-operate with the provinces and thinks he will be able to bring in a plan which will put industry into certain areas without the co-operation of the provinces, then he might as well forget the whole program.
But, Mr. Chairman, shortly after the criteria were developed I understand there was a meeting between the Prime Minister, the federal minister and a number of provincial cabinet ministers, and they made a decision on the criteria. I should like to go over some of them.
In Ontario they decided to designate places such as Bracebridge, Collingwood, Elliot Lake, Midland, Owen Sound, Parry Sound and Sturgeon Falls; and I should just like to look at each in turn.
There is no question about Bracebridge being an unemployment insurance area. This area is a summer resort and has been for

June 2, 1966
Supply-Industry
years. Most Toronto members have cottages in the Bracebridge-Muskoka area.


An hon. Member:: No, they cannot afford them.


William Arnold Peters: Some of them cannot, but they have friends who can, and they do visit the Bracebridge area. This area of Bracebridge has seasonal unemployment. The people who work in the tourist industry also engage in agriculture of a fairly low standard. Bracebridge is really a tourist operation, which is seasonal, and would meet the criteria outlined by the minister. However, in my opinion it does not satisfy most of the representations which were made when developing the criteria last June, nor the type of program most members of parliament want.
The minister may not be aware of this, but most members of parliament who do not represent major urban areas are faced with exactly the same problem. I outlined the other day the pebble theory, where industry spreads out from metropolitan areas a certain distance, and then spreads even farther. That is not what most members or the Prime Minister said they wanted. The Prime Minister said that the importance of the proposals was that Canadians living in areas where jobs are most needed would have a better chance to improve their livelihood because of the scope of this program, which provides opportunity for industrial development and improved skills. He did not say that it was a program under which people who have been unemployed will get employment or be moved into other areas. This program is to develop places without industry at the present time, so as to provide jobs for the people already living there.
Now let us take a look at Collingwood, which is another small town with one or two industrial developments in the shipbuilding field. The employment is highly seasonal. I may be wrong in my seasons, but I think there they work in the winter and are laid off in the summer. The predominant industry is tourism, which is now a year-round operation because of the ski resorts in the area. But the summer tourist industry does provide for a seasonally unemployed segment of the population.
Elliot Lake, Mr. Chairman, is in a completely different category. The federal government is responsible for the area because of the botching up of the Canadian uranium program. Elliot Lake falls into a special category. If the government were to establish
IMr. Peters.]
there government owned and sponsored industries, such a step would probably be justified. Central Mortgage and Housing financed a large portion of the housing in the area, and have had to heat it and provide for its upkeep even though no one was living in the houses. Elliot Lake is a national disaster area as far as employment is concerned. It is not a question of unemplomyent but of employment. No one is unemployed in Elliot Lake. I am sure you would find unemployment in Elliot Lake is almost nil, and for the simple reason that as the mines closed down there was not a chance in Hades of further employment opportunities in the area. That is one of the problems, of course, which we face.
I would have no objection to the inclusion of Elliot Lake, except I think we would be justified in saying that unemployment figures were not the cause of its inclusion. I think you could show that over a period of time the employment figures dropped from a maximum of 6,000 to 2,000. At the same time you could not show there was any potential employment likely in the area. It is really a little like the situation at Bell Island. When the iron ore industry closed down, the people employed in the area obviously had to move away because there was no alternative employment there for them. Unless they were prepared to go on welfare they just had to move out.
Midland is in the same category as Bracebridge and Collingwood. A shipbuilding industry is in operation in the winter, doing refits. In the summertime the workers often take summer employment, assisting those who are seasonal workers in the tourist industry.
I am sure there is not a great deal of difference in the Parry Sound area; there is great similarity in the areas of Parry Sound, Owen Sound, Midland, Collingwood and Bracebridge.
Sturgeon Falls is in another category. There has been a large forest products industry there over a period of time. One of the major mills run by Abitibi at Sturgeon Falls was operating at near capacity the last time I visited the area, and I do not think you could show any long and continuous period of unemployment there.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Unless I am wrong about these cases, the argument the minister has used does not apply. I suggest it never did apply, and that an arrangement was made. A number of people sat down at a table and bargained
June 2, 1966

about these things. I want to congratulate the members from Quebec because they did a better job of bargaining than did some of the others.
Let us take a look at what was done in the census division. Take Parry Sound. I will make no comment about that because I do not understand why Parry Sound should be designated under the program. I do not know what the census criterion is. This was not included in the legislation we passed last year, to my knowledge. Take Haliburton, Ontario. To the best of my knowledge, Haliburton has had a number of forest products industries. I presume this takes in the sawmill, as well as various resort areas where there would be seasonal unemployment. But conditions in Haliburton today are not much worse than they have been for the last 30 years. They probably have not changed very much in 30 years. There is no acute problem in th:s area; it is a problem of a chronic nature
I turn now to Manitoulin island. Manitoulin island, it seems to me, cannot be considered as being an industrial area. In my opinion the people on the island are not much interested in its becoming an industrial area. I know there are hon. members listening to me who have hunted and fished on the island, and chased deer all round it. They are aware that this is primarily an agricultural area. I believe the Prime Minister can rest assured that when the price of turkeys goes up everyone on the island will be very happy about the situation around Christmas time and Thanksgiving. I doubt whether one would find a serious unemployment picture on Manitoulin island, if one thinks of unemployment in terms of the national unemployment figures as they are usually compiled.
In my opinion these are not the kinds of definitions which fit into the criteria about which the minister has been speaking. Incidentally let me say there are more good people working in the hon. gentleman's department than most people realize. Indeed there is a superfluity of people. He has people there who are probably more frustrated than civil servants in other departments, because their efforts are not being utilized to any degree. These people joined the department to help decentralize industry and provide industrial equality across Canada. But they find this is not being done. It is not being done in Ontario, either, because of the inactivity of the department of economic planning under Mr. Randall. He, like his
Supply-Industry
predecessor, has paid more attention to manufacturing, to sales and to the propaganda side of his department than to the economic development which we believe must take place.
Again, in this department of economic planning there are some very good people. The province has been divided into areas and most of these areas have economic planning agencies. In my own area we have the Northeastern Ontario Development Association. The provincial government is allotting funds to these agencies and these are the agencies which are able to assist the federal government in its economic development projects. I am sure the minister's officials will tell him that co-operation with these agencies is essential if the program he is putting forward is to be anything more than window dressing.
The minister has said it is not wise to extend the boundaries too widely. Can he tell me why all the districts of northern Ontario should not be designated, without interfering with anything being done in connection with other programs? If this were done, areas which have the necessary natural resources would be able to take advantage of industries which are already contemplating expansion.
In my own area the firm of E. B. Eddy will be forced to go into the pulp and paper industry at Elk Lake within the next two years or they will lose their limits. They say it is difficult to raise capital amounting to $45 millions, and they may be right. A program of this kind will assist the company to come into an area where they have limits which they can operate for 30 or 40 years before the expiry date.
Work could be done to develop a chip industry in connection with the pulp and paper process and this would use up a great deal of what are now waste products. These things could happen if leadership were given by the department. But if the minister thinks he can operate this program in isolation, controlling from the top the development of particular industries in the areas he designates, he is under an illusion. He will not be able to get along without the co-operation of the provinces.
I do not know what we can do about this. Last year I decided to carry on a filibuster and I have no objection to doing so again. But it is unfair, and the responsibility must rest solely on the shoulders of the minister if some of the estimates of other government departments do not come up for discussion. I am hesitant to take this course, not because I

June 2. 1966
Supply-Industry
do not think it is possible, but because I do not think we have the right to do it. Surely there is some other way of calling attention to this problem without embarking on a full-fledged filibuster, until everyone is willing to tear their hair.
The minister is a reasonable man. He knows how these things work. He must be aware of the position in his own caucus. He knows that almost everybody in Canada agrees that he should help these areas of slow growth. If they are not getting their fair share of the benefits of the national economy, something should be done to help them.
In my own area there is literally no unemployment. This does not mean we have jobs at Kirkland Lake or that there are as many people in employment as was formerly the case. It means that people get into their cars and drive to Toronto. We have a high school at Kirkland Lake which has 1,200 students. The new Lisgar high school has 900. We have big vocational schools in Kirkland Lake and New Liskeard but almost none of the people we train can find jobs in the area, and so they go to Toronto. My son in Toronto tells me that any time he wants to have a party, within two hours he can contact 100 people from his home area who are living in the city. There are probably 4,000 to 5,000 people in Toronto who should be able to get work in their home area. This is a problem we damned well are going to solve. We are not going to move all our young people out of their home area. As a nation we do not want to see our people move to the United States.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
People move from northern Ontario to southern Ontario simply because the Minister of Industry has not been able to plan development along two simple lines. I ask him to point out any industry he has located in a designated area which does not meet two criteria. Either a man from the area got a bright idea and started a factory with his own money or, alternatively, a firm moved into the area because the raw materials were to be found in it.
In one election I argued that we would have to force industry into northern Ontario. Everybody threw up their hands at my suggestion, but within the last several weeks the minister heard delegates from a number of cities in northern Ontario use the word "force" in connection with the location of industry in that area.
Certainly the minister must provide a carrot. There is a $10 million item provided, but

all he expects to spend on this program in 1965-6 is $300,000. That is how successful the plan is. It is not working; it has not worked. The minister should take this problem to a committee where decisions could be made on the type of program that will provide the necessary development.
One problem in attracting industry to our area is that Mrs. Jones, wife of the superintendent of the plant contacted, wants to shop at Eaton's in Toronto and go to the O'Keefe Centre. Her husband likes to play golf at Runnymede golf course, or whatever the name may be. The manpower department will have to do something about such a problem and point out some of the advantages in northern Ontario, where those who like to do so can ski for six months of the year-although that does not overcome the golfing problem.
Everyone agrees that we want diversification of industry. Building factories on top of factories in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver is not always to the advantage of the nation. Hon. members from the west who are not participating in this debate because it concerns industry will soon face the problem that we have in northern Ontario, with more and more of their people moving into cities and leaving the farms. They are not able to find work down the street or in the next small village. They move to other provinces. I ask, does everybody in Manitoba finally wind up in Winnipeg? Does everybody in Saskatchewan end up in Regina? Does everybody in Alberta end up in Edmonton?
The representatives in Toronto are equally silent on this problem. They just do not believe there is anything but southern Ontario. Occasionally they may take a trip to northern Ontario to fish, but that is about all. The criteria we established are not working. The criteria which we passed in June last year-and I have the sessional paper the minister tabled in August-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I must advise the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: I have only two questions to put to the hon. minister.
I wish to assure him again that my constituents are pleased with the work that the Department of Industry has been doing for three years, and especially with the supervisors chosen. I am not acquainted with all of them; however, I know one of them, Mr. June 2, 1966

Lavigne, who worked in other fields for several years. If all the other supervisors are as able and as well qualified as he is, I suppose we can expect substantial results in the industrial field of this country.
Mr. Chairman, it is in this spirit that I wish to ask two questions of the minister.
Trois-Rivieres has but one industry, newsprint, of which we are the biggest producers in the world.
But cities which have one industry, as you know, are in danger of being in a bad way should that industry fall into a slump at some time. Now, industries at Trois-Rivieres were the first to set up here in Canada. Machinery and equipment have become obsolete and the industry must invest millions to modernize if it is to compete with other paper industries or other factories.
How long can this last? Of course, one cannot tell, but one can foresee that some day competition will force them to slow down their production.
That causes a problem on the outskirts of Trois-Rivieres and attracts the unemployed from the area. I wonder if the administration could not diversify assistance to industry to prevent stagnation from setting in? For the purpose of this discussion, let us say it would not be in the Trois-Rivieres area but on the outskirts, at Trois-Rivieres-Ouest, Baie-Jolie, Notre-Dame-du-Lac, Cap-de-la-Madeleine or Champlain, thus making possible an extension of the industrial zone. That is my first question.
Now, for my second question.

I w 11 ask it in English so that you will realize I am not biased and am not engaging in any kind of jingoism. I mentioned the matter this afternoon. I notice that among some 30 higher staff members of the minister's department there are only three French names, and I would like to have the minister's reaction to suggestions for improving the situation.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In respect to the second question there are, as you know, Mr. Chairman, a limited number of French speaking Canadians in the government service. On a number of occasions there has been an expression, by and on behalf of the government, of a desire to have more. Intensive efforts are being made to endeavour to recruit and interest those of French speaking culture in the federal service, and I am one of those who engage in this effort. If the hon. gentleman has any
Supply-Industry
candidates for my department I shall be very glad to hear about them.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)

With regard to the second point and, perhaps, the first two points, as I said a while ago, it is not a program for the economic development of a province but a program dealing with chronic unemployment.
In the city of Trois-Rivieres, at the present time, at any rate, there is a little unemployment.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: A lot more than just a little.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I admit that the paper mills in Trois-Rivieres are becoming somewhat obsolete. The Department of Industry has a program for modernization and for the introduction of new production methods with federal government assistance.
I do hope the companies in Trois-Rivieres will get information on that program and take advantage of it, if it is advisable.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, some of the French speaking members of the department continuously have been borrowed from the province of Quebec. There has been difficulty in keeping the government in the province of Quebec from borrowing these persons, and thus depleting the department.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In reply to the earlier remarks of the hon. member for Timiskaming, in which he suggested that some kind of a deal has been made between the federal government-I presume represented by the area development agency-and the province, so that swatches of designated areas were given out, and that this is how Quebec happens to have more than their share-


William Arnold Peters: I do not wish to leave the impression that the area development agency did this; I did not say that. I said that there was a meeting I believe between the premier of the province and the Prime Minister, and this is the disclosure which flowed from that meeting. This is my impression, because a press release was put out from that meeting which had this disclosure in it.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that that is a mistaken impression. At a federal-provincial conference at which the Prime Minister and the premier were In attendance, there was a notion of a federal

June 2, 1966
Supply-Industry
government program designed to bring employment opportunities to those areas and regions of Canada suffering from highly chronic unemployment. This is the program which gives effect to that particular intention. I suggest to the hon. gentleman that if he reads and understands the criteria, and if he applies those criteria to the published figures of the national employment service and to the published figures of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics in relation to non-farm family income, he himself will be able to work out the list of designated areas; he can do it. There is no magic; it is just arithmetic.


William Arnold Peters: Tell me how you did it in the case of Manitoulin island; give me an example.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Manitoulin island, as an island, is not a designated area. It lies within the Elliot Lake national employment service area.


William Arnold Peters: No. If the minister will check the order in council he will find it comes under a different classification. It is under the counties census division in appendix D. It is not in with the Elliot Lake or Sturgeon Falls area. It would have to pass over the Espanola employment service area. So far as I know it is not serviced by either Elliot Lake or Sturgeon Falls.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I may have misled the hon. member on that.
In response to the question about Manitoulin island, the criteria are those applicable to the designation of the national employment service area as such, provided they meet certain quantitative criteria. The regulations also provide that a county or census division-and Manitoulin island is a county-if it is contiguous to a designated area and provided it meets certain criteria, is also designated. A county or census division, not in the circumstances a national employment service area, which meets the criteria, can be designated provided it is contiguous to a national employment service area. That is why it is separated from the Elliot Lake area.


William Arnold Peters: Obviously you are putting it contiguous to Elliot Lake and Sturgeon Falls. You will agree that Elliot Lake does not meet the criteria that you used, because there are no people unemployed in Elliot Lake. It is quite true the unemployment figure was high, but very suddenly it dropped down to a minimal base. That minimal base is the employment picture in Elliot Lake now. There is

no unemployment in Elliot Lake, although there is no employment other than in the uranium industry. There is a sawmill which employs 20 or 30 men at the edge of the town, but all the others would have to be service industries to the uranium industry. There are no unemployed. As soon as the men are unemployed they go to another area. Not only did the people move out, but the department here paid them to do so.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
It is not really true that the criteria set down apply to Elliot Lake. I am not objecting to Elliot Lake being designated, because the government has some specific responsibility in this regard, but I do not think the criteria apply.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure that the hon. gentleman has a copy of appendix A of the regulations, but if he will look at paragraph 1(b) he will see that it states under the heading "Criteria respecting designated areas under section 9 of the Department of Industry Act":
1. An area is deemed to require special measures to permit economic development or industrial adjustment by reason of the exceptional nature or degree of unemployment therein and may be proposed for designation by the governor in council as a designated area under section 9 of the Department of Industry Act if it is:
(b) a national employment service area in which for the most recent five years employment has declined at an annual rate of more than 10 per cent:
If the hon. gentleman will take the N.E.S. figures he will find that for the most recent five years the employment in that area has declined at an annual rate of more than 10 per cent. That being so I suggest that Elliot Lake fits the criteria and it should be and has been designated.


Mr. Webb:: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be very brief. I should like to ask the minister to consider the method by which areas are designated. I am sure he realizes that the figures are associated with larger cities and that many small towns and villages within 100 or 125 miles are not taken into consideration, because of the distance and the inconvenience people find in registering at unemployment insurance offices.
I am sure the minister will remember that the Prime Minister promised that one of the first duties of the Department of Industry would be to consider assistance to the people of the Bancroft area, because of the closing down of the uranium mines there. This area
June 2. 1966

has as yet not been given consideration, and X should like to ask the minister why that is the case.
I hope that the minister's department is not operating on a patronage system, but it does seem strange that the latest figures show that 180 projects have been approved in the province of Quebec, which has a Liberal government, and that 150 projects in the province of Saskatchewan, with a Liberal government, have been approved. In comparison, the number of approved projects in other provinces are in the neighbourhood of 50.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I regret to say that somebody has been feeding my hon. friend phony information.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: I got my information from one of the departments.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I repeat my statement: Somebody has been feeding the hon. gentleman phony information.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: And I repeat that I received my information from the department.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Would you give me again the number of new projects in the province of Saskatchewan which have been approved?


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: I suggested that there were approximately 150 projects that had been approved, but I think the actual number is 147 or 148.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I again repeat my statement: The hon. gentleman has been misinformed. I hope that he will tell me privately who in my department has been giving him information that is untrue. In the province of Saskatchewan as of April 30 there were 22 projects approved.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is quite a difference.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, could the minister give us similar information in respect of the other provinces?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes. Perhaps I could do so in a more orderly fashion by giving the figures in respect of provinces in an alphabetical order. In Alberta there have been five projects approved with a total investment of something over $2.5 million, with a projected employment of 319; in British Columbia there have been 13 projects approved with a total investment of $3.1 million with a projected employment of approximately 320.
Supply-Industry


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Surely that cannot be patronage.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In Manitoba ten projects have been approved with a total investment of $24.7 million with a total employment of 434. A statement was made before the dinner recess to the effect that this program meant nothing to Manitoba and that the people there hoped it would be withdrawn. It appears to have been more successful in terms of investment and unemployment in Manitoba than in British Columbia.
In New Brunswick 55 projects have been approved with a total investment of $154.7 million, and with a projected employment of 4,552; in Newfoundland 14 projects have been approved with a total investment of $35.8 million, and with a projected employment of 919; in Nova Scotia 43 projects have been approved with a total investment of $101,994,000, with a projected employment of 2,598. In this regard, 11 projects have been approved in the New Glasgow area with a total investment of $58,675,000, with a projected employment of 1,371; three projects have been approved in Sydney with a total investment of $34,106,000 with a projected employment of 210, and at Sydney Mines one project has been approved with a total investment of $88,000 with a projected employment of five. As I understand it, the last three places are in Cape Breton.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. It is obvious that the minister knows little about these projects. Would he look at a map and orientate himself in respect of Nova Scotia so that he will at least have some idea of the geography.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I would be glad to do that, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Byrne:: You are always annoyed.


Donald MacInnis: If the
hon. member from British Columbia has something to say to me, I think he should bear in mind what happened recently when he spoke outside this house.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Always mad.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In Ontario there were 197 projects approved with a total investment of $332,659,000, with a projected employment of 13,037; in Prince Edward Island 12 projects have been approved with a total investment of $6,331,000, with a projected employment of

June 2, 1966
Supply-Industry
992; and in Quebec there were 98 projects approved with a total investment oi $229,953,000, with a projected employment oi 8,077. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member, who was apparently misinformed by somebody about the number of projects in Quebec, is not here.


Donald MacInnis: On a
point of order, Mr. Chairman, the remark of the hon. gentleman on the other side of the chamber was certainly not called for. The hon. member referred to did not run away; he went up to his office to confirm the information given to him by the minister's department, and he will be back in the chamber later on.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I mentioned Saskatchewan earlier, which has 22 projects. Investments total $60,871,000, and prospective employment is 686. I should make clear, as I have in answer to parliamentary questions, that this represents advice to the area development agency of the plans of owners or prospective owners of industrial enterprises of building or investing in new plant or expansion of plant with a view to availing themselves of the incentives offered under the Department of Industry Act. These projects are in various stages of planning, construction, completion or operation. They are not all at the same level, but this is the best information we have as to current accomplishments or intentions to invest.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, when the minister was speaking a short time ago he made reference to something I said before dinner. In case he has misinformed the committee I want to put the committee straight and say that I referred to Manitoba. I said that I believed that the formula the government was using was wrong, and I did not make the statement the minister attributed to me. The minister said that I said this program had done nothing for Manitoba. My remarks in respect of Manitoba were a repetition of what the hon. member for Pro-vencher said, namely that the formula the department is using is wrong. The department is using unemployment figures, and reference was made to family income figures. The minister said that this figure was not correct and cited the example of Brandon, where the family income was something around $3,900 a year. It was said that in the hon. member's area, which is not a designated area, the family income is around $3,600 a year. Therefore the formula is wrong; and

even if it is correct, the minister's department is not following it.


Mr. Fane:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister where the designated areas are in Alberta? What is the location of them, and where are the five projects in Alberta that the minister mentioned? When I have received an answer to this question I will have some further questions.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, the designated areas in Alberta are the N.E.S. area of Blairmore, and census divisions Nos. 12 and 13.


Frank John William Fane: What does "census divisions Nos. 12 and 13" mean?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: These are statutory census divisions which are defined in the statute. Geographically, they lie north of Edmonton and run from the Saskatchewan border not as far as, but short of, the British Columbia border.


Frank John William Fane: Is there an area in Alberta that is embraced by the provincial counties of Smoky Lake and Bonnyville? Is that in a designated area? I have been told that it is.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I apologize for my geographical ignorance, but I have not the faintest idea where Smoky Lake is. Is it in census divisions No. 12 or 13?


Frank John William Fane: I would not have the foggiest notion where census divisions Nos. 12 and 13 are.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Then our ignorance is mutual.


Frank John William Fane: It is east, or north, of the city of Edmonton. Edmonton happens to be the, capital of Alberta, a city of 400,000 people.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: It might be included. I will have this checked and will let the hon. member know.


Frank John William Fane: Thank you.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to take up any more of the time of the committee, and I will see the minister about this before tomorrow. With regard to the figures which I gave and which are on the record, I went up to my office and checked them. With reference to Quebec the figure is 179; Saskatchewan is 145, and all the other provinces are listed. However, I will get in touch with the minister between now and tomorrow.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Thank you.
June 2, 1966


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister would indicate the project in Sydney to which he referred. How many people are employed and what is the nature of this project?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the Sydney N.E.S. area I gave the figure of three projects, not one. It has been the practice under this program to treat as confidential information relating to plans. The department has not disclosed the names of those who have made plans to avail themselves of these benefits, and the announcement of a project is made by the company. I have undertaken, when certificates entitling the beneficiaries to benefits under the Income Tax Act are issued, to publish the list of those certificates; but until such time as the certificates are applied for and issued we will not be publishing the names of those who have indicated their intention to take advantage of this program.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that a matter such as this must be kept confidential in order to cut down competition. When the minister referred to figures in Sydney and spoke of prospective employment in Sydney, he implied that this had actually taken place. This is not the fact. The Minister of National Health and Welfare has gone across the province bragging about every job that has come up. The government are instituting a coastguard college in Sydney, after removing the naval base, and they are bragging about employing 20 or 30 people in this coastguard college. How can the minister speak now of 200 jobs, when these jobs have not yet come about?
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister a question.
Is it possible to revise a designated area? There is in my riding a parish which is in Compton and the latter is part of the Sherbrooke area. People in that parish have a hard time of it because an industry which used to give work to 300 people closed down about ten years ago and that city is now in a state of stagnation. Life there is very difficult and representations have been made to me to have that city included in a designated area.
Here is the question I would like to ask the minister. Would it be possible to add that parish to a designated area?
Supply-Industry


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, we are now
getting representations such as those the hon. member has just made. I will study them and see what can be done to avoid cases of social or economic injustice.


Reid Scott: Mr. Chairman, we are now becoming very interested in the examination of the designated area program, as the minister probably gathers, and it now appears obvious that his estimates will not be completed tonight. I wish to put some questions to the minister regarding a more general review of his department and I will ask him to take them into consideration and answer me when the estimates come back.
As the committee will remember, this department was set up by legislation two years ago, I believe. At that time many of us who spoke in the debate indicated that we were mystified as to the purpose of the department and how it was going to fit in with departments such as the Department of Trade and Commerce, because we thought that much duplication would result.
Last year we were very easy on the minister because his department had only been set up for a year and we felt he still needed time to organize it. However this time we want to know all about his department. It is an interesting department. If rumour serves me rightly, there are probably more frustrated geniuses in this department than in any other department of the government. I notice that in the estimates, out of a total of 635 employees, 318 earn from $10,000 to $23,000. That buys an awful lot of talent.
I would like to hear from the minister a detailed statement of what these fellows are doing. We hear that the department is cannibalising some other departments to get its employees. They are hiring them away; and, again if some of the stories we hear are true, this is one of the most schizophrenic and disorganized departments. I would like the minister to take some time to tell us in what type of programs the department is engaged, what studies it is making, in what areas they are taking place and in short, take us into his confidence. I do not want the minister to name the companies but I think we are entitled to know in some detail what his department is doing, how it is conducting itself, and particularly what achievements it has made in the last two years.
I hope the minister will tell us a little bit about the liaison between his department and

June 2, 1966
Supply-Industry
the provinces. For example, one of the planners in the province of Ontario told me they have given up the Department of Industry. They came down here, held conferences and then gone home not knowing what on earth is being done here. I suppose it is this smokescreen of confidence regarding confidential matters about which the minister was talking. In fact, you keep them so confidential that the provinces do not know what you are up to. It seems to me there is something wrong in the lack of co-ordination between the federal government and the provinces.
When this department was set up two years ago we asked how it was going to fit in with, for example, the Department of Trade and Commerce. We have never really found out how the work of the Department of Industry is dovetailed with the work of other departments which seem to be doing roughly the same work.
I would like to have some indication from the minister on how these programs originate. Does he decide what the department is going to do? How many of the projects originate with the staff? We hear that a lot of them are frustrated because they cannot get a clear line of activity from the minister, and this is wrong. Perhaps he can tell us about it in his reply.
Those are some of the questions which I would like the minister to answer, and I hope it will be a fairly detailed answer because this is the first time in two years that we have really taken the time to go into his department. We want to give it a good going over while we are at it.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In response to that, Mr. Chairman, may I say that I understood the hon. member to indicate he does not expect an immediate answer from me. However, I will provide him with a copy of the annual report which outlines in considerable detail all the things we have done. I will also furnish him with a copy of my introductory remarks which appear in Hansard and which also, although rather more briefly, indicate answers which he has been seeking.


Howard Earl Johnston: Speaking on the question of the boundaries of designated areas, I wish to point out to the minister that originally the north end of the Okanagan designated area left out the Shuswap lake region possibly because on the federal electoral map it is part of the Kamloops constituency. Within the Shuswap lake region are included the village and municipality of Salmon Arm and the

community of Sicamous. Representations were made on behalf of this combined area, and I believe that, wisely, a change was made which placed the Salmon Arm village and municipality within the designated area. However, it seemed to be forgotten that the representations had included Sicamous as well as Salmon Arm, and that these areas are very close together. I think the Sicamous region could well have been included, speaking in terms of an area to be designated, and it would have made a much more logical map of the north end of that region. If and when a review of this northern boundary is considered, I urge very strongly that the shape of it be rounded out to include the Sicamous region within the designated area.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I do not know the precise answer to this. However, I do know that as a consequence of representations made some time ago, it was agreed that some N.E.S. areas as defined by the previous Department of Labour did not appear to be an economic unit, and that the area which centred on Vernon should include Salmon Arm. As a consequence the area was delineated to include Salmon Arm. This has nothing to do with the designated area program; it is a redelineation of the national employment service area to make it more realistic than it has been in the past. I will be glad to look into the matter of whether, in terms of N.E.S. needs, Sicamous should be included in the Vernon N.E.S. area, which is what I think the member is asking for.


William Arnold Peters: I was surprised by the figures which the minister gave us in relation to Ontario. I still think that there was a lot of monkey business with one designation, but be that as it may, I think there is also something very surprising about Ontario in the designated areas.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Unless I am wrong, the minister said that 197 projects had either been contemplated, undertaken, or were in the process of going on in Ontario. This involved a total of $332 million. If I am not wrong, and I have just roughly added together the unemployment insurance areas, and municipalities and towns, less than 50,000 people are involved. Probably there are 35,000 people in all these towns. Let us say that the entire area surrounding the unemployment insurance area includes 100,000 people. This is a remarkable amount of money to spend on such a number of people. Were this correct, this area would be more
June 2, 1966

heavily industrialized than the city of Montreal. There cannot be 197 industries in these towns. Believe me, if there were, they would be de-designated immediately. This is not true. This situation has not been arrived at yet.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The hon. gentleman said, "This is not true". He should not make misleading assertions. I am sure that the hon. gentleman will recall that one of the N.E.S. areas designated at the beginning of this program was the industrial city of Windsor.


William Arnold Peters: Yes.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Another one was the city of Cornwall, and still another was the city of Brantford.


William Arnold Peters: Yes.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: All three of which, as a consequence of industrial growth and a reduction in unemployment have been de-designated. Nevertheless, in these areas there was, during the period of designation, substantial investment attracted by this program, and a substantial increase in job opportunities. What I gave the hon. member was the Ontario record. I caution him against making any such statement as, "This is not true", because that statement simply is not true.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I am the first to admit I was wrong, and I apologize for having said what I did say. I was misled into using the sessional paper which sets out the new criteria. I did not realize that the areas that were named have been de-designated. I did not realize that this was the total program, and I should have known.
I think the minister will agree with me that if we had 197 factories in these areas that we have now designated, the areas would be booming. Quite frankly we would hope that that is the situation. That of course brings me to another question. I should have been more careful, but the date of the change respecting criteria was August 4, 1965. The areas that the minister mentioned included Windsor, Chatham, Cornwall, Timmins, Wal-laceburg, Rouyn and Val d'Or-perhaps I should not include those last two towns in the Ontario group. I should have only mentioned Chatham, Cornwall, Timmins, Wallaceburg and Windsor. We sometimes forget that the two towns I mentioned at the end of my first list are in Quebec, and therefore do not fit into the Ontario scheme. I might point out that my own town and Rouyn-Noranda
Supply-Industry
played off this year, and Noranda won the all Ontario northern championship in hockey. We sometimes forget that those two towns are not in Ontario.
Since the change in criteria in certain areas has taken place, I should like to ask, separately, as to how many projects are listed under section A. Also, in the census districts-and this involves Haliburton, Parry Sound and Manitoulin-how many of those have expressed an intention with respect to a project? Second, which projects are firm projects, and in which of these areas do those occur?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1 cannot produce that statistical breakdown as between those, in essence, falling before August 4, and those after. That would require an extensive analysis, and a search through a very substantial number of projects involved.
There is also another difficulty. It is sometimes difficult to say whether a project is firm or not. An application is made for information as to the benefits, and as to what is needed to qualify in order to obtain the benefits. This information is provided. Communication is established with the entrepreneur who has expressed interest. We do not, however, follow up these communications in terms of progress reports or periodic inspections. Some of the projects or inquiries may not be proceeded with. I think it is reasonable to say in respect of the projects I have indicated that we feel fairly assured these are not merely, in a sense, the taking of orders, or staking claims. These are projects that are seriously intended and are going ahead.


William Arnold Peters: To my mind it seems that a danger is involved in some of the projects. Was there not some date at which benefits would be sawed off? Was there not a date, which is now past, by which time a project had either to be finalized, or in process, after which time the benefits would not be retroactive?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In respect of a project in an area which has been continuously designated, at the outset of the program the benefits were in the form of income tax relief and increased capital cost allowances. Both these forms of relief come under the Income Tax Act. The entrepreneur would seek and apply for those advantages at a time when he was seeking, or felt he had to seek relief from the payment of income tax. As the hon. member

June 2, 1966
Supply-Industry
knows, a company whose fiscal operations close at the end of the calendar year is not called upon to pay income tax with respect to its corporate activities until the following June 30. It is possible in certain areas of operation for half a year to go by before a corporation would apply for exemption from income tax. Any program of seeking certificates will be in arrears to actual activity.
In 1965 the law was changed, providing, instead of income tax exemptions and substantially increased capital cost allowances, a monetary grant. The monetary grant was to apply only in respect of projects initiated subsequent to the beginning of July. That, if you like, was the turnaround date. I am not sure that is what the hon. gentleman is talking about.


William Arnold Peters: Yes, Mr. Chairman, this is the date. The minister ought to be able to give a breakdown of the sort I asked for, and he ought to be able to distinguish between the total number of designations, including original projects, or original designations, and new designations. The criteria have changed. The assistance is payable in a different manner. There will certainly be a different criterion. This should not be too difficult to sort out. The thing terminated a year ago.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I suppose it is not very difficult to sort out. I have given a list of 470 aid projects. All one need do is to look at each of the 470 projects and decide whether it falls under the first program or the second, in whatever designated area it is. Then the figures could be produced. You just have to examine 470 projects.


Mr. McCulcheon:: I should like to ask the minister a few questions for clarification purposes having to do with the area I represent. Mine is a "D" designated area, and I would like to ask the minister how many new industries were established in the area. By "new" I do mean new-new corporations.
Second, I should like to ask the minister how many enlargements there have been of existing industries. If possible, I should like him to segregate the brand new corporations from, say, new plants which are branches of corporations in other areas. But I would particularly like to know how many new entrepreneurs have entered the area.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, there is a bit of
a problem here. We do not inquire of a man
(Mr. Drury.]
whether he is establishing a brand new business or has been carrying on business elsewhere, whether he has ever been in business before or whether in fact he has had a lot of experience.
In order for any entity which wants to establish business in the Wallaeeburg N.E.S. area-which I think is the area to which the hon. gentleman refers-to qualify, it merely need be a corporation or a company which hitherto has not done business in the locality in which it is going to establish itself. Whether it is the subsidiary of another firm, or is doing business elsewhere in Canada, or has ever been in business before, is not material to this particular program or to the criteria. So, short of sending out a questionnaire to the companies involved to ascertain this particular information, I do not think I could furnish it to the hon. member.
I have seen some of the new plants in Wallaeeburg, and I know that they comprise operations of corporations in Canada which have carried on similar businesses in the United States, as well as independent Canadian operations with no United States affiliations at all. Also they are brand new plants, new operations in the area, as well as expansions of existing operations. You cover all the parameters, but unfortunately I cannot tell the hon. member which are which without either a physical inspection myself or sending out a questionnaire to all the people who have established there.


Malcolm Wallace McCutcheon: May I thank the minister for that explanation. I do not think it will be necessary for him to go out and examine the situation or to send out a questionnaire. When this legislation went through a matter of a few years ago-


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: It made Wallaeeburg very happy.


Malcolm Wallace McCutcheon: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think it did; but the thought I had as the legislation went through was that it was going to do things, one of which was to provide an opportunity for new business; and by "new" business I thought it would be new business. Actually, I think it would be fair to say that the designation of this area has done nothing for brand new business, but it has certainly helped some existing businesses which had tax problems.
I have one more question, Mr. Chairman. How many tax certificates have been issued in that area up to the present time?
June 2, 1966


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I will try to find out, Mr. Chairman; I have not that particular information to hand.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall vote 1 carry?


Reid Scott: No, Mr. Chairman; we are still waiting for answers from the minister. In his earlier remarks the minister made a statement about the purposes of ARDA, and if I took him down correctly he said that the real purpose was to establish a climate. How does he do that? Can he tell me more about how you establish this climate?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In case the hon. gentleman would not understand the term "establish a climate", perhaps he understands the alternative term I also used, "establish an economic framework in Canada", within which an efficient manufacturing industry can prosper and grow.


Reid Scott: The minister has been before the committee quite a while, Mr. Chairman, and I can understand he is getting tired, but I do not know why he is getting so sensitive to questions from the opposition. After all, our duty is not necessarily to heap mountains of praise upon a minister, but to try to find out how a particular department functions, what it does, and so on. We have not found this out up to the present time.
Let me rephrase my question. If the purpose is to establish an economic framework, how is the minister's department doing this? What is it doing to bring about an economic framework? This to me is just a phrase. Can he add to that and tell us more about it?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I have asked for a copy of the annual report. Unfortunately the copy was sent down which is in French. Would the hon. gentleman make use of the French copy, or would he like to wait for one in English?


Reid Scott: Mr. Chairman, I am on the horns of a dilemma here. This really is ridiculous. Surely the minister knows what his department is doing. Why the reticence to tell us about it? All we want from him is to tell us how his department operates.
We are under the impression, perhaps wrongly, that there is a lot of confusion in the department. When we get to the salaries item I want to go through the tremendous number of people involved and find out what are the areas of responsibility and what has
Supply-Industry
been allocated to them. There are an enormous number of high priced people employed, to which no one objects, if we want the department to function efficiently. But we do want to know a great deal more about the department than we have been able to extract from the minister. I am prepared to stay with the department almost indefinitely. Surely the minister can tell us how this department functions. I want to examine how it works with the provincial agencies, and that sort of thing.
As I say, we are under the impression that things are getting mixed up, though we could be wrong. But we do want some clarification. I hope the minister will not be so sensitive about this. As a start, can he tell me about this economic framework and how his department goes about building it?
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The amiable hon. member said I was sensitive. I hope I am not, when it comes to questions seeking information. But for the hon. member to stand up and say after two days of general debate during which a good deal of specific information has been provided in answers, that he is uncertain about how the department works, leads me to fall into the trap of attributing motives, a thing which politicians are not supposed to do.
The hon. member can easily see the kind of intention of which I suspect him. I must either assume I am in the presence of a two-man filibuster, or else that the hon. member is rather more stupid than hitherto I thought him to be. The second alternative is not really acceptable to me so I am driven back to the first.
If the hon. member really wishes to learn more about the department I will provide him with the literature. It is clear the hon. member and his colleague have no intention of allowing this item to pass before ten o'clock and I think he had better do his reading after hours. If he and his hon. friend would allow this first item to go through I will be delighted to provide answers to specific questions and give all the information I can.
I am always glad to let people know what we are doing, why we are doing it and how we are doing it. But to invite me at this juncture to make a speech on economic development in Canada is something of an insult to my intelligence. It is also an insult to the committee whose time is being wasted.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

June 2, 1966
Supply-Industry


Mr.   Scoll@Danforlh: That is certainly calculated to expedite the examination of the estimates. Again I wish to return to the questions which were posed earlier. Subject to your direction, Mr. Chairman, I do not think some of them can be answered on specific items because they deal with general policy matters. Those of us who sit on this side of the house sometimes get weary of these phrases the ministers throw out about filibustering. As the hon. gentleman well knows, nobody over here ever filibusters anything; all we are interested in doing is giving legislation the careful and thorough examination it merits.


An hon. Member:: Oh yes?


Reid Scott: And that is what we are trying to do in the case of the estimates now under consideration. This is a department which has only been functioning for two years, and it does not seem unreasonable that we should examine its affairs and see what progress is being made.
All too often members of the press gallery write articles describing how we push estimates through without giving them due consideration. It seems we cannot win. If we put the stuff through quickly, we are criticized; if we examine it carefully, the minister or his colleagues accuse the opposition of engaging in a filibuster. I disregard the hon. gentleman's insulting statement about stupidity. Again, I do not know why the minister is so sensitive-


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the suggestion of a filibuster did not arise with me. It came from the hon. member's colleague, who told us he did not like the notion of having to engage in a filibuster-that he regretted having to do it. It was his suggestion, not mine.


Reid Scott: I was not in the
committee when he spoke, but my information was that he did not intend to do this-he did not want to do this. He made it clear he in no way intended to carry on a filibuster.


An hon. Member:: But was willing to do so.


Reid Scott: Oh he is always willing to do so. But we should get back to the estimates of the department and not quarrel about whether there is a filibuster or not.
Can the minister tell me about the method of consultation with the provinces and to what extent he is working in co-ordination
(Mr. Drury.]
with the provinces? I was not being facetious when I said that some of the people in the Ontario department had told us they had not been able to find out the general area of the federal department's activities, and were not able to integrate their own thinking and planning with the projects the department is undertaking. This is serious. If there is a conflict between a powerful provincial planning agency and the minister's department, and if information is not constantly passing back and forth, the wastage of money and effort is terrific. It seems to me to be worth while spending a few minutes in an attempt to clarify this point.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: From time to time I meet with the Minister of Economics and Development of Ontario, generally in relation to specific points, and we have discussions either here or in Toronto. Similar meetings take place between my deputy minister and his deputy minister, again in relation to specific points rather than generalities. There is a link between other rather more subordinate officials in the department and their counterparts at Queen's Park, not only on the departmental side but in respect of the area development agency.
In addition there is an annual conference of the deputy ministers of the ten provinces held in or near one of the provincial capitals. This is attended, as a guest, by the deputy minister of industry and, also as guests, by the ministers of industry or their equivalents from the provinces. Collective sessions are held for a period of between 24 and 48 hours.
Then there is, of course, the long distance telephone, and very considerable correspondence. From what I have seen in the way of testimonial correspondence emanating from Mr. Randall's department in Toronto, I find it difficult indeed to subscribe to the view which the hon. member appears to have formed that Ontario has been unable to learn what the Department of Industry in Ottawa is all about. I do not know who the hon. member's informant is, but he is certainly not the person or persons who have written to us.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Ovide Laflamme: Mr. Chairman, I apologize for taking up the time of the committee for a few moments. I rise on a question of privilege related to standing order 41 of the House of Commons as well as paragraph 108 of Beau-chesne's fourth Edition on the rights and privileges of the house.
June 2, 1366

Last night, in Quebec city, the Canadian flag this house adopted was flown on the Rocamadour patro building.
The leader of the Union Nationale, who held his meeting in that building, ordered his organizers to call on Father Bernier, who was in charge of the building, to remove the Canadian flag, our national emblem, before the meeting.
This act constitutes a blow to my privileges as a member of parliament, to the privileges of all the members of this house, for it concerns an act passed by the house two years ago; it is also an insult to all Canadian citizens, at least to those who are truly Canadian citizens.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. May I tell the committee that the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency who has risen on a question of privilege cannot do so at this time because it is out of order and because the house is in committee.


Maurice Allard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would the hon. member tell the house whether this Mr. Johnson allowed the flag of the province of Quebec to be hoisted?


Ovide Laflamme: Certainly-


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I ask the hon. members to kindly return to the matter under consideration at present.


William Arnold Peters: I am surprised at some of the minister's remarks because we have not been rough on him in the past, regarding this matter. Area development is almost the sole program whereby the federal government can be of assistance to many parts of Canada. That program is the hope of many agricultural sections, particularly of northwestern Ontario, which is experiencing a decline in population and is not participating in the national average economic growth.
Plans made under the area development program by the Department of Industry could be of great assistance to my part of the country. I would make no apology for filibustering, but I have no intention of doing so because I believe it would be pretty futile. If the minister is not going to honour the commitment he made the house last year, then he is not likely to honour any commitment he would make tonight in order to get his estimates passed. We had hoped the matter of designation and criteria would go before a committee. If the minister is willing to let that happen I am prepared to sit down.
Supply-Industry
The minister really does not understand the criteria. This is not a program similar to ARDA. ARDA is not going to build industries and factories, although some limited industrial development can take place under it. It is not an adjunct to this program.
I agree pressure was put on the minister to have this go to a committee where the criteria could be discussed, but he has not seen fit to let that happen. If he wants me to agree to the passing of his estimates I would still be willing to take his word, if he says he will send the criteria and designations to a committee, as he agreed to do last June. If not, I am going to discuss each individual case because I want to know what happened and why it did not work.
I have lots of time, Mr. Chairman. Maybe the minister's colleagues and some other hon. members do not, but this matter is important not only to me but to all hon. members who live in the northern parts of Canada. This applies to northern Quebec, and Quebec members should take a look at the situation because, as the hon. member for Villeneuve said the other day, this problem is as acute in his areas as it is in mine. I am sure the same is true in northern Manitoba, northern Alberta, northern Saskatchewan and northern B.C., to say nothing of the maritime provinces.
I think the hon. member for Danforth was right when he said there is a great deal of misunderstanding between the province of Ontario and the federal government. I was of the opinion that the minister had personnel working in co-operation with the Ontario government on economic development, but if this is not true I will be surprised.
Maybe when the minister returns to the chamber tomorrow he will be able to indicate what developments have taken place since last summer in Bracebridge, Collingwood, Parry Sound, Elliot Lake and Sturgeon Falls and, if he wants to, he can throw in Manitoulin island, which I consider to be an interloper on this particular matter.
A considerable change has been made in this program. The minister should read the Throne Speech in which it was indicated that this program was to help slow growth areas of Canada, and equalize opportunities for employment for all the people of Canada. That was the election promise which was made in most of the non-urban ridings in Ontario during the last federal election.
We are anxious to understand this program and we are trying as hard as possible to

June 2, 1966
Supply-Industry
persuade the minister to be open minded about making a change, because the plan is not working in the areas that need it most. I would like to know what has happened in the province of Quebec in places like Aylmer, Gaspe and Maniwaki, and in Mont Laurier, which is not far from here, and in Matane and Megantic. These are small communities which are not in a similar position to places like Chatham, Windsor, Wallaceburg; or a place such as Cornwall, which is situated on the St. Lawrence seaway and able to take advantage of the development of the seaway. There is a considerable difference between these communities.
If this is a good plan I would like to know what objection there is to changing the criteria. I may be wrong about the amount the department has put into it, but if I read the estimates correctly, total expenditure under the statutory provision for incentives for development of industrial employment opportunities in designated areas is to be $300,000, which is not much out of a $10 million program.
If that is all we are spending out of a $10 million program, can the minister give me any good reason why we should not extend the program to other areas that are not covered by it? Personally I cannot see why he is reluctant to do this or to consider it.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
If we have the money and if the government is interested in developing secondary industry in areas where there is a slow growth situation, we should be prepared at least to set up a relationship with the provincial government to see what can be mutually worked out between the two to spend some of the $10 million we are providing. I do not know whether or not the minister knows off hand what industries are developing in Bracebridge, or whether there is going to be any development in Collingwood or some of the other communities. It would not be difficult for me to take a drive over to check. I think I could phone Toronto and find out from one of the area development agencies in Ontario whether or not there has been any talk. It always is very interesting to find, in speaking to members of the department, that the interest they have is exactly the same as that being expressed, for instance, in my area, in the Northeastern Development Association. If somebody is talking about a new plant coming in, everybody is talking about it and taking a certain amount of credit for it. So it would seem to me there is a

certain amount of overlapping and some cooperation between the various departments in that regard. For that reason I believe the minister should be in a position to give us this kind of information.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I really do not know what can be accomplished by this. I should like the minister to fulfil the promise he made to the house and send both the criteria and the designated area program to the committee. Previously he agreed to do this. Really I do not see why he disagrees now. I do not see why he would not rather do that than discuss some of these criteria in the house tomorrow. I am sure some of the officials would be quite prepared to take credit for the work they have done, and give an indication of the fields of endeavour which they intend to pursue. I am sure that then the members of the house might be in a position to decide whether or not the criteria are satisfactory to them. So far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, it is neither satisfactory to me nor to the area which I represent. This is well known. It has been well known for some time. The minister, unimpeachable as he may be with his long association with the Department of Defence Production, where they really do not have to answer to anyone, because it is a highly complex field, is perhaps finding it difficult to associate with some of the other persons who have gone into this criteria, and who have not found it is as simple a proposition as the minister has indicated.
Two years ago I had the opportunity to sit in with a number of the officials of the Department of Labour. At that time officials were brought in from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. They discussed the criteria being used at that time and there were new criteria. The criteria about which we were particularly concerned were those which would provide for an increase in the economic growth in those areas where population is decreasing because of the lack of primary industry, particularly those industries that suffered a gradual decline before the five year period which is in the criteria now. I should like to use the example of Kirkland Lake. From 1937 to 1939 Kirkland Lake hit its peak of employment. Following the war it decreased because activities stopped in some of the gold mines in that area. As the mines closed down the population decreased. The population did not fit into the criteria, for the simple reason that those who were over age 50 had worked underground for 30 years and
June 2, 1966	COMMONS
found it impossible to retrain for any type of employment. In addition they had homes in that area, had raised their children there, and had friends there. At that time most of them retired and did not become statistics, so far as unemployment was concerned. They felt they were not employable.
All the young people decided to leave the area because jobs were not forthcoming and they, too, did not become statistics so far as unemployment is concerned. You would then imagine that the second wave of the criteria would apply, the one in respect of a family living in a non-urban population area and having an income of a predetermined figure. It is surprising, in an area where a large number of highly paid salesmen and a large number of teachers and professional people make their home and are not in the employee field, that a mockery is made of the family income, which is one of the criteria for the designation. It is more than surprising to those who know the area that the income in the Kirkland Lake area, according to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, is about $500 higher than the income in Noranda, and about $400 higher than the income in the Timmins area or vice-versa.
Progress reported.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that little progress has been made today, the order of business for tomorrow will be the same as that for today.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, on several occasions in the past I have asked the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) whether he would consider the appointment of a female deputy commissioner within the penitentiaries system of Canada. At this time we need a modern approach to the problems of crime and punishment. This subject has been discussed on many occasions in the house over a number of years, and it is heartening to observe some signs that a change is taking place.
DEBATES	5911
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
I am sure we are all looking for the initiation of a project which will protect society while at the same time, in so far as possible, encourage and help offenders to become useful members of our national community. I was greatly heartened to see the changes that have taken place in our prisons system when I was kindly invited to visit Cowansville in Quebec, where a new minimum security prison has been established. There have been many new changes made there in a physical way, different from the situation which existed in respect of the old bastille-like fortresses with which we have become familiar.
We have also been heartened by the minister's decision in the case of female drug offenders, in that they will not be sent back to Matsqui unless they so desire. On reflection, I am sure that many people will realize that this is a good move, in that the Matsqui prison is within a short distance of Vancouver, the worst drug centre in Canada, and that upon release of these prisoners they would more than likely be plunged back into this area.
It was also pleasing to note that recent newspaper reports indicate that a women's rehabilitation centre will be established in Kingston to be in full operation by August. The commissioner of penitentiaries stated that this centre would accommodate up to eight prisoners at one time and would be staffed by a superintendent, a female classification operator and four correction officers. He stated that prisoners at the prison for women in Kingston would be eligible for transfer to the home two months before the completion of their sentences.
All these things are signs that a change is in the making. Now is the time to make drastic changes in our method of treating women offenders, in line with the examples set by other countries of the world. I am sure that the appointment of a woman deputy commissioner within our penitentiaries system, to be in charge of all female offenders in female correctional institutions, including community hostels and prelease houses such as the one to be established at Kingston, will be a step in the right direction.
It is likely that the federal government will soon take over from the province the responsibility for all female offenders who have been sentenced to terms longer than one year. At the present time there are only about 120 women prisoners under federal care. It would seem suitable at this time to
5912	COMMONS DEBATES	June 2, 1966
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion try out a pilot plan under which some of the new ideas in penology, such as prelease houses, could be followed.
Women offenders, according to many penologists, are the best type of prisoner to use in trying out innovations. This is true because the majority are not involved in organized criminal society, are not dangerous to property or persons, and have been convicted for offences arising from inadequacy, prostitution, alcoholism, self-destruction and drug addiction. In other words, they are their own worst enemies and their own worst stumbling blocks to recovery.
This is not the place to discuss the details of the new penology nor the responsibilities of a woman deputy commissioner. These are set out very briefly and clearly in the submission recently prepared and placed before the government by the directors of the Elizabeth Fry Society of Kingston, Ontario, and the members of the senior staff of the prison for women at Kingston. I would simply urge upon the Solicitor General that there is need at this time for the appointment of a woman deputy commissioner within the penitentiaries system who would be charged with full responsibility for all female offenders in correctional institutions operated by the federal government.
I would very much hope that this step could be taken now, while the Solicitor General is freshly come to the problem. I really feel that Agnes MacPhail would be exceedingly happy and proud if she could see the fruition of so much of the work she tried to do more than 30 years ago, because she was trying to advance penology, as we are, among people of her time. It would seem to me that now, when we find that countries such as Holland, Japan, Britain and others have tried out something that is new and more modern in this respect, would be an excellent time to put in charge of female offenders a thoroughly capable woman commissioner, who might or might not live right on the spot-that is not important-but somebody who would be charged with the special responsibility to try out some of the newer methods of penology in this country, which is behind so many of the more advanced countries in this respect.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that I am grateful for the example the hon. member has provided by her interest in our correctional system. Permit me also to add that in my humble opinion the highly respected

Agnes MacPhail has a worthy successor in the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis). Dealing with the subject matter of the hon. member's remarks, I would point out that only yesterday I received the report of P. S. Ross and Partners with regard to the organization in the women's prison at Kingston. I am sure the hon. member would not be out of sympathy with my suggestion that I ought to study this report before committing myself in regard to her interesting proposal.



INCOME TAX-QUEBEC-IMPOSITION ON MONEY FOUND BY CHILDREN

Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, this has to do with an item published in Le Nouveau Samedi of May 28, 1966, and entitled:
They find $30,000 while playing.
On May 30, 1966, I put a question to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) concerning the contents of a woollen sock found on the street by two children in the city of Jonquiere.
The people of my area are asking a lot of questions on the source of this fabulous discovery of $30,000. At first glance one wonders whether this is not an amount hidden from the income tax by an individual or a corporation. But the serial numbers being consecutive, it can only involve a single withdrawal.
Indeed, the 300 $100 bank notes bear serial numbers A/J80,65600 to A/J80,65900 and are all brand new.
One could think that the amount was destined to a political party for the election campaign in Quebec. It could be an old trick used by some parties in spite of the promises made by the old politicians.
Yet, to top it all, a judge of the Superior Court of Quebec, Mr. Justice Toussaint McNicol, claims that he was holding the amount in trust but refuses to name the payee.
In that case it is the estate tax division which will have to intervene because this would be the first time in my life that I would be in a position to discover an estate in a woollen sock. Yet, there are those who claim that there are no more woollen socks in the province of Quebec.
It is said that out of the mouths of babes and sucklings comes the truth. Now, I would
June 2, 1966	COMMONS
be very pleased if those two candid babes could have contributed to throw some light on this very strange event.
And it had to happen right in the middle of the election campaign. Is it a consequence of the heat of the election?
What puzzles me most is the complete silence of most newspapermen about this event, they who are usually so fond of sensational news. Are we spectators at the comedy of the plague-stricken animals?
It is up to the Minister of National Revenue to see that the same justice is applied to all.
That is why I am asking the minister whether he intends to conduct a full inquiry into the matter.


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: I wish to
DEBATES	5913
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion thank the hon. member for Roberval for his interest in the activities of the revenue department, and for his alertness in pointing out items of this kind. I will simply say that officials of the taxation division are always interested in items of this kind and will be making inquiries in due course. The information which they obtain through the powers of investigation given to them by the provisions of the Income Tax Act will have to be kept confidential, and the department will not be able to disclose whether the sum of money represents taxable income or not.
I would like to tell the hon. member again, in case he did not hear the first part of what I said, that the department is interested in items of this kind and will be making inquiries in due course.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.15 p.m.

Friday, June 3, 1966