1966-05-20

BROADCASTING, FILMS AND ASSISTANCE TO THE ARTS

[Stage Direction]
Eighth report of standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts-Mr. Basford.
[Note: Text of the foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex Wesl) moved:: That the sixth report of the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, presented to the house on Tuesday, May 17, 1966, be concurred in.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapoinle):: On division, Mr. Speaker, and this for the reasons already given.
{English]
Motion agreed to on division.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)



CONCURRENCE IN SEVENTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: that the seventh report of the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, presented to the house on Tuesday, May 17, be concurred in.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, once again, we object to the reduction of the quorum from 13 members to nine. It is our opinion that all members should do their duty and take part as much as possible in the work of the committees, and we want our objection to be noted.

Motion agreed to on division.



FISHERIES


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, as the salmon discussions in Seattle concluded yesterday, I wish to make a brief statement in order to inform the house as to the results of the deliberations.
While some progress has been made in the discussions in Seattle in recent days through clarification of points at issue, I regret to say that we have not, in our opinion, moved substantially toward an acceptable solution of our problem. Canada has always believed the seaward net fishing limits should be used as a tool to minimize the catching by one country of salmon bound for the rivers of the other. It is to that end that we have presented at meetings held in Washington last fall, in Ottawa in February and in the last three days at Seattle proposals for the inward adjustment of the limits both in Alaska and in British Columbia.
We were prepared to accept further curtailment of Canadian fisheries in the interests of better management and of equity. We believe that the over-all effect of the Canadian proposal made at these meetings would be advantageous to both countries through better management resulting from Canada and the United States each harvesting their own stocks separately.
The new line we proposed for the Alaska area was comparable to the line established along the B.C. coast in 1957. As the United States representatives have refused to accept our proposal, we have no alternative but to state that we reserve the right to extend Canadian fisheries seaward where appropriate to correct the inequitable situation which exists under present conditions. It is with regret that we feel compelled to take such a position, as we would have preferred the course we have presented, that is the inward adjustment of seaward fishing limits to minimize the interception by one country of salmon bound for the other. We still believe that in the long run such an adjustment would have been beneficial to both countries.
I must add, however, that we have agreed at this meeting to initiate a research program designed to give more information on the
May 20. 1966

Salmon Fishery Negotiations movements and intermingling of the stock harvested in Alaskan and Canadian rivers. Such research, we hope, will assist in arriving in the future at solutions to the problems now arising from interception by one country of salmon bound to the other. While we recognize that the problems we have been discussing were complex and difficult, we still believe that discussions must be resumed in the near future on broader aspects of the subjects we have been raising at these particular meetings.
At the same time I wish to make clear that the Canadian government has no intention of authorizing salmon net fishing on the high seas.


Mr. G. L. Chalierlon (Esquimall-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the minister for giving us in advance a copy of the statement he has just made. We are not surprised by the attitude taken by the United States government in view of their lack of co-operation at the meetings last fall in Washington, and in view of a public statement made by a certain powerful U.S. senator.
Just last week the fisheries committee passed a resolution which we hoped would strengthen the hand of the Canadian negotiators. It is very discouraging to note the attitude taken toward the principle that the country where the salmon originate has a certain right to them. If the United States will not grant this right to us, what inducement will there be to the Canadian people to continue the rehabilitation of our own species?
I am encouraged by the minister's statement that the Canadian government reserves the right to extend Canadian fisheries seaward where considered advisable. I hope these are not mere words. For many years the United States government has threatened to retaliate, in the event of such a step, by closing our market for fish in the United States. This is a specious argument, because there is a world shortage of fish. If the United States were to cut off our imports they would be cutting off their nose to spite their face. I hope the Canadian government will show courage in this respect.
I am pleased there is to be further research with regard to the origin of the salmon. I notice that the minister did not say the Americans denied they were catching our salmon. There is ample proof that they are. Whether further research will do anything more to convince them, I cannot say. I hope 
the Canadian government will take a firm and bold stand on this matter. The people of Canada and of British Columbia will demand it.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: We regret that the minister should have been forced into the position of having to make a statement such as the one to which the house has just listened. The United States has a history of destroying natural resources in the process of their exploiting. They destroyed the salmon runs on the Columbia river by building dams all over the place, and now they are seeking to exploit and destroy salmon runs in Canadian territory by the use of fish traps. Wanton destruction of Alaskan salmon runs was carried out by the United States, and now they seek to do the same sort of thing here by refusing to negotiate as far as home-bound Canadian salmon are concerned.
It is indicative of their attitude that a two-faced policy is followed in this respect on the part of the United States authorities. On the one hand the Alaska government has spoken most belligerently to the Japanese fishermen, ordering them to keep out of the Bristol bay area and cease fishing for what they call red salmon homebound for Alaskan waters, on the ground that prior right rests with the United States. On the other hand an entirely different view is taken in discussions with Canada when the same principle is involved. There has been concern about the surf line or net fishing limit ever since 1957, when the United States refused to carry out the principle of an understanding which had been reached at that time and extended its net salmon fishing limits three miles outward into the ocean while we kept ours close to shore.
There is unanimity of opinion in Canada in the fishing industry, in the unions, in government circles, certainly in parliament and in the fisheries committee upon this question. The feeling is unanimous that the United States surf line in Alaskan waters should be drawn in so as to ensure that American fishermen are not catching and exploiting our homebound salmon. This has been happening to such an extent that in some Alaskan waters between 60 and 70 per cent of the total catch consists of Canadian salmon coming home to spawn. Exploitation of this sort can lead to nothing less than the destruction of the resource.
We very much regret that the discussions in Seattle have broken down. I do not think we can dignify what took place by the name
May 20, 1966

"negotiations" because it is obvious that the United States government did not want to negotiate anything, as is indicated by its arrogant and domineering attitude at these meetings and its refusal to modify this position.
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)
This leaves us with no alternative, I submit, but to carry out the earlier pronouncements of the Canadian government, which means there is no agreement about net fishing limits. Consequently we have to either eliminate those limits or move them seaward so Canadian fishermen can engage in the same sort of practice, regrettable as it might be, to give our fishermen the opportunity to catch as many of these United States or Alaskan bound salmon as they can. Perhaps this sort of regrettable action will force the United States into a reasonable position, where they will sit down to discuss and negotiate this particular question fairly.
May I say one more word. If we are going to engage in additional research, I suggest to the minister that he use the services of the Canadian navy in conducting that research.


Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: In the absence of the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson), who is on the committee, I should like to say that we also regret very much that the minister, who is very conscientious and hard working in this business of preserving the fishing industry, had to make this particular statement. I have reason to say this, because I have had problems in connection with fishing and lumbering in my constituency, and I must say that the co-operation I have had from the minister has been very good indeed.
Many salmon have their birth place in the Cariboo constituency, as in Skeena. We realize that a great deal of work is being done in this particular area by the Canadian fisheries department to preserve these fish. Unfortunately it seems that we are not getting a fair deal in connection with the catching of the fish we are raising in Canada. I hope the minister will be able to carry out the program he has suggested, and that we will be able to negotiate with the United States to get a working arrangement under which the maximum amount of fish can be produced in British Columbia and caught by our own fishermen.

Inquiries of the Ministry IMMIGRATION



REQUEST FOR DELAY IN DEPORTATION OF YUGOSLAVIA SAILORS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Order. That question is out of order.']
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. It has to do with two Croatian youths, Ante Ivancev and Slavko Smoljan, both 22 years of age, who escaped from their ship and have been ordered deported from Canada to Yugoslavia. Has the minister received representations in this connection? These two young men, to use the words of the letter to the minister, are consumed with a burning desire to escape the chains of communism and enjoy the fruits of freedom. Will the minister under all the circumstances, these young men being of good reputation, continue the policy that has been followed in the past, namely that no one except a criminal or communist agent shall be forced against his will to return to communism when he desires freedom within our country?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: These two young men, Mr. Speaker, were supposed to be deported on the 19th. They were not deported because representations were made to me and I wanted to review the cases. These cases will be reviewed as soon as we have the decision from the immigration court of appeal on two other similar cases. For the time being the matter is pending and we are reviewing the cases.


John George Diefenbaker: I appreciate the fact that the cases are being reviewed. Would the minister say whether there is going to be a change in the practice of the past under which those who have sought freedom in our country from communist dictatorship shall not be forced to return, if they are men of good reputation? This policy has applied to people of all racial origins who live behind the iron curtain.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not exactly know what policies were followed in the past, but probably the right hon. gentleman is aware that last year more than 900 people jumped ship in Canada. A certain number of them were Yugoslavian sailors. Therefore I think we have to be careful to see that if these men are interested in coming to Canada the channel they use is not that of jumping ship. We have to apply the regulations.
May 20, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, we have no evidence at this stage that men who are deported to Yugoslavia-and a tew of them have been deported-are persecuted. The Department of External Affairs has mentioned to us that there is no such persecution as at this moment.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister a question with reference to the visit of Mr. Arthur J. Goldberg, United States ambassador to the United Nations, who visited Ottawa this week.
May I ask the Prime Minister whether either he or the Secretary of State for External Affairs told Mr. Goldberg that the Canadian government would have been disposed to recognize the government of mainland China long ago had it not been for United States resistance and the possibility that such a move would have damaged Canada-U.S. relations?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker, so far as I am concerned I gave Mr. Goldberg no such indication that that was the reason behind the policy we have adopted in this matter. Our policy has been based on a number of factors, and that kind of gloss on our talks, Mr. Speaker, is quite unwarranted.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. Does that answer of the Prime Minister mean that press reports to this effect are completely without foundation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That question is out of order.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, I should like to put my question to his parliamentary secretary.
Could the parliamentary secretary of the Minister of Agriculture tell us whether the minister has examined the telegram sent by the president of the Catholic Farmers Union,

Mr. Sorel, telling him of his concern about strange importation of eggs into Canada and whether it is his intention to take steps to protect Canadian egg producers?


Mr. Speaker:: I find it rather difficult to decide whether this question is really urgent. May I suggest that the member for Chapleau place his question on the order paper?


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I ask permission to discuss this question at ten o'clock, at the first opportunity.
tEnglish]



CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the house leader, or in his absence the Prime Minister, whether it would be possible for the government to bring forward the resolution regarding the Canada Assistance Plan. Because this plan is being injected into provincial election campaigns, I think all members of the house and the public should be able-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is now making a speech instead of asking a question, and that is entirely out of order.


Howard Earl Johnston: Then may I ask whether this plan will be brought forward rapidly.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we should like to get it before the house just as quickly as possible.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has received any word as to how the negotiations in the dispute in Montreal are getting on, and whether the Prime Minister has received a report on these negotiations from His Honour Judge Lippe.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the Acting Minister of Labour to deal with that question.
May 20, 1966


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Acting Minister of Labour):: I have discussed this question this morning with the officers of the Department of Labour. Judge Lippe has been in almost continuous discussion with the parties since his appointment 48 hours ago. Because he is bending every effort to settle this question, the main expectation now is that both parties will support him in his serious efforts to obtain a settlement of this dispute.


Michael Starr: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will these negotiations continue, without any breaks, until a settlement is reached?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would expect that Judge Lippe would want to press ahead with his efforts at mediation. Although I can give no assurance that the discussions will continue unbroken, I am sure that is the objective of the department and of Judge Lippe.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reg Canlelon (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport which is of national importance and urgency. Will the minister assure the house that before any added tolls are charged on the St. Lawrence waterway, the matter will be brought to this house for discussion?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you would permit me once again to point out that under the law made by this parliament the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority has a responsibility to recommend tolls to the government. Before that recommendation is made, the authority is going to hold public hearings with respect to some suggestions as to tolls which it has already made public. Until the public hearings have been held and the seaway authority has made its recommendations to the government, the matter is not before the government. As soon as it is before the government it will be given the promptest consideration.


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask a question arising out of the previous question. The minister knows, of course, that the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority announced that it would propose a 10 per cent increase in tolls. That was announced some weeks ago, I believe around April 20.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Have representations been received from the wheat pools in western Canada against any such increase which, according to Mr. Gibbings, president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, would mean that the western farmers would have to pay 1J cents per bushel more than today?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the minister received representations from the western pools as to the effect this will have, if the increase is allowed?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I believe there have been some representations made to me, sir. As I do not believe that someone belonging to a court of appeal should seek to pass judgment before the original court has had its hearings, I have suggested that people concerned should make their representations at the public hearings.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to have had a clearer answer.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. In view of the statement this morning that before any increase was permitted there would be public hearings, and in view of the question asked by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, would the minister inform us whether those hearings have been held with respect to the 10 per cent increase?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman, I
think, can read as well as I can. Public hearings have been announced, and they will be held. After they are held the seaway authority, by reason of its duty under a law passed by this parliament, will make its recommendations to the government. Until that time the government, under the law made by parliament, has no function in this matter.


John George Diefenbaker: We should like to have you as an ally instead of against us.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the government has received the recommendations of the seaway authority, and before it makes its final decision as to whether to accept those recommendations, will there be an opportunity to discuss this matter in the House of Commons?
May 20. 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very unwise tor any minister to answer hypothetical questions. We have responsible government in this country.
Some non. Members: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The process of responsible government, in the technical sense of that term, will be followed in this matter.


John George Diefenbaker: In the technical sense.


Mr. Jack Mclniosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this change in the toll structure could be authorized by order in council, would the minister answer the question put to him by the hon. member for Kindersley?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The answer is no.


Mr. D. R. Tolmie (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the extreme importance to the St. Lawrence seaway operations and to the city of Welland of the proposed Welland canal by-pass, can the minister state if the government has made any decision with regard to the building of the proposed by-pass?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The answer, sir, is yes. A favourable decision was made yesterday. The government intends to authorize the seaway authority to proceed.
I wonder, sir, if on a question of privilege I might say that in response to the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) I may have misled the house. I did not mean to say anything in reply to him except that I was not prepared at this moment to answer the question asked by the hon. member for Kindersley, because it was a hypothetical question.


John George Diefenbaker: That is a new definition for "no".


An hon. Member:: On the question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I rule that there is no question of privilege.



REQUEST FOR BILINGUAL TELEPHONE OPERATORS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister?

Would he personally intervene and see to it that the House of Commons telephone operators are bilingual, so that we do not have to wait five or ten minutes to obtain the services of a French speaking telephone operator?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the representation of the hon. member will be noted by the responsible party, that is by the person who is responsible for this state of affairs.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Prime Minister himself to intervene. This change has been sought for several months now, and nothing has been done yet.


Mr. Speaker:: As I have said, the representations of the hon. member have been noted and I do not feel that the question is of such urgency as to be in order at this stage.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the government any plans for making any changes in its tight money policy in the near future?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest this question is argumentative.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence and ask him if the government has taken a decision to remove from France in this calendar year all or part of Canada's contribution to the NATO forces. If so, have arrangements been made for other bases to accommodate the Canadian squadrons that are in France?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Here is your chance.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There is a terrible temptation to say something, Mr. Speaker. However, no decision has actually been taken yet.
May 20, 1966


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the unilateral decision taken by the leader of France, in which he has decreed that all the forces of NATO countries be invited to move out of France, I should like to ask the minister whether it is the intention of this government to remain within the NATO alliance; and will we retain our forces in Europe?


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated already that Canada joined with the 14 other countries in NATO to reaffirm its belief in the alliance and in the NATO organization. The extent of our participation in Europe is a matter which naturally is being considered by the government and will be the subject of some negotiation and consultation in the NATO council. But let there be no misunderstanding; Canada, along with the 14, adheres to NATO and regards the reasons for its existence as being of vital interest to this country as well as to the other members of the alliance.


Mr. Russell H. MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Are the reports correct to the effect that West Germany has offered Canada locations for its NATO bases?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The matter of the relocation of Canadian forces now occupying two bases in France, as my hon. friend the Minister of National Defence has indicated, has not yet been settled. This likewise will be a matter involving decisions of the government of Canada and negotiation with the country where Canada proposes to relocate.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Defence. I should like to ask the minister whether the bases which presently are established in France will be maintained on the continent, and will they be maintained as separate entities or integrated with other establishments?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the whole question still is subject to negotiation. I would not want any conclusions to be taken from the answers to any of the questions which have been asked today.

Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE



EFFECT OF U.K. STRIKE ON CANADIAN EXPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['There has been no proposal put to us along those lines by the U.S. government, and I am sure there will not be.']
Hon. Hugh John Flemming (Vicioria-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the minister in a position to advise the house of the adverse effects, if any, on Canadian export trade as a result of the present maritime strike in the United Kingdom?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, we know that it would be of considerable consequence were the strike to continue for very long. We are doing a number of detailed analyses. If the strike continues I should be glad to report to the house on this question at a later date.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I hope I will get the answer from the correct "Paul".
Has the United States government indicated to the Canadian government that in an effort to establish better relations between the eastern powers of the Warsaw pact and the western powers, that part of a bridge mentioned by Secretary MacNamara when he was recently in Canada, should be the exchange of military observers between Warsaw pact nations and NATO nations? Has this proposal been put to any of the NATO governments and, if so, what has been the reaction to it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There has been no proposal put to us along those lines by the U.S. government, and I am sure there will not be.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choqueite (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Forestry?
May 20, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry
Since the electoral platform of the Quebec provincial Liberal party provides for the establishment of a feed grain agency-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member put his question?


Auguste Choquette: -my question is this. Has the minister surrendered that jurisdiction to Quebec or were discussions held with the provincial authorities in that connection?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: Neither one nor the other, Mr. Speaker.
{English!



CANADA PENSION PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the government giving consideration to the injustice being perpetrated upon employers under the Canada Pension Plan where, in certain instances, employers do not receive refunds in the same way as employees?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked is argumentative.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to reword my question and ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether consideration is being given to allowing the employer the same advantages as the employee with respect to refunds in certain instances under the Canada Pension Plan.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, this aspect of the Canada Pension Plan is under the administration of the Department of National Revenue, and possibly the question should be directed to the Minister of National Revenue.


Michael Starr: Well, this is a new switch, so I will ask the Minister of National Revenue.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, this is no new switch. I have been asked this question several times before and, as I have stated before, we are examining all means of dealing with this problem but to this point we have not arrived at a satisfactory solution. When a solution is arrived at it will require changes in the legislation in order to bring it into effect.


Michael Starr: As a supplementary question, if a solution is arrived at and changes are made, will they be made retroactive to the beginning of the plan?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest the question is becoming hypothetical.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, in view of the fact that the house will not be sitting until next Tuesday, whether he has arrived at a decision with respect to the appointment of a replacement commissioner for the Yukon and, if so, would he make an announcement to the house?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: No, Mr. Speaker.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State.
Has she considered the offer of Northern Quebec Telephone Company Limited to bring television service, through its microwave network, to the population of Chibougamau-Chapais, from Rouyn or Lake St. John.
Can the Secretary of State now say whether she has accepted that offer?


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


Gérard Laprise: I ask permission to debate it at ten o'clock.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish	to put	a question to	the
Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Can he tell the house whether he is aware that a project for assembling Russian made
May 20, 1966	COMMONS
*cars is now materializing in Canada, and whether those plans are in line with his department's policy?

Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade
and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, may I take this question as notice.


Mr. Speaker:: That question is of a very general nature and should be put on the order paper.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to discuss it after ten o'clock.
[English1



POSSIBLE SALE OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS TO JAPAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would he report to the house on whether there have been serious negotiations between Japan and Canada in reference to the purchase of crude petroleum products from Alberta, which will promote a new pipe line from that area to the west coast?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is the same type of question as the one on which I have just ruled. Because it is of a very general nature it should be placed on the order paper.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Maybe I can make is specific, Mr. Speaker. Have there been negotiations between Japan and Canada with reference to petroleum products?


Mr. Speaker:: The question may be more specific but the subject matter is still of a general nature.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a specific question for the Minister of Transport in the hope that he will not evade it as he did yesterday. It is based on the Thompson commission report. Does the government agree with the finding of the Thompson commission that the overhaul and maintenance base of Air
DEBATES	5365
Inquiries of the Ministry Canada at Winnipeg should be discontinued so far as jet aircraft are concerned?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the maintenance base at Winnipeg has never serviced jet aircraft; therefore that could not be discontinued.


Gordon Minto Churchill: As a supplementary question may I ask the minister, in view of the recommendation of the Thompson commission that the overhaul and maintenance base at Winnipeg be not used for jet aircraft owned by Air Canada, what steps will the government take in order to fulfil another recommendation of the Thompson commission:
A policy of decentralization of some Canadian government administrative or operational activities might enable the transfer to Winnipeg of a number of operations and activities which would have a significant beneficial effect on the Winnipeg economy and help fill the void without at the same time placing any economic burden on Canada at large?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member will recognize that this question is argumentative. It is of the same type as questions asked yesterday which the minister answered, though perhaps not to the satisfaction of the hon. members who placed the questions, and I suggest that it should not be asked at this time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I suggest to you, sir, that far from it being argumentative I based the question on the commission report. It is of urgent and important interest to the city of Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the arguments being put forth by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, but he will recall that a number of similar questions were asked yesterday by hon. members relative to the report, and a general answer was made to all those questions by the minister, an answer which I suggest applies today as it did yesterday.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the general answer made by the minister yesterday was:
-which is a document of 175 pages, without appendices, and I think it would be terribly presumptuous on my part to attempt to summarize it.
He did not answer my question at all. He has now read the report.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is out of order.
May 20, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask-


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre want to submit a different question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is a different question but in the same field, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister of Transport make a statement to the house at an early date concerning the government's attitude toward the Thompson report recommendations?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to make such a statement either in the house or before the committee on transport, whenever my estimates are before them. In the meantime I think it would be desirable for the government to give some consideration to the recommendations before giving hasty answers to hasty questions.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether in the course of his planning for the air force in the future he will keep in mind the availability of the overhaul and maintenance base in Winnipeg and the skilled personnel who might be very helpful in performing tasks on behalf of the air force in years to come.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, these considerations are always kept in mind. As my hon. friend knows, however, the actual supply of maintenance facilities for the air force is a subject for negotiation by my colleague the Minister of Defence Production.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Defence Production who is also concerned with regional development. Will he take note of the question I asked earlier of the Minister of National Defence?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: will take note of the suggestion, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: This is not a hasty question, Mr. Speaker, because it was first asked on May 3 and no answer was given at that time.

It has to do with the question of whether Canadians shall be subject to F.B.I. investigation in Canada. I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he has made it clear to the United States that policemen from south of the border cannot investigate in Canada alleged wrongs committed by individuals in Canada under the military laws of the United States. Has that been made clear, or what is the present position regarding this question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It has been made clear, Mr. Speaker, and I am advised that there are no such interventions.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, Mr. Speaker, have no cases been brought to the attention of the minister in this regard?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I said there have been no cases brought to my attention of the C.I.A. intervening in Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: I asked about the F.B.I., not the C.I.A. Let us get our alphabet correct.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I beg my right hon. friend's pardon. I thought he was asking me a question about the case of the Esthonian who has brought suit in the United States against the C.I.A. He had asked me that question previously and I had not yet replied to him. My present reply was with regard to that question.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, I see.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With regard to the question he asked me now, I will give that careful consideration.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Fisheries arising out of a statement he made earlier today. Could he inform the house whether the government intends to exercise the right which it reserved to extend the net fishing limits seaward prior to the commencement of the coming salmon fishing season, if there is no change in the current United States position before that time?
May 20. 1966	COMMONS


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to make a definite commitment at this time. The Canadian delegation has not yet returned to Ottawa. I wish to discuss this problem with my deputy minister before making any further commitment.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture. Has he received any communication which would indicate a rather severe outbreak of disease among cattle herds in Manitoba? If so, is there any possibility that action will be taken by the department?


Mr. Bruce S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I have not received any communication. I will check with the minister's office.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport, who nearly answered this question on two or three occasions. Does the minister know when the officials of the Canadian National Railways and Air Canada will be available for appearances before the committee on transport and communications? I ask this question now that the hard working committee is back from its unique trip out west, rested and ready to do more business.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you will permit me to stretch the rules a little and say how pleased I am, and how pleased I think members in all parts of the house should be, at what I judge to have been the excellent reception given to the committee on transport and communications all through its hearings in western Canada. These hearings were carried out in an admirable way and are a great credit, I believe, to this parliament.
With regard to the Canadian National Railways and Air Canada, I may say that
DEBATES	5367
Inquiries of the Ministry almost every day I am asked by the heads of those companies when they can appear before the committee. Both seem eager to appear.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence.
Following the numerous requests received from the various students associations in Canada about the Nelson case, does the Department of National Defence intend to revise its position and grant a one-year exemption to the president of the "Union generate des etudiants du Quebec"?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the hon. member's question is similar to the one which was ruled out of order last Monday.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say this. The Nelson case has become urgent, because he must report to the air force on June 6 and the department must give an answer before that date, otherwise that will become an accomplished and irreversible fact.
Since there are barely two weeks left and the U.G.E.Q. is waiting to find out if the president's resignation should be accepted, I think that the Minister of National Defence should give an answer. I feel that the case has become urgent and that the minister should do something, or at least answer the question.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister is willing to answer, I will not object.

Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National
Defence): A reply to the telegram is going out today, Mr. Speaker.

[Later:}


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence.
If a reply or a telegram is to be sent today, can the minister inform us whether he intends to grant one year's postponement to the student Nelson?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder whether the question raised by the hon. member is so urgent since he has received an answer. The minister told him that action would be taken
May 20, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry and, under the circumstances, I believe the hon. member should be satisfied.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite satisfied, because I realize once again that parliament will be the last to be advised of government action while the public will be informed before us and I wonder whether the minister could say, yes or no, whether a postponement will be granted to the student Nelson? Why should we not be informed about this?
1English]


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to send a copy of the telegram to my hon. friend this afternoon.



CANADA PENSION PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Do Hutterite farmers have to comply with the Canada Pension Plan?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking for a legal opinion and an interpretation of the law. The question is not acceptable.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, may I paraphrase another question on the same subject. Will Hutterite farmers have to take out social security numbers?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the issuance of a social security number is not something which comes under my department. This comes under the Minister of Labour. I will be glad, however, to look into the matter raised by the hon. member and speak to him about it.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister tell us whether Hutterite farmers, as individuals, now are paying income tax?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question is not urgent and, if it is acceptable, it should be placed on the order paper.



PRESERVATION OF TAPE RECORDING OF FATAL EXPLOSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to

the history of the House of Commons. Perhaps I should direct it to the minister responsible for the Public Archives, or possibly Your Honour will give me a direction. Is it a fact that in connection with the sound system in this house a tape is made of our proceedings? If so, without lifting the ban against any current use of this tape, would it not be a good idea in the interests of history that the tape of what happened here on Wednesday, including the sound of the explosion that took place, be preserved and put away in the Public Archives, or kept in some appropriate way?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre knows that he cannot ask questions of the Chair; he also knows that he took up this matter with me. I am pleased to advise him that the suggestion he made has been acted upon, and that the tape in question is being preserved.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Minister of Labour whether he has any answer now to the question I raised yesterday in respect of the actions of the British Columbia maritime employers association in seeking to deny to members of the longshoremen's union the right to enjoy Victoria Day at proper rates of pay, as provided for under the Canada Labour Code.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I did not have an opportunity to discuss this matter with the officers of the department this morning, but I assure my hon. friend that an answer will be given on Tuesday.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question. In view of the fact that Monday is the day in question, will the minister find out whether some intervention can be made today by the Department of Labour?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will do that.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker,
I know that sometimes there is a certain
May 20, 1966

hazard involved in directing questions to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but I will take a chance in any event.


Stanley Howard Knowles: One of the hazards is not that you will get an answer.


Frank Howard: In view of the fact that there have been meetings this week, with another today in Washington of the Canada-U.S. interparliamentary group, will the minister contact his counterpart in the United States, the Secretary of State there, and ask him whether it might be possible to raise the subject matter of the statement which the Minister of Fisheries made on motions, in order that these problems between the United States and Canada in respect of salmon fishing on the west coast may be discussed?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we would all agree that it would be a good thing for the Canadian delegation-which is a delegation of this house, not a government delegation-to raise this matter. My hon. friend says it is hazardous to ask me a question. I should have thought it was always fruitful to ask me questions.


Frank Howard: I should like to ask a supplementary question. In this instance the answer I received does not bear out the latter remarks of the minister. I asked him whether he would contact his counterpart in the United States, and he has not answered that question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thought my hon. friend was asking me to mention this question to the Canadian delegation who are now discussing Canadian-American problems in the United States. In respect of that part of the question relating to my counterpart, I can assure my hon. friend that this question has already been discussed with him.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question period has now expired.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The period allotted for the orders of the day is now expired.
Supply-Post Office


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Yesterday evening my colleague from Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) was discussing signalling courses of the C.N.R. and the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport gave the following answer:
The signalling courses given by the C.N.R. are conducted along the same lines as similar engineering courses offered by l'Ecole polytechnique in Montreal. The course is given in both English and French using, however, an English language manual.
My question of privilege is as follows: How can a French course be given with English manuals? I would like to see the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) give special attention to statements-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


David Réal Caouette: -such as that one.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret but I cannot accept the suggestion of the hon. member that this is really a question of privilege.



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



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
1. Postal services including Canada's share of the upkeep of the international bureaux at Berne and Montevideo, $252,804,000.
Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, when we
reached the termination of the discussion of the estimates of the department last night I was on my feet addressing a few remarks to the Postmaster General in connection with this years' estimates and the policies of his department. In spite of the fact that I have always found the present Postmaster General a very co-operative member of the government in respect of problems I have raised with him, I could not see my way clear to accept his suggestion that the matter I want to raise be dealt with between us in his office.
I have had a rather lengthy correspondence with the minister, extending from some time last December until March of this year, as a result of which I feel that this is a matter which can only be pursued further by airing it in public on the floor of this house. Were it not for that fact I might have been inclined to agree to his suggestion and not refer to this matter at this time.
There is one other matter which I intended to raise, but in my desire to co-operate with the hon. member for Ontario I shall refrain

May 20, 1966
Supply-Post Office
from doing so, except to say that it is a hardy perennial type of problem. I have discussed this on many occasions with postmasters general, and if the present minister cares to look back at past years' considerations of these estimates he will find that I have been concerned about the fact that while we have been boasting that we were the first in the world to establish an all-up mail service for faster delivery by air, this policy has been somewhat restricted by its application to main fine carriers. Arrangements have apparently still not been worked out to make possible air distribution of mail to many smaller communities where lines are running. As I have pointed out, in one particular case mail that could be delivered in ten minutes by plane requires three weeks for delivery and the return reply.
The particular matter I should like to raise at this time arises from a situation which I have been wrestling with most of the time since I became a member of this house.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
It is a situation in which a great many Canadians find themselves because of the nature of our country and the type of industrial development taking place. As a result many people are robbed of what I consider to be their basic right to public delivery of mail by the post office. I am referring to those who are required in the course of earning their living to go to places where living facilities are provided entirely by private companies.
I have had an exchange of correspondence with the minister on this topic in recent months with respect to one particular place. Perhaps I might refer to a letter which the minister addressed to me on January 13 of this year in which he said in part:
I should like to stress that the establishment of post offices in company towns such as Benson Lake where the town is under the complete jurisdiction of the company is dependent on the willingness of the company to provide the necessary accommodation for postal purposes and the necessary staff to operate a post office.
The minister went on to explain that the Post Office Department does not directly operate the post offices in smaller communities but that the postmasters are responsible for the provision of accommodation.
In this particular case we would certainly consider the appointment of someone other than the company if they were able to meet the requirements. However, inquiries and discussions with representatives of the company reveal that no one was willing to assume charge of a post office at that point.

I replied to that letter and expressed my disagreement with the position being taken by the Postmaster General. In a letter to the minister dated February 28 I said in part:
I must reiterate my position that Canadian law should be such that official jurisdiction of the post office should extend to the point of delivery to individual Canadians wherever residential quarters of any permanence are established even though these may be owned and operated by a single private firm.
In reply I had a letter from the minister dated March 21 in which he said:
I have noted your remark that Canadian law should be such that official jurisdiction of the Post Office Department should extend to the point of delivery to individual Canadian citizens wherever residential quarters of any permanence are established.
In this regard I should like to quote Part 2 (b) of the Post Office Act-
The reference is to the section which defines "delivery". So far as I am concerned the minister missed the whole point I was making. He gave no indication whether he or the government would be prepared to consider making a change in the existing law, and while I thank the minister for drawing my attention to that particular section of the legislation I would point out that the Post Office Act is a public document a copy of which I have in my office. His reply of March 21 is certainly no answer to the question I had in mind, whether he or the government would consider correcting what I believe to be a basic injustice to individual Canadian citizens.
I do not intend to take the time of the committee by giving detailed examples of the kind of abuses of the right of individuals to receipt of mail which have occurred to my own knowledge. In this parliament, however, there appears to be an increasing and welcome concern about the rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens. I am not talking about survey crews of half a dozen men who move across the country, camp in tents and do not stay in one spot for longer than two or three days. I am contending that if there is a permanent logging or mining camp where living quarters are provided by the employer, Canadian law should be framed in such a way that it would no longer be up to the operators of the residential community concerned to decide at their own sweet pleasure whether they should enable those living in that community to have the benefit of a proper postal service. This is the issue and I feel we should have an answer from the hon. gentleman on this question.
May 20, 1966

I can refer to one section of the Post Office Act which the minister did not mention in his letter, section 8, where it is stated that the postmaster shall have the sole and exclusive privilege of collecting, conveying and delivering letters within Canada. I would argue that this should not only be his exclusive privilege but also his exclusive responsibility. I shall not enter now upon a discussion of what one hon. member some years ago called the bootlegging of mail in Canada but I am concerned, as I say, with the abuses which have been taking place in this area involving the right of Canadians to have their mail safely delivered.
I will give just one example. A number of years ago arrangements were made for the delivery of certain parcels to workers in areas where there were no liquor vending stores. The normal arrangement was to carry in the mail from the post office to the community concerned. But the whole arrangement was invalidated when the company concerned refused to carry this particular type of mail to the men living in the community, a logging camp.


An hon. Member:: Cut off the booze.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I said at the time that should an individual employee abuse his right recourse was available to the company but that it was improper and contrary to our concept of justice that any private organization should be able to deny to a citizen his normal right to receive mail addressed to him.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Or to interfere with Her Majesty's mail.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am not sure whether legally or technically the company could be considered as having done that. The company told its employees: If you want to go 60 miles down the logging railroad to the post office, you can pick it up yourselves. But the men were entirely dependent on company transport in any case. I presented the argument but could not get agreement from the government at the time that there was technically any interference with the mail.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
At this point I should like to remind the Postmaster General of the discussion we had in this house the other day led by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources who painted a glowing picture of the possibilities for the future development of the far north. He described in some detail the resource possibilities of that area. I suggest to 23033-340
Supply-Post Office
the Postmaster General that if this kind of development is going to take place much of it will come about through the establishment of the type of communities about which I am concerned.
This problem is not confined to one particular constituency or area of Canada but is one which will be of concern to members in every quarter of this house. If the present Post Office Act does not allow the Postmaster General, in the kind of situation I am describing where people are residing, to require a post office to be established and someone to operate it under his jurisdiction, then the act should be changed. Appropriate legislation should be introduced without further delay to rectify what in my view is a very longstanding problem and legitimate grievance on the part of many Canadians who go forth to do the hard work of producing the wealth which enables us to enjoy the standard of living that we have been able to achieve.


Mr. Rapp:: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to delay the passage of these estimates but there are matters which I feel I should bring to the attention of the minister. I congratulate him upon his appointment to the portfolio of Postmaster General. Although I have quite a number of new post offices in my constituency, there is a need for more. The areas that need post offices are mostly areas in which private homes or buildings are rented by the Post Office Department and the service provided by these offices is not of the type the people would like. Under these circumstances we cannot blame the operators of these offices for not giving the service the people would like to have. It is for this reason I should like to see more new post offices erected in my area.
Another complaint I have received concerns the mail truck contractors. They are faced with increased expenses compared with the time when they entered into their contracts. The price of trucks is higher than it was then and operating expenses have increased as well. I believe these contracts should be reviewed more often than they are now. Many people who entered into these contracts could be earning better wages if they had accepted other types of employment. I emphasize the point strongly that these contracts should be reviewed more often and consideration should be given to the fact that the cost of living as well as the cost of their equipment is going up.
There is one more matter I should like to bring to the attention of the Postmaster

May 20, 1966
Supply-Post Office
General. I refer to the fact that the telephones have been removed from some of the larger post offices. This causes hardship not only for the post office officials but for the people living in the country, particularly in the wintertime when it is often difficult to get to town. The telephones which have been removed should be reinstalled and telephones should be installed in those places which have not had them.
These are the essential matters I should like to bring to the attention of the Postmaster General. As I said at the outset, I cannot complain too much about the department's lack of consideration of the need for post offices in my area. There may be other areas with priority. However, I believe there should be new post offices erected to replace the buildings that have been rented in order to provide service for the people.


Mr. Keays:: Mr. Chairman, I intend to speak for only a minute or two. I should like to raise two problems with the Postmaster General. I may say that to date I am batting .667 with him and I hope I will finish the session that way. One of the problems concerning post offices in my area involves the Department of Public Works. I understand this department is building the small post offices in that area. I would ask the minister to advise the post office officials not to take over these new buildings until they are completed. The fact is that the Post Office Department has rushed into the new building before the general contractor has completed his job; possibly some of the mechanical trades have not completed their work. Once the department occupies the new building the subcontractors or the suppliers of subcontractors are often faced with having to wait six to eight months and in some cases up to a year before being paid by the contractor. I think we could avoid this situation and help these people by not accepting post offices until they are formally taken over by the Department of Public Works. In one case I know that an amount of $12,000 is owing to a supplier by the subcontractor who has been paid a fair amount of his money. However, he is not in a rush to complete the job and this has put the supplier in an awkward position.
The other problem I should like to raise with the minister relates to the small mail contract amounting to $800 or $900. Some of these contracts were made before changes were made by Canadian National which transports the mail in the first place. About 60 per

cent of the time the trains are late, and I do not mean by 10 or 15 minutes but two or three hours late. These contract mail carriers now have to spend the major part of the day waiting at the railway station for the train to arrive. They are losing other income by so doing. I have written to the minister concerning the problem and this is the third of my batting average where I have not been successful. I ask him again to reconsider these cases so these people will receive consideration for the time spent waiting for trains.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to talk more than 30 minutes on the estimates of the Post Office Department.
I would like to say how much I appreciate the co-operation I have received so far from the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote). He has been friendly, conciliating and he has accepted several of the suggestions made to him. I thank him very sincerely.
However, and quite rightly, that does not prevent us from having our little problems, because quite often the settlement of a problem creates new ones. Consequently, one must not be surprised to see problems arise in various ridings.
Last year, I made strong representations to the minister about the post office in Rouyn. I understand that the matter concerns mostly the Department of Public Works, but the Post Office Department is also concerned, because I am sure that if the Postmaster General requested the building of a new post office in Rouyn, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith) would not take long to accede to his request.
As I have said already, I am wondering what architect is responsible for the eyesore we have in Rouyn. I secured pictures of it, which I showed the minister, and I feel that one must be blind not to see how dreadful such a building is, when there are such nice post offices in Noranda, Malartic, Cadillac and Val d'Or.
And yet, the city of Rouyn, the metropolis of the northwest of the province, has a post office which, as we say so well in French, is not fit to be looked at.
It is probably not an architect who prepared the plans, but an official of the Public Works Department who tried to play a trick on the Postmaster General by giving us such a building. In any case, once again I call the minister's attention to that matter.
May 20, 1966

There is another thing I want to point out to him. It is the postal service in Val d'Or.
Last week, while I was in Val d'Or, I met the municipal authorities who told me about the slowness of the letter delivery service from Montreal or Ottawa. It seems that it takes two, three and even four days for letters to reach Val d'Or. There is undoubtedly something wrong with mail transportation or letter delivery.
I know that departmental officials will examine my remarks, and there is surely room for improvement within the department. As a matter of fact, there is no reason why the mail from Montreal or Ottawa and addressed to Val d'Or should not be delivered the same day, when the distance between Ottawa and Val d'Or is covered in five hours, and between Montreal and Val d'Or, in seven or even six hours. In my opinion, there is no reason whatsoever for a letter mailed in the morning not to be delivered in Val d'Or the next morning.
Therefore, I urge the minister to ask his responsible officials in the postal service to inquire carefully into the delivery service provided to Val d'Or at present.
Mr. Chairman, those are the few remarks 1 wanted to make, and before resuming my seat, I repeat what I said at the beginning. I find the Postmaster General very understanding and co-operative with members of the house. Besides, he proved it by putting an end to political partisanship in order to provide efficient service to the population as a whole.


Mr. Gauthier:: Is he bilingual?


David Réal Caouette: In addition, Mr. Chairman, he is bilingual.


Mr. Chretien:: Mr. Chairman, it is in my capacity as member for Saint-Maurice-La-fleche that I wish to say a few words about the estimates of the Post Office Department.
I must say first that X am pleased to join with the member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), which is a rare occurrence. I also wish to congratulate the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) on the manner in which he performs his duties and, as the member for Villeneuve so rightly said, he is an understanding man.
I should like, therefore, to call his attention to a problem and ask his help on behalf of Shawinigan South a municipality of 15,000 .inhabitants, in the riding of Saint-Mau-rice-Lafleche.
Supply-Post Office
The good people of Shawinigan South do not have adequate mail service for their operations. There are a few post offices in grocery stores, but what is really needed for the numerous businessmen of Shawinigan South and the rest of the population, is a building where essential postal services would be provided, specially post office boxes, an adequate parcel post service open during lunch hour. In fact, several complaints have come to me from voters in Shawinigan South who cannot obtain proper service during lunch hour, because the two or three small post offices located in grocery or drug stores are not giving adequate service during lunch hour and, many times, people have to go to Shawinigan proper, that is three miles from Shawinigan South, to get normal postal service.
Many times in past years, I have made representations on this matter without results. That is why I am raising the question in the house today, because postal service is most important for the citizens of Shawinigan South. In fact, to obtain proper postal service, they have to cross the Shawinigan bridge, the two bridges on the St. Maurice river and finally get to the city of Shawinigan. I feel these people are entitled to adequate postal service, and this could be achieved by opening a sub-office in Shawinigan South. True, there is one already in the northern section, in St. Mark parish, but I suggest that the Postmaster General should ask for the necessary funds to establish a sub-office in the city of Shawinigan South, where the people have already made representations to that effect.
Once again, I congratulate the Postmaster General and and I urge him to keep up the good work in his job.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I have a few remarks to make concerning the representations made by employees of the Post Office Department as a result of which a commission headed by Mr. Justice Montpetit was set up. From what the Postmaster General said yesterday he led me to believe that the Minister of National Revenue had indicated that once the collective bargaining bill has been passed possibly all these matters will be subject to bargaining. I should like some assurance from the minister that the questions Mr. Justice Montpetit is considering at the moment will be dealt with after the government has received his recommendations and not brushed aside or designated as
23033-340:

May 20. 1966
Supply-Industry
matters for collective bargaining. I think legitimate problems have arisen in the past or are in existence now which should be rectified prior to any collective bargaining legislation.


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: Mr. Chairman, I can assure the hon. member that most of the recommendations which will come from the Montpetit commission will be taken care of right away unless they deal with salaries or matters like that which can be dealt with more easily when collective bargaining is brought in. So far as working conditions are concerned, I can tell the hon. member that a few months ago some changes were made and as soon as we get the final report we will do our best to get everything settled as fast as possible.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman:: That concludes the estimates of the Post Office Department. We will now proceed with the estimates of the Department of Industry, to be found at page 178 of the blue book.



DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates, $6,795,400.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
Maurice Rinfret: Shall item 1 carry?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I think the members of this committee would like to hear from the Minister of Industry exactly what his department has done and what it intends to do under the estimates provided for the department at this time. I refer particularly, of course, to industry. Is industry in fact using the minister's department to the extent that would warrant these expenditures and the organization of this department? Is industry using it to a greater extent than the branch that existed for many years in the Department of Trade and Commerce? It is obvious that there has been a tremendous expansion in the Department of Industry and in its personnel compared with the facilities previously existing.
What puzzles me or raises some doubt in my mind is whether the activities of the department justify the expenditures involved here. I have talked to people in industry. They do not seem to know exactly how this department can help them. They want to know if the department is prepared to act in a consultative capacity? Is it there to give advice? If so, on what basis and in what

areas? As I understand it, the branch formerly existing under the Department of Trade and Commerce was set up for such purposes and was able to give industry much advice. I should like the minister to go into some detail to give us some idea about the points I have raised so as to clear the air and do away with the doubts existing in the minds of many people in industry regarding this department.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, although it has been some time since I have made a formal statement in the house on the operations of the Department of Industry I have the impression from the large number of questions I receive, both in the house and through correspondence, that members keep in close touch with the department's activities. I find this gratifying. The work we are doing is, I think, important to promoting this country's economic development and therefore of direct interest to all Canadians.
The formulation of a sound philosophy of operation deserves top priority in establishing any new department or agency of government. Some of the questions that have been put to me in the house and elsewhere indicate a very live interest in how we are going about the tasks which parliament has entrusted to the Department of Industry.
The department was established in recognition of the pressing need for Canada to attain an efficient expansion of our manufacturing industries. This is widely recognized as a necessary condition of sound economic growth, adequate employment opportunities for our rapidly growing labour force and an increase in our standard of living. It is not sufficient merely to expand our industries.


Michael Starr: May I interrupt the minister to ask him a question? Does that also include the rapid rise in the cost of living? Is that question also of importance to this department?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, one of the functions of the department is to increase productivity in Canada. With his knowledge of economics the hon. member for Ontario will recognize that this is one of the most effective ways of controlling undue rises in the cost of living.


Michael Starr: How is it being done? Could the minister explain that?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: If the hon. gentleman would let me proceed, perhaps I could answer his question.
May 20, 1966


Michael Starr: I hope the minister will answer it.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The hon. member asked a question and I proceeded to answer it. Before I had full opportunity to answer he asked another question. As I say, it is not merely sufficient to enlarge our industries or cause industries to grow. We must at the same time ensure that industrial efficiency improves. This of course means that we must place a high premium on improving productivity which is defined as output per man. Indeed, increased output per man is the only basis for improving our competitive position and for ensuring an increasing standard of living. To the extent that we achieve an improvement in productivity we will also be able to achieve our other economic goals such as stable prices and a viable balance of payments.
Government action can have a significant influence on the efficiency and rate at which the secondary manufacturing sector of the economy develops. The aim of the Department of Industry is to ensure that this influence is positive and helpful.
There are, of course, many factors which influence productivity. These include the quantity and quality of technology applied in industry, the level of education and skills of the labour force, the competence and imagination of our managers and entrepreneurs, the availability of capital, the environment of laws and regulations established by government, and the conditions governing access to foreign markets. The influence exerted by each of these factors on the growth of productivity varies between one sector of industry and another. The estimates now before you reflect a variety of programs to meet some of the more pressing problems of industrial development in Canada. Additional programs are being formulated and these will be proposed for your consideration during the coming year.
I should like to say a few words about the range of activities in which the department is engaged. First, we are developing a series of programs which will be helpful to industry generally in achieving efficient expansion. These include our activities to stimulate technological advance and improvement in our industrial design capability. Second, we have introduced a number of special programs to assist in solving problems unique to specific industry sectors. Examples are the automotive program, assistance to shipbuilding and our efforts to help the furniture industry.
Supply-Industry
Third, the department tries to ensure that policies and programs which are the responsibility of other federal government departments and agencies are formulated so as to provide industry with optimum opportunities for efficient expansion.
These activities can only be carried out effectively if the department attains a detailed and comprehensive knowledge of industry problems and devises good solutions, and if parliament votes the funds necessary to implement them. The task of obtaining a solid base of knowledge occupied a high proportion of our time during the first year or two of operations. This work has now been carried to a point where our efforts can be applied increasingly to the formulation and application of programs. This requires greater resources of money and manpower, and I think you can see this gradual shift in emphasis clearly reflected in the estimates.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
One of the major items of expenditure in departmental administration is the cost of wages and salaries. We are a small department in terms of numbers of personnel and we intend to keep it that way. At the same time, I think hon. members will agree that if we are to perform the tasks I have outlined we require an adequate number of highly qualified personnel to do the job.
A second major component of the administrative vote comprises a variety of expenditures related to information, communication and promotion. Industrialists who are aware of the latest developments in materials, equipment, managerial and production techniques, the changes in government regulations, and the market opportunities for their products, are in a better position to operate their businesses efficiently. No one can deny that good sound knowledge of what is going on in industry contributes significantly to effective entrepreneurial decisions, which are in turn a major determinant of business success.
Hon. members will see from our estimates that we attach a good deal of importance to providing the business community with current information on the opportunities available to them for improving their performance. This activity includes co-sponsoring research studies, the publication of reports on a wide range of technological, commercial, financial and market problems, and the sponsorship of technical missions, conferences and seminars; to increase knowledge of current practice within similar industries both at home and. in other countries.

May 20, 1966
Supply-Industry
The department is continuing its efforts to assist Canadian business in improving the design of Canadian products through a variety of education and information projects. Its programs include: scholarships and grants to provide financial assistance to students of industrial design for advanced study in Canada and abroad, and maintenance of the Canadian design index and the register of Canadian which provide data on products of Canadian designers, design and information to industry on designers and design services.
In order to ensure that Canadian businessmen may fully exploit the market opportunities generated by the centennial celebration and Expo '67, the department has undertaken to identify the types and volume of goods required to meet these needs and encourages Canadian businessmen to develop well designed Canadian made products to satisfy this demand. Concurrently, those concerned with planning and construction of centennial and Expo projects are made aware of the hundreds of products now available from Canadian sources which embody current concepts of industrial design.
The department maintains a design centre in Toronto to focus the attention of manufacturers, distributors, buyers and the general public on the need for well designed products. The department and the national design council will establish a second national design centre in Montreal in the near future. The department continues to co-operate with manufaturers' associations and professional groups in co-sponsoring a series of design award programs. Such programs have already been carried out in the field of structural steel and wood products. This year's schedule includes award programs to promote good design in electrical appliances and steel products.
While these projects involve an element of direct cost, their major cost impact is for the salaries and wages of personnel who plan and organize the projects. I believe that the results we have had to date from this activity justify the costs incurred. I am confident that our proposed expenditures for 1966-67 will be no less successful.
There are a number of major program items listed in the estimates. I would like to say a few words in explanation of each of these. In view of the fact that we only recently debated the resolution on the automotive agreement, I will not make specific reference to it here.

The area development program has sparked as much interest as any single program administered by my department. Hon. members are aware of the criteria used for designating areas eligible for development benefits and the scale of benefits provided. Accordingly, I would like to confine my comments to a review of the philosophy of the program. My earlier references to productivity were in terms of "output per man". There is another interpretation of the term which is more appropriate to apply in the case of area development. No nation can reach its full potential if it is suffering from high levels of unemployment. Not only do unemployed labour resources mean lost opportunities to increase output but they also involve welfare payments which constitute a further drain on resources that would otherwise be available for production purposes.
The federal government has, of course, a wide range of fiscal and other general measures designed to maintain a high level of national employment. Experience has shown, however, that some parts of the country do not respond adequately to those measures. They continue to suffer from higher levels of unemployment and lower levels of income than the rest of the country. The area development incentives are designed to encourage establishment of new industries or the expansion of existing industries in such areas, thereby supplementing federal full employment policies in a direct way and making them more effective. Since the program is designed to assist in that development of industrial employment opportunities in areas characterized by chronic unemployment and underemployment, the areas designated are those where unemployment is high, the rate of employment growth is low and income levels are well below the national level.
The degree of success achieved to date has been most encouraging. The department has received 450 firm notifications from companies that intend to establish or expand their facilities in designated areas. Our periodic program reviews have indicated that ten of the areas previously designated have reached levels of employment and income which put them outside the designation criteria. They were, therefore, removed from the list eligible for development benefits.
The results of the program are under continuing evaluation to help us refine the criteria for the definition of areas requiring assistance and also to help us formulate
May 20, 1966

supplementary programs which may be required to further our objective of bringing new economic opportunities to those parts of the country most in need of them.
The 1966-67 estimates provide funding for two programs aimed at encouraging increased research and development activity in Canadian industry. Until fairly recently Canada has relied very heavily on imported technology as a stimulus to industrial growth. For a country in its early stage of industrial development, reliance on imported technology is both necessary and desirable. I am sure we will continue to draw heavily on technology from abroad for many years to come. However, in view of increased international competition that has occurred over the past decade, Canadian industry must now begin to carve out a niche for itself in a number of selected areas of technological development. We must do this not only to increase our exports of manufactured goods but also to ensure maintenance of our domestic markets in conditions of freer world trade so much in vogue today.
The newly established program for the advancement of industrial technology P.A.I.T., is designed to promote the application of scientific and technological advances to the development of new products or processes for the commercial market. Essentially P.A.I.T., is a form of development insurance for underwriting selected development projects which involve a significant technical advance and which offer good prospects for commercial exploitation.
The initiative for proposing development projects and the responsibility for their direction rests with industry. All relevant costs of the projects are shared equally by the government and the firm. In the event the project is successful and the results are put to commercial use, the firm is required to repay the government's contribution with interest. Kepayment may extend over a period up to ten years. However, if the project is unsuccessful payback is waived. Proprietary rights resulting from the development project are vested in the firm, which is, of course, expected to exploit the results of the project in Canada.
Since the inception of this program some 20 projects have been approved and several times that number are being processed. In view of industry's response so far, I am confident this program will continue to grow and that we will begin to obtain concrete results within the next year or two.
Supply

Industry
Vote 5 is complementary to the program for advancement of industrial technology. It is administered by the Department of Industry in co-operation with the Department of Defence Production. Vote 5 is designed to sustain a technological capability in Canadian industry by supporting selected defence development projects. Many of these have significant application in the non-defence market.
This program has been in existence for some six years. Because of its defence orientation the bulk of its expenditures have been made in the aerospace and electronics industries. Estimated expenditures for 1966-67 amount to $25 million. Assistance from this vote has permitted development of a considerable number of items of defence equipment which have contributed significantly to Canadian export to the United States and other markets. It provides an important support for our defence production-sharing arrangement and has helped to improve the technological base of our industry generally.
Later this session the house will be asked to approve a third program of research and development assistance for Canadian industry. The program will replace the incentives presently provided under the Income Tax Act.
The present income tax incentives which were introduced in 1962 appear to have been reasonably effective. However, the principle of using taxation to encourage research and development is essentially discriminatory since many small or growing firms are not in a profit-making position and therefore cannot take advantage of the tax incentives. In order to broaden the availability of the general research and development incentive, it will be proposed that you approve a program of statutory grants for which all firms doing research and development can qualify.
[DOT] (1:00 p.m.)
The level of benefits under the new program will be broadly equivalent to those now available under the tax incentive program. Twenty five per cent of all capital expenditures related to research and development will be paid by the Department of Industry. A similar grant will apply to all research and development operating expenses incremental to the average of the previous three years. Since the program is scheduled to come into effect this year, I will be proposing legislation for ayour approval later this session.
I have taken up a good deal of the committee's time with these remarks. However, this

May 20, 1966
Supply-Industry
is the first opportunity the house has had to consider the Department of Industry's estimates separately and I think it is important that we understand the basic approach guiding departmental operation together with the rationale behind its major programs. If there are any points which remain unclear, I shall try my best to clarify them.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Chairman, I wish I could share the enthusiasm of the minister for his area development program but unfortunately I cannot, and I am sure most of my colleagues from Atlantic Canada share my misgivings. As the minister and members of the house know, we have a very high unemployment rate in Atlantic Canada, a rate over twice the national average. At one point this winter it had reached, I believe, 10.9 per cent. This proves that the measures taken by the minister and the government are simply not enough.
We in Atlantic Canada have made several suggestions with regard to the area development program which I think are worthy of consideration by the minister. They have been developed by the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, non-partisan body, I am sure the minister will agree, since it is composed of people from management, labour and other organizations and of all political stripes. The suggestion was set forth in the annual report of the Economic Council of Canada-in this regard the minister has engaged in spirited correspondence with the mayors of Halifax, Dartmouth, Saint John and Fredericton and the warden of the municipality of Halifax county-that there be no exclusion of these metropolitan areas from the area development incentive program as it now exists.
I suggest to the minister, as I suggested by letter previously and as others have done, that this does in fact make economic sense. When there is an area with high unemployment surely, if the act is to accomplish its purpose, the entire area should be treated as a separate economic problem and the benefits and incentives under the act should be generously extended to that area until the unemployment rate has dropped to a level where one can say with some satisfaction that the program is meeting the needs of the people there. So I suggest again to the minister that he and his officials review the request of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council and of the mayors of Halifax, Dartmouth, Saint John and Fredericton, and the warden of the

municipality of Halifax county to see whether it would not be possible to extend the act to the entire area of Atlantic Canada until such time as our savage unemployment problem is brought within measurable bounds. I know that the minister and his officials have reviewed this matter but I ask them to do it again.
What we are encountering there is a certain attraction of industry to the area-this I have to admit-but sometimes it is at the expense of the cities which are outside the incentive provisions. I think the minister would agree with me that it does not particularly help the problem when you shift unemployment from one part of a region to another. The purpose should be to attract new industries there and not relocate old industries. Therefore I suggest that the minister and his officials examine the formula to see whether it is possible to include those four cities. The formula itself seems to be a bit freakish, if I may use that expression, in that the city of Moncton, my birthplace, a very bustling city which has grown by leaps and bounds along with some of the other cities in the Maritimes, is not excluded from the act. I believe this is because unemployment in an adjacent large rural area has been a problem for years and this area is considered to be a part of the greater Moncton complex. This brings Moncton within the operation of the act.
It seems to me that this is one of the flukes or freaks which can develop where the criteria are very flexible; yet there is no reason that Saint John, Fredericton, Halifax and Dartmouth should not receive advantages comparable with those of Moncton. If the minister does not accept the idea of bringing Halifax, Saint John, Dartmouth and Fredericton within the act, then I suggest to him an alternative. To my mind it would be a very poor one but at least it would be an improvement over the existing formula. I suggest that he confine the area excluded from the act to the narrowest possible boundaries. I say this because in Halifax county the line is some distance removed from the city of Dartmouth and yet between Dartmouth and the fine there are rural areas which because of their connection with the metropolitan areas of Halifax and Dartmouth are not allowed the benefits of the area development incentive program. One cannot see a discernible difference between the economies of the villages in these areas and
May 20, 1966

the salaries paid there and those in the villages a little farther down the coast.
From my discussions with officials of the department and as has been stated by the minister, I understand there is a periodic review of the exact geographical limits of areas under this act. It is my understanding that the Halifax metropolitan area situation is to be investigated again next year. I hope, however, that the minister will look at it in the near future since I believe he has received a communication from the warden of the municipality of Halifax county indicating that there are outside interests which could be induced to set up new businesses in some of the small fishing villages which now do not enjoy the benefits under the Area Development Incentives Act.
[DOT] (1:10 p.m.)
Although I am sure he knows, I might tell the minister that this was a rather keen point in the last election campaign. The very principle advocated by my leader, the right hon. member for Prince Albert, was that until employment conditions in Atlantic Canada reached an acceptable level the whole area should be given the benefits of the incentive program which now go only to a part of the area. This achieved considerable response from the peoples, as I think the minister will agree if he looks at the election results in Halifax, Dartmouth, Saint John and Fredericton.
I do not want to be too narrow in my criticism of the minister and the operations of his department as I know he is enthusiastic about what he would like to accomplish and I commend him for that enthusiasm. I am not sure it is a good idea to keep his department small, although maybe it is if he has a well balanced team with esprit de corps who fight hard and are not hampered because of its smallness of size. I beseech the minister to look again at the problem to which I have referred. I know that area development incentives are not the easiest things in the world to come to grips with because what you may do for one area you may undo for another.
I have not entered this debate from a strictly negative and critical point of view but have offered the minister two alternatives which I ask him to pursue in order that a review can be carried out as quickly as possible.


Mr. Saltsman:: Mr. Chairman, in listening to the minister I could not help but feel that
Supply-Industry
many of the things he is projecting for his department in his outline of the work it is undertaking are the sort of things on which we can all agree. If there is any argument about what is going on in his department it is that the objectives are not matched by actions.
The minister talks about a sound philosophy. I for one am always pleased to note that a minister is interested in philosophy, whether economic or otherwise, but I sometimes think that his philosophy is in trouble and is suffering from schizophrenia. There seems to be a difficulty in the Department of Industry in that the area development program is supposed to be moving industry into certain areas whereas the department of manpower has a mobility program which is supposed to move people out of areas.
I do not quarrel with the suggestion that perhaps both of these programs are required to some extent but I do suggest that there does not seem to be any relationship between the two with regard to which areas people should move out of and into which areas industry should be moved. This is a very difficult problem to handle but it is the kind of problem that will have to be attacked if we are going to obtain an answer.
Very frequently it appears that the area development program is an attempt at being progressive. It seems that we must do something so the department has decided to do this. There does not seem to be any great thought, planning or understanding of problems behind what is being done by the Department of Industry.
The first time I got to my feet to speak in the House of Commons I directed a question to the Minister of Industry because of a problem which arose in my riding as a result of the area development program. I do not have to go into it in great detail because the minister has had considerable correspondence about it. It affected not only the riding of Waterloo South but the ridings of Waterloo North and Wellington South, and quite a number of speeches have been made in this regard.
Although, as I said, the concept of an area development or designated area program is a good one and is probably required in Canada, the way the Department of Industry has been carrying out the program is absolutely without real economic justification or support. I have submitted to the minister time and time again that the criteria followed for designation have been wrong. We have just heard the hon. member for Halifax who indicated

May 20, 1966
Supp ly-Industry
the problems existing in the maritime provinces and the Atlantic region. I think he is quite correct when he says that there does not seem to be any real understanding of what is required in terms of industrial development for the maritimes. That applies not only to the maritimes but to almost every province of Canada.
I should like to quote briefly from the third annual report of the Manitoba economic consultative board which raises this same problem. On page 5 they say:
We note also the exclusion of Winnipeg and its adjacent area from the industrial development incentives provided by the federal area development agency. This, we believe, is inconsistent with sound regional development strategy since Winnipeg and surrounding area account for most of the industrial employment in the province.
The province of Quebec has made representations in this regard. I should like to refer to one report not mentioned by the hon. member for Halifax which was prepared for the Atlantic provinces research board by Professor Wilson of the University of Glasgow. This report bears out many of the arguments raised by the hon. member.
There is this schizophrenic attitude within the department. It cannot make up its mind whether it is more interested in productivity or charity, or perhaps political porkbarrel-ling. I do not wish to be unkind and perhaps the use of such an expression is a little on the harsh side, but when one looks at the situation it frequently has that appearance.
There can really be no economic justification in a country like Canada for scattering industry helter-skelter regardless of any analysis of whether it has any basis for economic or long-range existence. I realize that we are trying to correct unemployment but I suggest this is not the way to go about it. What we are doing is saddling municipalities with short-range palliatives they will live to regret because they will have to build up their services to look after industries which cannot survive and will eventually go under.
The Department of Industry in some cases is encouraging industries to move into districts where they have no business being. On the other hand, you have areas of development and potential growth such as Halifax and Dartmouth which present opportunities for development. After all, if you take a look at industry you will find there are other things besides tax incentives which interest them. An industry that understands its problems does not move just because someone gives it a little hand-out. Very frequently

that is all we have done. We have rewarded them for doing something they were probably prepared to do in any event.
I suggest that the proper approach is one of economic feasibility and that when the department undertakes to determine which areas should be designated and which should not the criteria of unemployment and income are really not the proper criteria at all. The proper criteria should be economic potential and long-term survival.
There are some very good measures we could implement to help chronic unemployment areas rather than continue to do what we are now doing. I think it is a cruel hoax in most cases to move new industry into areas in which they do not belong and cannot survive because they have no reason for belonging there in the first place. If these industries remain in these areas they have to be subsidized. Neither of these choices is good, from the point of view of a philosophy based on productivity and making Canada strong economically.
[DOT] (1:20 p.m.)
I should like to raise another matter. I have not spoken for very long on the question of designated areas. It is apparent that the committee is in a mood to conclude its consideration of these estimates as quickly as possible and I am prepared to accept such an approach at this time. I should like to consider now the way in which industry in Canada can be helped.
The department is organized according to trades. I have spoken to the heads of various branches within the department and by and large I have been very impressed by the calibre of those in its employ. However, I find they do not have the authority to help industry to any great extent. Their powers are severely limited. It is only natural that in any government organization there will be conflicts, for example, between the Department of Industry which is seeking expansion and the Department of Finance which is trying to apply a tight money policy. Perhaps the excise branch agrees with neither. There are bound to be conflicts.
A businessman goes to the Department of Industry with the assumption that the department will do its best to help him. Frequently the head of a particular grouping in the department will tell him:	I will do
everything I can but my authority in certain
May 20, I960

directions is limited; I will go as far as I can but then you will have to talk to someone else. I suggest to the minister that he seriously consider appointing industrial commissioners or industrial ombudsmen for the various departments. They would be people whose purpose it would be to help an industrialist find his way through a great and complex organization, with all the conflicting purposes which exist there.
Such a suggestion has great possibilities in my opinion. The problems encountered by an industralist might involve the excise branch or the Department of Finance. Instead of directing their caller to someone else the officials of the department could take him straight through. The complexity of government will not decrease over the years; it will become greater. This is in the nature of things and it is idle to deplore it. Correspondingly there is a growing need to help those who come to the department for assistance.
The department, seems to me, lacks information. When the minister indicated in his statement all the things his department hopes and intends to do, considerable doubt arose in my mind whether he would ever be able to accomplish even a fraction of-those intentions. I say this because he does not seem to have at his disposal information on economic facts sufficient to enable him to act effectively. Research being done in this field is insufficient to produce the information upon which correct decisions can be made. I suggest that instead of congratulating himself on the small size of his staff, on keeping his staff to a small, fighting force, the minister should enlarge his staff particularly in the area of research.
Many of the difficulties connected with the area development program arose because there was insufficient understanding of its implications. When I read reports from various provinces and see how completely they have been ignored, I wonder sometimes whether it is not readers of reports who are needed rather than research staff. But whatever is required in this field should be undertaken in order to ensure that some of the worst features we have seen in the past arising out of decisions made on the basis of inadequate knowledge shall not be repeated in the future.
I hope the government will at some time bring these estimates before the appropriate committee. There does not seem to be any great pressure on the minister to do so on
23033-34U
Supply-Industry
this occasion. I cannot recall the estimates of the department undergoing a thorough scrutiny. Often they have been brought in at the last minute. The minister has asked the committee to get them through quickly and the committee has usually been accommodating in this regard. The department has undertaken a large number of projects and for this reason I believe the time has come for its estimates to be submitted to a fuller scrutiny than is possible now. I hope they will go before a committee next time.


Mr. Faulkner:: Mr. Chairman, I intend to deal briefly with one subject. I hope the relationship between it and the estimates of the Department of Industry will be seen, for I admit it is not absolutely clear.
I listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. member for Waterloo South. I was surprised to find him, a member of the New Democratic party, being so critical of the area development program and in particular of the criteria used. I fail to see how any area development program can operate if the criterion of employment levels is not a major one in any determination of which areas should benefit.
The hon. member would like to substitute another criterion, which he calls "economic feasibility", without enlightening us as to exactly what he means by that term and without mentioning specific areas where presumably there has been economic infeasibility. This seems to be a most superficial approach to a program which has done a great deal of good.
As the hon. member must be well aware, there are some areas that do not participate in this program. Peterborough is one such area and I know our industrial commissioner has never been happy about its exclusion. Nevertheless he has never been able to persuade me or even himself that the criteria are wrong. That they are capable of refinement goes without saying. But I do not feel the criticism made by the hon. member was substantial. In my opinion it would be a mistake to separate this program from the employment criterion because employment is the very goal the program was designed to reach.
[DOT] (1:30 p.m.)
As to the next allegation that there is a lack of information or administrative confusion in the department, I must simply state for the record that my experience with the department has not been the same as that of

May 20, 1968
Supply-Industry
the hon. member for Waterloo South. I have had excellent co-operation and so have the people from my area who have come here to inquire how industry can co-operate with the Department of Industry and what facilities are available. In fact, I hope within the next month to be able to set up a meeting at Peterborough for members of the Department of Industry, members of the National Research Council and the business people in Peterborough. At this meeting we will discuss exactly what the department and N.R.C. are able to provide by way of assistance and guidance to my people. I had no problem at all setting up this meeting through the Department of Industry. I have had complete co-operation.
As I have said before it may be that we as members are going to have to take the initiative. There are those who say it is the minister's job to go to Peterborough and tell the people in industry what assistance is available from the government, but it seems to me it is far more my responsibility to be doing this. Perhaps communications can be improved if we as members take some of the responsibility upon ourselves.
In his opening statement the minister discussed what the department had done. I feel that it has not only done a great deal of work but has taken a number of important initiatives, and I do not say this simply because I happen to be on the government side. I think, for instance, that the concern the department has shown for the level and quality of industrial design in this country is most important. I believe this concern is also reflected in the program worked out to assist in research and development in this country, which is most important. The Department of Industry seems to be subjected to a certain amount of criticism, but in any assessment of the department it seems to me careful consideration should be given to inroads made into areas which traditionally have been backwaters in this country.
Industrial design has never been a subject of great pride in this country, except possibly in the engineering field. We have reason for some pride in that area but in other areas we are very weak. In so far as research and development undertaken by Canadian industry are concerned, we are in a very serious position. This subject has been discussed before. Figures released by the Department of Industry show that in the major industrialized countries the following percentages of gross 
national product have been devoted to research and development: United States, 2.8 per cent; United Kingdom, 6.2 per cent; Sweden, 1.7 per cent; Japan, 1.3 per cent; and well down the list comes Canada with 0.86 per cent. This is a most serious problem.
I believe it should be recognized by members on both sides of the house that the Department of Industry has in fact established programs to encourage and assist industry to get into the field of research and development to a much greater degree. I should like to commend the minister for the work he and his department have done in this field.
Having said that, I should like now to go to a particular problem which might be considered peripheral to the estimates of the Department of Industry. Since the minister is concerned with our manufacturing industry there is one problem I should like to bring to his attention. He will no doubt have to work with the Minister of Trade and Commerce in order to find a solution. However, in so far as he is directly responsible for industry I should like to draw his attention to this problem.
In my area the largest single employer is the Canadian General Electric Company which employs 5,000 to 6,000 people in the Peterborough area. It is in the heavy electrical apparatus business, along with a whole range of other lines. In the immediate past there have been two major contracts for heavy electrical equipment, namely, the Hydro Quebec 735KV transmission project and the British Columbia Peace River project. These are both major Canadian projects. The products involved in the Hydro Quebec project were transformers and circuit breakers. These were items which Canadian General Electric was involved in producing. Total business for suppliers on the Hydro Quebec project amounted to $24,500,000. Of the total business placed Canadian General Electric obtained 50 per cent, Sweden received 23 per cent, 10 per cent went to England, 8 per cent to Switzerland, 7 per cent to Belgium, and 2 per cent to France.
In so far as the Peace River project is concerned the products involved were generators, circuit breakers and transformers. Total business placed in the year 1965 was $24,380,000. Of that total the business placed in Canada amounted to 46 per cent. The business placed overseas was as follows: 15.5 per cent in Japan, 12.7 per cent in England,
May 20, 1966



10.4 per cent in France, 9 per cent in Switzerland, and 5.5 per cent in Sweden.
I am not suggesting that this division is not perfectly fair. I am not suggesting there is anything intrinsically wrong with the fact that in relation to a major project of this type Canadian business should only get 50 per cent. What I am suggesting is that this situation in Canada is not duplicated abroad. Contracts of this type in England, Sweden, France and Switzerland are not shared 50 per cent by home industry and 50 per cent abroad. I have tried as diligently as I can to get at the root of the matter. I ask the Minister of Industry to look into the situation to ascertain if Canadian industry is competing on the same terms with European industry in their bailiwick as we are allowing them to compete with us in ours.
I am not opposed to what we are doing here but I insist upon the same terms applying to Canadian industry abroad. What gives this question a real urgency is the announcement of the Nelson River project. I have a clipping here from the Hamilton Spectator for March 14 of this year which refers to a story in the Daily Express. The report in the Hamilton Spectator reads as follows:
The Daily Express yesterday devoted a half page to how Britain can "get away with a cool hundred million quid'' from Manitoba's vast Nelson River power project.
That's three hundred million dollars in Canadian terms-and it's the share of the billion dollar development that Britain's industry hopes to corner for itself.
In a dispatch from Winnipeg, the Express quotes Gordon Husted, the resident British trade commissioner, as saying: "The plan is foolproof. Given the backing of imagination and enterprise from back home, the cash is there for the taking''.
I do not mind the trade commissioner using these rather extravagant terms in talking to his people at home. After all, in some measure his own livelihood probably depends upon his degree of enthusiasm and persuasiveness. I am asking the minister to see that we in Canada compete on the same terms in the British market as apparently the British are able to compete in our market.
[DOT] (1:40 p.m.)


Mr. Beaulieu:: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to pay tribute, on behalf of my constituents and the citizens of the province of Quebec, to the minister who comes from our area, that of Montreal.
I hope that he will appreciate that none of my remarks is intended for him personally.
Supply-Industry
For 20 years I studied the situation of industries not only in the provinces of Quebec, Ontario, and the prairies, but also in British Columbia and in the eastern provinces, and I have come to the conclusion that all Canadian provinces now have extremely good statistics.
I will take only one example, the province of Quebec. There was in the cabinet a minister who had been deputy minister of Trade and Industry in the province of Quebec. All investigations and research aimed at finding out whether it was possible to bring in new industries in the underdeveloped areas. We also helped promote the development of new industries in our province.
I was listening a moment ago to the minister saying that there was a scholarship program. I think that the period of scholarships within his department, considering the budget at his dispoasl, is a thing of the past.
To staff the Department of Industry, some of the most brilliant officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce were brought in. I think that there is now in that department technocrats and research workers rather well prepared for the work to be done.
All Canadian provinces are now in a position to provide our federal Department of Industry with the information it needs. In the province of Quebec, they tried to subdivide the province into areas, to direct industries toward underdeveloped places, but this failed to bring about any significant results for the good reason that industry goes wherever it feels is best suitable. People having money to invest would not invest it where it would not be profitable for them.
The province of Quebec, has more than 12,000 industries now and the province of Ontario has about 14,000; this means that 80 per cent of all our country's industries are located in the two large eastern provinces, Ontario and Quebec.
Quite recently, my area was chosen as a designated area. It is unbelievable to see a city like St. Johns, where there are hundreds of industries, chosen as a designated area. It is a prosperous city, so much so that, over the last 15 years, the population has increased from 10,000 to 35,000.
What happened? That is when the Department of Industry must give special attention to the choice of designated areas. Suddenly three or four industries closed their doors for uncontrollable reasons. The owners of one industry were told: You will not get

May 20. 1966
Supply-Industry
any more contracts unless you move to Montreal. They closed their doors; the industry stayed there. The other industry closed down because exports to the United States stopped. It was not a period of depression. What happened? A powerful industry benefited from the federal legislation when it had the means to cover its costs.
I am happy about what happened, I am happy that the situation has stabilized itself, but I find it extremely dangerous to put at the disposal of large and powerful industries services, grants and income tax exemptions which the government could give to others which need them more.
Here is what happens in the end. A large industry which is not very profitable is closed and another one is opened; nothing is changed, it hurts somewhere else. But all that is paid out of the Canadian taxpayer's money.
I think it is important to study closely each particular case. I think that there are other designated areas, but then it is necessary to get the services of experts, technocrats, men with experience, not only men who do research-not necessarily scientists or economists-but men who know what an industry is, how to create it and settle it somewhere in short men who can make investigations and reports.
New industries are requested. Everyone is for the creation of new industries, but it is necessary to know the market and where these new industries will settle and, then, if there is a domestic or export market for them.
But some industries have been operating in the province of Quebec, in Ontario, in western Canada, everywhere, for the last 50 years, and they are not being helped. It might be wise for the minister to confer with the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr Winters) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) with a view to determining whether the time has come to help existing industries to expand. It is all very well to create new industries. I know of certain industries in the province of Quebec to which help should be given, not through cash subsidies but through tax exemptions for certain jobs, or on the purchase of new equipment to keep pace with progress. They might also be granted tax exemptions so that those who hire labour might have the required cash to do the necessary work, instead of always having to resort to bonds issues, all the more so in view of the fact that the market is now at a

standstill, not only in Canada but also in the United States.
[DOT] (1:50 p.m.)
It is extremely difficult, even for a city like Montreal that needs money to fulfil its obligations with regard to the world fair, to borrow on the American market.
I believe that the Department of Industry would be well advised to call together the representatives of the manufacturers association so as to know their opinion. And it is then, Mr. Chairman, that I deplore the expenses this government has made for some time now regarding the subdivision of departments.
I am delighted with the establishment of the Department of Industry, but its budget is a mere trifle, because there is really something to be done there. On the other hand, there is no proportion between the administrative costs and the budget administered. It costs $5 million to administer a $20 million budget. That is nonsensical. The fact is that the civil servants, if they are qualified of course, do not have enough work, enough responsibilities and the budget is inadequate.
The Department of Trade and Commerce was divided. How can we make sense out of this today in the province of Quebec? I came to Ottawa with industrialists. We went to the Department of Industry, from there we were referred to the Department of Trade and Commerce. We went to the Department of Trade and Commerce and there we were sent back to the Department of Industry, where we were told that our application came under the Department of Labour. At the Department of Labour, we were told that it came under another department.
The same holds true when it comes to an application concerning a post office. When I submit an application to this effect to the Post Office Department, I am told: All right, you are granted the post office. Two days later, the Post Office Department gets in touch with you to advise that you have the post office, but you do not have the land; when you have the land, you will get the post office. Then, they suggest to see another department, where we are told: All right, we will buy the land but before we do that you must get your post office; get the post office first, and then we will buy the land.
Thus we go from one department to the other. I visited at least 10 departments and I suggest that the present subdivisions and the fact that there are two or three officials at the
May 20, 1966

head of a department, as an hon. member pointed out a while ago, makes it impossible to get any decision.
The system is different in our provinces, For instance, in the province of Quebec, where they say there was a lack of organization, there is at least a chief in each department, there is a minister who can take a decision, who can say yes. But here, when you ask a department for something, the answer you get is: This does not come within my purview, but under that of the Department of Labour. Another tells you that it comes under manpower or yet another one, under the Post Office Department. And the latter advises that it comes under the Department of Public Works.
I went to see the Minister of Transport in connection with the St. John airport. There I was told: We will fix that for you, but first you need the approval of the Department of Public Works, otherwise I cannot comply with your request. I asked him: But, nevertheless are you going to repair the runways? He answered: It is not for us to do that, but for the Department of Public Works.
We went to three departments. We went around with aldermen, who found all that really ridiculous. Indeed, the situation created by the present government is ridiculous. We want answers. We want to know about those things.
Arriving at the Department of Industry to discuss an industrial matter, we are told: What industry do you want? After explaining our objective, they say: This comes under the Department of Trade and Commerce. And at the Department of Trade and Commerce, they talk about grants.
That is all everybody says: members have toured departments and we are never able to get a sensible answer. They make us fall from Scylla into Charybdis.


Auguste Choquette: Just like the Union Na-tionale government.


Jean-Paul Beaulieu: If we had such a government, conditions would improve in Canada. At the present time, I think that the Department of Industry, if given the importance it deserves and the funds it needs, if it is allowed to take decisions, it is as important, I say, as the Department of Labour or the department of manpower.
Workers are now to be relocated. This will create a problem. But if some assistance is granted to industry, it will provide employment. The state can only give temporary
Supply-Industry
employment as for road construction, bridge construction, and this cannot solve permanent conditions.
Industry is the basis and essential factor for the development of our country, for the creation of an environment where our people will be in a position to earn a living adequately.
I find the estimates are too high compared to the expenditures foreseen, because $20 million are provided for and this amount, as shown in the estimates, is made up entirely of grants. Nobody has to work to obtain a grant. Various amounts are shown but on what basis are those people paid for research?
Such is the situation, Mr. Chairman. I think the government should review the organization of these departments, entrust the ministers with responsibilities and draw up proper
budgets.
I sincerely believe that not only in the province of Quebec, but in every Canadian province from coast to coast, it would be possible by taking the trouble to maintain industries already established, to extend, modernize and develop them and even set up new industries. But it is not enough to say, as was announced yesterday on television: a new $50 million project in the province of Quebec, close to Ottawa. A few minutes later, somebody asked how many jobs would be provided. Seventy five more workers will get a job. A $50 million grant will be obtained, mind you, to create 75 jobs. Do you find this reasonable?
I am in favour of technocrats, economists and scientists, but departments need more than that. They actually need young men who know what constitutes an industry. We were told that a new industry would be established in Becancour at a cost of $300 to $700 million. We are now being told that the project is not believed to be workable. Such things give rise to a painful situation. The Minister of Labour is here today-and I am happy to congratulate him on his efforts-but he will realize that a problem has been created for him.
Because of the promises made to them, the farmers sold their farms or gave options on them. They no longer have the right to farm. For the last two years, they have been getting no income from their farms. As a matter of fact, they are running through their capital. They were promised a job and they are told now that no new industries will be established before five or six years to provide

May 20. 1966
Supply-Industry
them with jobs. They will be destitute, completely ruined and will become unemployed. Such is the present situation, and that is why I say the Minister of Industry has responsibilities.
Such a statement must not be made. We must not create such a situation.
In Montreal, soon, Expo '67 will take place. I tried to convince the minister yesterday that it was not necessary to carry out extensive work in St. Johns. We already have an airport there. All we need is to take immediate steps to modernize it. The municipality of St. Johns is ready to put up half a million dollars for the buildings. It would only cost the federal government $200,000 or $300,000 to expropriate the required properties. Do you know what he answered? My estimates do not provide for such work this year; we shall consider it next year. Well next year Expo '67 will be over and there will be no need for it. Action is needed right away. They just refuse to understand.
But for the province of Quebec, for my area, what matters most at this point, I am sure, is not so much giving money to industries as telling them: Here are the facilities, the reserves, income tax exemptions for two or three years, provided you increase your staff.
When a company tells the Department of Industry: Tomorrow morning, we are hiring 50 new employees; and another says: Tomorrow, we will take on 100 new employees. Then the government would be justified, with the co-operation of the Department of National Revenue and the Department of Industry in telling them: very well, we will give you a 10, 15 or 20 per cent exemption, according to the importance of the industry and the importance it is going to have.
It was not my intention to criticize the minister; compared to the other departments in Ottawa, his is a new one. But it is an important, a most important one. Let it have responsibilities and a budget; let the minister have enough power, I consider him competent in the industrial area and let him have employees, technicians and I suggest that the minister enlist businessmen in addition to economists and researchers.
Then, a plan could be drawn up to be applied, not in 20 years but this year, and next year, for such a program, I hope we can see something more in the budget than what there is now. It would not be a department concerned only with handing out

grants, but a department that will be creating jobs, careers, and which will bring relief to industry. Taxes now paralysing the development of existing industries are preventing new industries from getting started here and are a nuisance to small industries to the point where many will fail, because they will have to pay 1.8 per cent or half the contribution under the Canada pension plan.
There are small industries which are barely operating, so much so that the boss hardly earns a living wage. You realize there that you have been creating an impossible situation. Obviously nothing can be done about laws of a general nature and applicable to every one, but we should see to it that such industries do not fold up.
For ten years, while I was minister in Quebec, I was criticized, but we applied a policy of "visits and subsidies" to small industry with less than 100 employees. And do you know that in ten years there has not been a single bankruptcy among the industries we have helped. Some of them have developed since; others have expanded considerably, and one of the industries with which I was associated for 15 years was recently sold for $3,200,000, only because the owner died. Sixteen years ago this man could not borrow $25,000 from the bank. Why was he so successful? Because he was helped, because the department helped him.
I ask the minister this. His department needs not only technicians and research workers, but auditors and engineers who should give industry across Canada the information it requests free of charge. This would be a most essential service. These people would be paid by the Ottawa government and their services would be available to whoever needs them.
There are research centres in large industries which can afford to hire engineers. When a company pays $5 million for research, it does not need help. On the other hand, small business concerns which today operate on a marginal basis need an engineer or a chartered accountant to do research. These concerns should be helped.
Why should the government not make available to these people, at its own expense, qualified men who would submit a report. This would not be unreasonably expensive. In two months a good engineer can tell you if a small industry is economically sound, if it should be maintained or closed.
Auditors will look into a business concern, study production costs and tell the people:
May 20, 1966

Gentlemen, you are selling below cost, you cannot succeed. Your concern is not competitive. I believe this is a practical policy and that the minister, who is a business man, realizes that if he could set up such a system he would do the provinces and the whole country a great service, including his colleagues heading such departments as labour, trade and commerce, finance and revenue.
We can have a prosperous Canada. We can have prosperous provinces, on one condition: that we organize ourselves scientifically, seriously, and that we put competent people in all the departments and divisions.
[DOT] (2:00 p.m.)


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I want to make a few brief remarks on the minister's estimates as an unrepentant old socialist trying to look at these questions from a fundamental and traditional socialist point of view.
I see the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration looking at me over the top of his glasses. I hope we will assist him in the programs he has undertaken to date by what we say this afternoon and will say later.
I suppose it is correct to say that the Department of Industry is the department of wait and see. That is the general attitude of most hon. members. The department has to prove itself, but I am sure all members of this group wish the minister and his officials every success in all they undertake to try to fill the gaps that have been left in employment, development, markets and research as a result of the monopoly control of our economy by a few large industrial giants.
The minister knows that we in this party are traditionally opposed to monopoly and combine. We have had that plank in our program since our movement was first formed in 1932. We have maintained that position and intend to maintain it. There are two major groups that actually control the Canadian economy. One is the small but powerful Canadian economic elite described by various persons as all those who are involved in Canadian owned corporations which have interlocking directorships. The other is a group of United States firms and foreign businesses which have a tremendous influence on social and economic conditions in Canada.
I am not blaming individuals. These persons have their functions to perform in the society in which we live and they have their
Supply-Industry
duties as directors and officers of corporations. As I say, I am not blaming individuals.
I am just bringing to the minister's attention some of the highlights of our program in case he might want to fall back on them in the months ahead.
I wish to quote from "Notes For Speakers 1965" provided to the New Democratic Party, and I hope the minister will read the booklet later. There is a section headed "How Do The Giant Firms Keep Their Supremacy" which reads:
Someone may well wonder how the dominant corporations in each industry manage to stay on top. In view of the fact that they earn large profits, why doesn't this attract so many new firms into the industry that the share of the dominant firms is sharply reduced?
That is a good question.
There are a number of ways in which the giants can bar or discourage new firms from entering the industry.
1.	In some industries enormous amounts of capital are required to establish a new plant and only the existing dominant firms have this kind of capital.
2.	Some industries require a particular natural resource or type of skill and the available supply of these may be completely controlled by the existing firms. Sometimes this takes the form of "vertical integration" where the large firm controls everything from the raw material supplies to the marketing of the end products.
3.	Often the existing firm secures a patent on a particular process or product which bars new firms from using this process or producing this product.
I am sure the minister and his officials have had some experience in that regard in looking at Canadian industry as it is today.
4.	The large existing firms have well established sources of credit to supply them with funds for expansion. Credit is not so readily available to the small firm. The large firms can also float huge issues of stocks and bonds; this is very difficult indeed for a new firm just beginning operations.
I understand the minister's department intends to promote the issuance of credit to sound industries being promoted on a large and small scale.
5.	The most successful advertising is that which is carried out on a national scale-on television and radio, in national magazines, etc. The large existing firms can afford this; newcomers generally cannot.
I am quite sure the great majority of small industries and businesses could not undertake this sort of advertising on any scale.
6.	The dominant firms have surplus funds with which to carry out costly research into new methods and products.
7.	The large corporation can engage the newcomer in a price war. The giant has reserves which will sustain him until the war is over;-

May 20, 1966
Supply-Industry
I have seen that happen in the retail business in my own district.
-the newcomer generally does not have such reserves and is driven out ol the market. Then the giant restores the price to its former level.
These are only a few of the methods by which the existing dominant corporations maintain their hold on an industry.
How do many of these people acquire their capital? The minister has talked about incentives to promote industry in certain areas. We have provided massive incentives for these monopolies whether they are Canadian owned or United States owned.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
I have an article I cut from the Ottawa Journal of May 18. I will read briefly from it because the figures are handy, Possibly I could have located the figures had I searched my files. This is a report of a speech made in the legislature of Ontario by Mr. Kenneth Bryden. He had this to say:

the plain fact is that "only a very small and declining amount of U.S. investment funds," is associated with U.S. corporate control in Canada.
The went on to illustrate his statement that Americans are buying us out with our own money. He said:
-in 1964 about $764,000,000, or 40 per cent of the total net U.S. financing in Canada, came from the depreciation and depletion reserves of Canadian subsidiaries of U.S. corporations.
The report continues:
He said an additional $644,000,000 came from undistributed profits of these subsidiaries and the remaining $423,000,000 came from stocks and bonds sold outside the U.S.
He said U.S. corporations "are re-investing funds generated in Canada which they have captured in depreciation allowances and undistributed funds."
As a solution to U.S. control Mr. Bryden suggested reform of provincial and federal corporation tax structures to tighten up provisions regarding depreciation and depletion allowances.
This really is a massive form of tax incentive which has provided a great deal of the capital throughout the years for United States controlled subsidiaries in Canada. I wish to draw this to the particular attention of the minister because it seems to me there should be some consideration of the larger investment in Canada of capital obtained in this way.
Before concluding I should like to offer to the minister a few suggestions from our New Democratic Party program. This is the present program; you can rely on it. If the minister would like to have one of these booklets I would be glad to send on over to

him later. What would happen, Mr. Chairman, if we should over the months ahead get a convert? We will do our best to see that he has the information.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Maybe his applause means that he is being converted.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I think we have a convert to our objectives but he is running on a different political railroad at this time.
New Democratic investment policy seeks to break monopoly control over Canadian industry and resources.
Modern corporate expansion is financed mainly out of huge corporation reserves.
And in the other ways I have mentioned. This briefly is our program to meet the situation:
The New Democratic government's taxation policy will be a basic part of its planning. It will divert funds from private to public investment, redistribute the national income on a fairer basis and help to regulate the pace of economic activity.
A large part of the accumulated investment funds of private companies must flow into the public treasury, there to be used to realize public economic objectives. This will be accomplished through:
(a)	an increase in the corporation tax rate, especially on undistributed profits;
(b)	reduction in excessive depreciation and depletion allowances;
(c)	limitations on the deductions now allowed for advertising and sales promotion;
(d)	a tax on capital gains;
Canada is one of the few countries in the western world which does not have a capital gains tax.
(e)	increased succession duties.
The present tax structure will be reformed by such steps as:
(a)	reduction in the tax burden on lower income groups;
(b)	abolition of the special privileges which now go to the recipients of corporation dividends;
(c)	stricter control of expense accounts and similar allowances, to eliminate tax-dodging;
(d)	removal of the federal sales tax and special excise tax from the necessities of life.
In addition, I support every effort put forward by the minister and his officials in respect of research in this country. I trust it will be co-ordinated research as a result of co-operation with other governments, universities, and private industry to find things which will be of benefit with regard to processing our natural resources and our marketing opportunities at home and abroad.
I should like to support also those who have spoken about regional planning and who have suggested that it should not be localized
May 20, 1966



or parochial planning. I think it is more effective to lay out the country in regions rather than just in smaller areas where such a program would benefit that area and ignore its relationship to the surrounding region. I am sure that if this program is to be successful there will have to be the closest co-operation between the provincial governments and the agencies interested in this type of work with industry, small industry, small business, and with labour and other groups.
I think there must be an effort to ensure that the public generally understands the purposes and objectives of the department. We should seek in every possible way to secure their co-operation. I am not suggesting for a moment that the things I have mentioned will cure the ills of the capitalist system but they may make life more endurable during the time we have to live on this planet.


Mr. Forresiall:: Mr. Chairman, if I may have the indulgence of the committee and the minister for a few moifients I should like to pick up where my colleague the hon. member for Halifax left off on the question of the area incentive program. The minister has heard the blessings which have been expressed in respect of this piece of legislation. As the hon. member for Halifax has mentioned, the minister received communications in the form of letters, briefs, and so on from the mayors of the four distinct areas of Halifax, Dartmouth, Saint John, Fredericton and the municipalities or areas immediately surrounding these cities. Latterly he has heard collectively from the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council which represents, as has been suggested, a non-political group. This should carry added weight in reassuring the government of the necessity of moving in some concerted manner to overcome the regional disparities which exist in the Atlantic provinces.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
It has been suggested that unemployment figures are the criterion for the area incentive program in the regions in which it is applicable. It is not necessary for me to recite the employment and unemployment figures in British Columbia, the prairie region, Ontario, Quebec and in our region, the maritimes. I think hon. members are very familiar with them. Therefore, suffice it that I draw to your attention one or two facts. On March 19 this year, according to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, employment stood at 6.821 million and unemployment at 341,000, which means
Supply-Industry
that somewhere in the order of 5 per cent of our national labour force was out of work on that date. In the maritime provinces on March 19 there were 537,000 people at work. On the same date there were 63,000 people out of work. The relationship between these figures is very obvious. In our area 63,000 people out of work represent approximately 12 per cent of our total labour force whereas the national average was only in the order of 5 per cent. I will not draw the more startling comparisons that are obvious in respect of the Ontario, prairie and British Columbia regions.
The necessity of dealing with the problems of industrial development and productivity in the Atlantic region has been brought so forcibly to the attention of the government, civic leaders, economists and everybody concerned that there is very little I can do except reiterate what appears to be a mounting volume of evidence to support two or three very basic propositions. The first of these is the need to approach the problems of the Atlantic region in the spirit that has been voiced so often by the government, the spirit of equal opportunity and equal sharing in our national prosperity. This is not easy to achieve, as pointed out by the Economic Council of Canada and by APEC. Any economist who has studied the relationship of the Maritimes to the rest of Canada has come to the same conclusion in one way or another, and that conclusion is simply that the problems cannot be approached piecemeal but rather must be attacked by one concerted effort.
The minister is very much aware of this but in spite of the pleas and urgings to pursue this course the government has not yet seen fit to do so. We do have the Atlantic provinces development board and the area incentive program, but I suggest to the minister that if he cannot modify, extend or enlarge the regulations under these programs at once to embrace the four areas mentioned, Saint John, Dartmouth, Halifax and Fredericton, which are the growth centres of the Atlantic region and are now outside any special incentive program, the help needed will not be forthcoming.
Because these are the growth centres and the centres to which people from rural areas will be attracted, a great percentage of whom are unemployed, the government must give serious consideration to them. It has been suggested that it is of no avail to locate an industry in a region, district or area where

May 20, 1966
Supply-Industry
there are not the labour, goods, materials, processes and markets to support it. It has been suggested that experience may well prove that many of these companies located in so-called designated areas are going to remain burdens on the economy for a long time to come simply because they have been misplaced, whereas if they had been placed in growth centres as they have wanted to be traditionally this would have created stability in the over-all area rather than instability. Urban people will not go to rural areas to work but rural people will come into urban areas.
To illustrate further the effect of what is happening in the Atlantic area I should like to point out to hon. members that in 1960, for example, per capita production in the Atlantic provinces stood at $218. The national average in Canada at the same time was very nearly $600-$589 to be exact. That is more than double and it indicates there is something seriously wrong. It also indicates that with government help through a concerted program on the part of the minister we will arrive at a situation where we can bring in new industry, promote stability and broaden the economic base. This will bring about diversification and will create incentives for other industries to expand.
If we are to survive as members of the whole, and I speak of members of Canada as a nation, the Atlantic provinces area must find 20,000 new jobs each year for the next few years. At the end of five years this figure will be closer to 30,000 and, indeed, I hope it will be closer to 40,000. But without some concerted form of over-all approach to the problems of the Atlantic region we are not even going to be able to provide the 20,000 new jobs that will have to be created there. I do not think the necessary approach is an area incentive program but rather a broader based area approach must be taken to solve this problem.
The figure of 20,000 jobs means that we will simply maintain our present growth rate. There are any number of standards by which to measure this. While we are going ahead we are not keeping pace with the gross national product For example, in 1947 Nova Scotia-I single our Nova Scotia because this area is perhaps illustrative of Atlantic region problems-enjoyed, to our dismay, per capita incomes that only reached about 81 per cent of the national average. That was less than 20 years ago. While incomes in 1964 had risen in terms of total dollars, it is significant to note 
that in comparison with 81 per cent of the national average figure in 1947 we enjoyed only 74.8 per cent. This is indicative of what is happening in the Atlantic region. The failure on the part of the government to approach the problems of the Atlantic region on a broad basis has created this situation. It has been created in spite of our own efforts to keep up by helping to create that atmosphere in which our economic growth could at least keep pace with the national growth.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
I have some other figures that are illustrative of what is happening. In 1961 we had 3.65 million families in Canada. Of these families 77 per cent enjoyed, and undoubtedly do now to an even greater degree, annual incomes in excess of $3,000 per year. Taking the figures for the Atlantic provinces, of
86.000	families in Newfoundland 49 per cent, have incomes in excess of $3,000. The national average is 77 per cent. In Prince Edward Island, our smallest province, 55 per cent of the 14,000 families receive $3,000 or more. In the province of Nova Scotia where we have
147.000	families and, thank God, an excellent premier, the figure is 63 per cent. This is still 14 per cent below the national average. In New Brunswick where there are 111,000 families only 61 per cent earn $3,000 or more. Every other province in Canada has at least 68 per cent or more of its families in the $3,000 plus bracket. If one removes the figures for the Atlantic provinces from the national average one finds that 82 per cent of the families of Canada enjoy annual incomes in excess of $3,000.
The same pattern emerges when one considers per capita income. In Ontario the figure is $2,025. In Newfoundland it is $1,009. Listing the provinces in the order in which they stand in the income per capita field we find Ontario leading the way-there is no doubt about that-with British Columbia second, Alberta third, Saskatchewan next_


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: Good old Saskatchewan.


J. Michael Forrestall: "Good old Saskatchewan"-I would remind the hon. member that had it not been for the Atlantic provinces there would be no Saskatchewan.


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: We are out of the have-not area.


J. Michael Forrestall: You are. We are still in it. In Saskatchewan the income per capita amounts to $1,749. In my own province of
May 20, 1966

Nova Scotia it is $1,302; in New Brunswick it is $1,167 and in Prince Edward Island, $1,115.
Reciting these figures takes the time of the committee but I simply wish to substantiate the point I am making, that in the absence of an over-all approach to the problems of the Atlantic region we shall never achieve any degree of national parity, any reasonable share in the wealth of this nation.
The vehicles which the federal government can use in its approach to the problems of the Atlantic area are already in existence. There is no need to set up another crown corporation or establish a ministry for the Atlantic region. Industrialization can take place through existing arrangements. I ask the minister whether he is completely confident that nothing can be done to change the area incentive regulations so as to include the principle of growth centres such as Halifax, Dartmouth, Saint John and Fredericton. If this is impossible in terms of other criteria which have been set up I would ask the minister to urge his colleagues to give consideration to the broadening of the base upon which the Atlantic Development Board operates. I urge him to ask his colleagues to consider broadening the scope of its regulations so as to permit the board to make direct capital grants to industry as well as to make settling-in grants for a period up to three years. I suggest that the Atlantic Development Board remains the one real hope among the existing vehicles. There are others which could be overlooked despite their importance. I shall not on this occasion discuss the fields of research and technical development.
What we in the Atlantic provinces need is the industry so that we could do some research for ourselves. We have to get the industry first. While a good job is being done within the present framework of the Atlantic Development Board, this is not enough. There has to be an over-all effort aimed at every area of endeavour, not just those areas which endeavour to supply the service element, by which I mean the development of industrial parks, water and sewage services and so on. These are very necessary and I would be the last to suggest that what the development board has done has not been excellently done and of great value. But it does not go far enough.
Unless we take a fresh look at this situation we are bound to see a repetition of what has been happening in Halifax during the last 12 to 14 months. There is a real possibility of losing a $60 million fisheries based industry.
Supply

Industry
We have already lost a chemical industry based on oil refining. We nearly lost Volvo, Canada, which was brought to this country after great effort involving co-operation between the provincial and the federal governments. It was only by a special effort on the part of the provincial authority that we managed to keep it in Nova Scotia at all.
Many other opportunities have been lost or nearly lost to this area because we are outside the range of special tax incentives. Again I would ask the minister to take a hard look at the whole basis of the regulations governing the Atlantic Development Board should he consider it impossible to revise the criteria applying to the designated areas.


Mr. Olson:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words only on the first item of these estimates. At the outset I should like to tell the Minister of Industry that I realize there has been a certain amount of criticism, some of it valid and some of it possibly not so valid, directed toward the activities of this new department. There have no doubt been problems in recruiting a suitable staff and settling in. This may have prevented the department from taking all the action it might have taken to promote the development of industry in Canada. I also want the minister to know that we in this party give him full support for whatever programs and undertakings his department can initiate to promote and enhance our industrial establishments in Canada.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I think we should direct the attention of the minister to some of the provisions of the designated area program, and perhaps for different reasons than those which have been advanced in the house so far today. I say this because I feel we need to be concerned about the long-range effect of the establishment of industries in these designated areas. I believe that in the course of time it will be shown that some misplaced industries have been set up in these areas because of the incentives available for establishment there. There will be problems, I suggest, for those industries if they are to continue to be competitive with other industries producing the same class of goods and which may be more efficient because of their proximity to raw materials and markets.
I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that it is a great burden for any municipality to have an

May 20, 1966
Supply-Industry
industry which cannot meet the kind of competition it will face in the ordinary course of business after the benefits of the original incentives have lapsed. I suggest we also have a responsibility in the federal administration to see that those economic areas which are strong today remain so. In this way they will be able to assist some of the so-called depressed areas over this period. The only plea I make is that we do not go too far with the designated area program so that we weaken some of the stronger areas and then find ourselves with a lot of misplaced industries. This certainly would undermine our whole economic establishment, particularly when we must be competitive in the international field.
While talking about designated areas, Mr. Chairman, may I say there are some factors involved in the formula establishing designated areas which should be examined. I am not suggesting now that anyone ought to have anticipated all the problems that may arise from time to time. However, it does seem to me that the various factors involved in whether or not an area is going to be designated should be under continuous review. One thing that has shown up is that the level of unemployment in an area seems to be far too heavily weighted at the present time. I say that because in certain communities in southern Alberta, for example, there has been an exodus of unemployed from these areas to places where there are employment opportunities; yet the growth and income level factors meet the requirements for a designated area within the program. I suggest that this is going to encourage, as some members have said, a further concentration of industry in the larger urban areas. Personally I believe that this is not desirable over the long range.
I should like now to deal with another matter affecting southern Alberta. In Medicine Hat constituency an industry was established not very long ago for the processing of potatoes. It ran into some problems in connection with a processing patent. I would have thought this would be a problem in which the Department of Industry would be keenly interested and actively involved in trying to solve it. Without attempting to be unduly critical, I do not believe that the representations made by the industry and the provincial government received the kind of response they should have received from the Department of Industry.

There was, for example, some patent litigation over the processing method that had been developed by a branch of the federal government. It seemed to me that these people were left to their own resources to fight these legal problems. On balance, I think if justice were to be done the federal government, particularly the Department of Industry, should have assumed some responsibility with regard to the litigation.
I say that, Mr. Chairman, because this was a good industry. The equipment appeared to be modern and of excellent design. It was located in an area where the potential for the raw material, potatoes, was great. It seemed to me that everything was there. The location was ideal and the industry would have been beneficial not only to the farmers in the area but to the investors in the industry and to Canada. However, it collapsed. It is still not running because while the legal battle is over the delay and the clouded issue hanging over the whole project for so many months have made it difficult to resume operations.
I do not want to be unduly critical of the minister and his department because the department was in the formative stages at the time. However, it seems to me that the federal government should go to the aid of an industry in such a situation because certainly the people who tried to get it going and invested their money could not be blamed for it. I hope arrangements have now been made so that the plant can get into production. I do not know whether that is the case but certainly there has been no activity around the plant yet.
I have referred to this plant as an example of something with which I feel the Department of Industry could have been concerned. I hope that in the future they will be more actively interested in problems of this kind.
As I said, Mr. Chairman, I intend to be brief but it seems to me that because of a lack of action on the part of several departments, not only the Department of Industry, it has become necessary for provincial governments to make direct contact with certain foreign countries to try to promote industrial growth. I am not suggesting that this is wrong, but I suggest that the reason provincial government representatives have had to take this step is that not enough initiative is being taken by the federal government.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
For example, British Columbia only a short time ago sent a trade mission to Japan not only for the purpose of promoting trade but
May 20, 1966

also for the purpose of promoting additional industrial establishment in British Columbia. The premier of Alberta is in Japan at the present time and I presume, although I do not know for sure, that discussions will be held there with a view to expanding certain primary industries in Alberta which will be beneficial both to that province and to Japan. Newfoundland has had direct discussions with industrialists in the United Kingdom and Europe.
In matters such as this it should be the prime responsibility of the federal government to carry on negotiations and discussions with foreign countries. Therefore I hope that in the future the Department of Industry will become more active in assisting industries already established in Canada such as the one I have mentioned, and will also do some of the work which the provinces seem to have taken on and which I believe is perhaps a little out of their field, particularly when they are having discussions and conducting negotiations with representatives of foreign countries.
tTranslation]


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman-


Mr. Skoreyko:: Filibuster.


Auguste Choquette: The hon. member has forgotten the historical debate on the flag; he has lost his memory.

Mr. Chairman, following the example of several colleagues, including the member for Saint-Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Beaulieu), I should like to congratulate the minister on the tremendous work he has done and the unusual vitality he displays in carrying out his objectives. Our friends opposite for whom I have much respect, will appreciate that it is this government who assumes the responsibility of administering the country, that it is the present government who took the initiative of creating this Department of Industry, and I think the absence of such a department was an unfortunate gap which we filled in. Having as head of this department a man of peerless ability, I am convinced that we will easily accomplish great things for Canada as a whole.
And it is an important thing, Mr. Chairman, to work eagerly for the industrial development of our country. It is a fundamental thing that the federal government assume its
Supply-Industry
responsibilities in that field because I am convinced that despite ideological trends spreading in the province of Quebec, the more efforts the federal government will put forth to promote and increase the growth of our economy, multiply jobs, help those who cannot afford to provide for their essential needs, the more we will be able to counterbalance the ideological trends which at one time, may have threatened our Confederation.
Mr. Chairman, in connection with the very interesting remarks made a while ago by the member for Saint-Jean-Iberville-Napierville, I would like to point out in passing the overlapping of "jurisdiction" which, according to him, constitutes an obstacle to efficient administrative decisions.
The member for Saint-Jean-Iberville-Napierville pointed out especially that to get a post office, it was necessary first of all to have the approval of the Post Office Department, which is quite normal, but that the approval of the Post Office Department did not settle the problem, because it was necessary afterwards to ask the Department of Public Works to find a suitable site and purchase the necessary plot of land.
Well, I am somewhat surprised at the amazement shown by the member for Saint-Jean-Iberville-Napierville in that connection, because I think it is quite normal that all authorities should co-operate in reaching such a decision.
He may be right when he points out that sometimes the co-operation is not always keen; this may be corrected, but I do not think that one should be surprised at this overlapping of "jurisdiction", which, in my opinion, is quite normal.
Obviously, my good friend from Saint-Jean-Iberville-Napierville yearns after the Union nationale administration where there was only one "boss" who decided everything. Then, everything worked well when the "boss" said yes or no. The ministers had no "jurisdiction". I understand that he misses this administration but we, who are imbued with democratic spirit, cannot allow such a system.
In the course of his very interesting remarks the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville made earlier, he pointed out some obstacles which crop up when it comes to locating major industries such as, for instance, "la siderurgie de Becancour", the steel complex.

May 20, 1966
Supply-Industry
I do not think that it is fair to inveigh against the authorities if they cannot put the project into operation overnight.
Heavy industry, such as the steel industry, requires long range planning, and not only studies with a promise to extend their operations, but also continued negotiations which of necessity require a great deal of time.
I share the optimism shown by the premier of Quebec. I am convinced, as he is, that this steel complex will be established in Becan-cour, but we must be patient. All the economic effects have to be provided for. They will be tremendous. Thousands of jobs will be created in the area which itself will be transformed to a tremendous and wonderful degree.
It must then be recognized that the policy whereby heavy industries are set up in rural areas jibes perfectly with the electoral commitments of the federal Liberals namely that industries needed to be decentralized and rural areas industrialized. Here is the fundamental problem in rural areas: the young people shy away more and more from the land, from the beautiful occupation of farming; they seek employment in industries.
The young people want to work and to do so they must go into exile. Under the circumstances, if we make an effort, constant and persistent, to industrialize those rural areas, not only will we fight poverty, but we will keep the young people born to rural families where they belong.
That goal is very dear to the party in office. We can then but rejoice to see the efforts which are being made in the province of Quebec toward industrial decentralization.
What is more, how could we not rejoice when the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys-he was here a few moments ago- jointly with the premier of the province of Quebec, Mr. Lesage, have announced the construction of a thermonuclear plant at Becancour? How then can the people of that region be sceptical about the setting up of a steel complex?
It is obvious that ties link, on the one hand, the steel complex, and on the other, the thermonuclear plant which Atomic Energy of Canada approved with Becancour was chosen by the provincial authorities of Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot but commend all those projects and believe in the importance of those projects which will become a huge source of prosperity for the Becancour area

which is located near the fine constituency which I have the honour to represent and of which I am proud. I wish to take this opportunity to greet the people of Lotbiniere who are here in the gallery.
And now, Mr. Chairman, if we want to industrialize rural areas, especially if Becancour-
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
[.English1


Gordon Minto Churchill: Why don't you speak to the house instead of to the gallery?


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, when I speak I speak for the people of Canada. My hon. friend should do the same. I speak for the people of my riding. If my hon. friend were to do the same, he would not speak in opposition all the time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Auguste Choquette: With great pleasure.


Gordon Minto Churchill: In his opening remarks
there is this sentence, produced through the translation system: "This government has created this minister".
I was not aware that the Liberal government had taken unto itself divine power. Alternatively, if the hon. member is an atheist, does he not still believe in the stork?


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, I believe the translation was inaccurate. I said that the present government had created the Department of Industry, because the only people who can create a minister are the Conservatives, since creation consists of making something out of nothing.
Mr. Chairman, I want to go on briefly with my few remarks and urge the present government as strongly as I can to take advantage of the jurisdiction it is now exercising and to take all possible means to really fight poverty in an efficient and concrete way.
I had the opportunity to spend a few days in the United States and I listened to Mr. Schriver giving a lecture on the war on poverty.
It was at that meeting that a dispute-I shall not say a scuffle-occurred between the audience and Mr. Schriver. Indeed, the latter was told: "Stop using big words like sociology, psychology and all sorts of long words that do not solve any problems. What we
May 20. 1966

want is concrete action". I see the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) agrees with me wholeheartedly.
We want concrete action and the best way to achieve that is through the establishment of industries where there are none, particularly in underdeveloped and rural areas, to multiply jobs and prevent the exodus of our country people.
That is what I want to fight for in this house and I am convinced that this philosophy is shared by the minister to whom I want to repeat my congratulations for the fine work he has been doing since he has taken charge of the department.


David Réal Caouette: Would the hon. member for Lotbiniere allow me a question?


Auguste Choquette: With pleasure.


David Réal Caouette: Has the minister to whom he has just referred been created out of nothing?


Auguste Choquette: I said that the only ones who can create ministers are the Conservatives, since they succeed in doing something out of nothing. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) is a striking example of what I am saying.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Chairman, I was not surprised this afternoon to see the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) take the floor again because I must say that, in my humble opinion, he is a very active member, he assumes his responsibilities and makes his electors' views known to the house.
However, even if I do not always follow him right to the end, I must say that he was right to congratulate the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) for trying to promote the country's industrial development and particularly the industrialization of rural areas.
However, he criticized a remark made by the hon. member for Saint-Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Beaulieu) and I think that he was a little unfair to him because, in my opinion, in the field of industry, as in many others in Canada, jurisdictions overlap at present.
That is not surprising because in 1867 industrialization was nothing to worry about and the Canadian constitution could not foresee the fantastic program which we are witnessing and into which we are driven, mostly by our giant neighbour, the United States.
In that field, as in many others which we mentioned over the last three months, since the beginning of this session, we say that it is
Supply-Industry
high time to amend the Canadian constitution precisely in order to clearly define our governmental responsibilities, those of the central government and those of the provincial governments.
Departments of Industry are being set up in the provinces. How far can the activities of a provincial department of Industry go? How far can the undertakings of the federal department of Industry extend?
How must the provincial and federal Departments of Industry work together for the common good toward the country's industrial development to get quick and effective results?
The Canadian constitution has us in a strait-jacket and, once again, I take this opportunity to ask the government-and there again it would be taking steps in the right direction as requested a little earlier by the hon. member for Lotbiniere-to do something which would enable members of this house, to work within a joint committee with the Senate that would lay the groundwork for a national conference, to clearly define the constitutional reforms.
Mr. Chairman, the longer the task of defining governmental responsibilities is delayed, the more confusion and tension are created between the provincial governments.
When the government introduced in the house the Canada-U.S. automobile agreement,
I was greatly pleased to support it since it was an undertaking which had already given very good results.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
I had hoped, like many other members, that the government and particularly the Department of Industry, would have given serious consideration to taking quickly steps to reach similar agreements in other areas of industry in Canada.
Obviously, throughout the world, there exists this spirit of economic union, free trade, and I believe Canada should take part in this evolution, this trend toward free trade, through the development of its industries and trade agreements with other countries, including the United States. But we must always take into consideration the views of Canadian citizens and take care that our existing industries do not suffer from general agreements which, on the whole, might be harmful to some parts of our country.
This afternoon I wish to speak briefly on the textile industry. It is not the first time I do so here. I intend to raise it again, for the textile industry is an important one, especially for the province of Quebec. In fact, 20

May 20. 1966
Supply-Industry
important Quebec communities depend on that industry. In the riding of Sherbrooke, which I represent in the house, there are 12 textile industries which ensure the livelihood of 40 per cent of the workers, men and women.
That important industry is experiencing increasing unrest and is going through a critical situation, despite the favourable balance-sheets of some concerns. For instance, the Dominion Textile Company has a spinning-mill in Sherbrooke, another one in Magog and a third one in Montmorency; for the past ten years, its financial statements have shown surpluses and, if I remember well, from 1954 to 1964, its profits amounted to $120 million.
Does that mean that the textile industry is flourishing? Far from it, Mr. Chairman. When one considers the situation, one finds that industrials had to show renewed ingenuity to face up to foreign competition. They had to renew their equipment and adapt it for increased production to compete with foreign products. But all that was done at the expense of the working class, and here is why. In the spinning-mills or factories, the weavers have to work in abnormal and inhuman conditions. It has been established, for instance, that the working pace has to be based on the marching time of the British army, which is three miles an hour, to get 100 per cent productivity. In the textile plants in Sherbrooke and elsewhere, at the present time, workers must work at a rate of 125 per cent to get a decent salary of $65 a week -which is not unreasonable. They must run like rabbits, looking after 110, 115 or 120 spinning frames from morning until night, and most of the time they have only five or ten minutes to take a bite at lunch hour. Unlike everybody else, they do not have half an hour or an hour for lunch. That is the situation in the Canadian textile industry.
It is very well to say that our Industry Department is thinking of attracting new industries. That is fine. It is a good thing-and such a stand must be encouraged-for the department, in co-operation with other departments, to consider, as is often rightly mentioned by the hon. member for Vil-leneuve (Mr. Caouette), using our raw materials on the spot and processing them in the first stage here, in Canada, particularly to help our production and industrialization and the marketing of our finished products abroad. That is an excellent undertaking but the government should make every effort so

that we keep our present industries and that they are not put in a situation which would force them to disappear.
The textile industry is a Canadian industry. This afternoon some hon. members referred to American investments, to foreign investments, saying that our industrial problems are often dependant upon other governments or foreign businessmen.
Well, Canadian capital invested in the textile industry represents about 80 per cent. Therefore, it is very important, Mr. Chairman, that the government make every effort to safeguard and improve the textile situation in Canada, especially in the province of Quebec. Solutions would be numerous. Of course, there is the colossal matter of foreign imports. We get too many foreign textile products. I have asked questions in the house in that respect, but I did not get any answer. I raise the question once again this afternoon.
We are told that those Canadian textile industrialists have opened foreign branches, either in Hong Kong or in Japan, with the profits they made in Canada sweating our labour class, which is forced to work in inhuman conditions. Those industrialists invested those funds in Hong Kong, in Japan or elsewhere, to set up factories, where production costs are much lower, and where Chinese or Japanese people work for 20 cents or 15 cents per hour. Those Canadian industrialists produce textile overseas and import it into Canada, into their own domestic market, thus hurting the Canadian production and slowing down employment within our own industries. Is that correct? In my opinion, it is important that the Department of Industry and the government take an interest in that aspect of the question and lay down standards to prevent Canadian industrialists who wish to invest overseas from using profits made here to import those foreign products, thus harming the Canadian production and the Canadian workers. I think the government should take this question into consideration in order to find out the truth about the facts that were reported to us, and lay down import standards in order to afford greater protection to the Canadian industry.
In fact, Canadian industrialists are still those who make most profits, thanks to very low production costs in Japan; they suffer no inconvenience from this situation; their fortune is ever increasing; they can travel throughout the world and live in luxury.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
But the Canadian worker and the Canadian consumer must suffer on account of this
May 20, 1966

policy, if it is exists, and I believe it does, according to my information which is not official.
I feel it is the duty of the Canadian government and the Department of Industry to look into this field, in order to inform the people and set standards accordingly.
Because of certain imports we must accept from foreign countries, some thought should also be given to promoting the textile industry and diversifying its production.
Since Canada does not grow cotton, a material essential to the textile industry, the Department of Industry should consider promoting industrial research in the field of synthetic fibres, or still, in the production of certain synthetic goods, which would enable the textile industry to keep apace and maintain its activities, and especially enable Canadian workers and their families to earn a living in those industries and, with the help of the department of manpower, soon to be created, to become skilled workers in the production of new goods.
Those are the few remarks I wanted to add with regard to the textile industry. I wish to assure the minister that if he has encouraging words for the Canadian people, they will be readily accepted, because over 5,000 weavers are on strike at present in the province of Quebec.
Besides, the problem goes much further than that of relations between labour and management. The problem arises from difficulty within the textile industry which, in order to compete with too many imports, had to step up its production and output. As a result, the profits of the industry were not reduced, but the textile workers were compelled to work in inhuman and unacceptable conditions while getting an inadequate salary.
Such is the alarming situation facing the textile workers and their families who look to the government, not only to the management, for a solution, and expect the government to take a firm position in order to improve the situation.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like the minister to make quite clear how foreign industrialists go about it when they want to come to Canada in order to open a subsidiary or invest capital.
How do they go about it? Do they apply to the Department of Industry or to the Department of Trade and Commerce? Do federal civil servants show them or lure them with industrial and economic advantages in all provinces, or in one particular province?
Supp ly-Industry
We need, in the province of Quebec, as well as in the Maritimes, an increasing inflow of new industry. Well, we want to know from the department, when foreign companies or businessmen apply to the federal government, how the economic and industrial image of Canada is presented to them?
For instance, we have 12 textile mills in Sherbrooke. I feel we have too many textile mills and that it is appropriate for the future, to think-and this is also of interest to other Quebec ridings-about keeping what we have, very well, but to think also of diversifying new industries, in different lines and that is the reason why we in Sherbrooke, need industries other than textile precisely to absorb manpower, which is sometimes totally or partially set aside, in order to maintain a high level of employment in Sherbrooke, in my area. And that goes for many other areas of the country.
Consequently, we should like to know how the government, the Departments of Industry or Trade and Commerce proceed to guide new foreign industries when they settle in Canada. I am asking publicly, today. I have often asked in .writing. We, in Sherbrooke, are most interested in having new industries, in creating new industries.
We have a hard-working population, an enchanting site, adequate electric power, all necessary hydro-electric power, rivers, and we are close to the American border. We have a promising industrial centre. We are not going to send the Sherbrooke city council or the Sherbrooke member to Europe to meet various departments of industry over there. I am inclined to believe that foreign industrialists must apply to the federal government to find out which would be the best area, the best city in which to open a subsidiary.
I should very much like the minister to reply to this question. So, Mr. Chairman, I close my remarks and hope that the minister, when he speaks, will give detailed answers to these questions.
[English1


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with some interest to the last few speakers and probably the tenor of my remarks will not be anywhere near that of some of the remarks to which we have listened. Most people in Canada have been very interested in the Department of Industry, because it seemed that it might be like the extension of some of the other federal departments we have had, such as the Department of

May 2G, 1966
Supply-Industry
Agriculture, the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys and the Department of Fisheries. It seemed a logical development that the Department of Industry carry on in that field the role that the federal government has had in other national fields.
This may be the intention, but in my opinion it certainly has not been brought about. We have about the same industrial development in Canada now that we had five years ago. But in this department directly we have spent now $31 million and, particularly in the segment in which I am interested, I believe very little is being accomplished to give an indication that the money is being well spent.
Let me say at the beginning, Mr. Chairman, that through my dealings with the Department of Industry, it would seem to me they have assembled in this department a very capable group of people, at least in a large segment of that department; but let me hasten to add that in my opinion they really have not started to do anything except in those fields which are similar to the operations of those in the Department of Defence Production who had related roles. I am speaking of the special branches where we have allowed industry to control the branch. One need only look at some of the branches to see where the control lies. When you see the dominance that industries have over those branches you realize that we are not really going to expand in those fields when the people in the department are controlled by industry. Obviously they are not going to be interested in the little people. Obviously they are not going to be interested in new people, and obviously they are not going to be interested in the development of any type of industry in that branch which will hurt the status quo of the people who put them there. I think that is a fact.
I do not intend to go into that role, but I think it is time some of us take a look at the Department of Industry, because I am sure anyone who looks at the department will find it is not doing what we expected it was going to do or what most of the members here may believe it is doing. It may be that some have not given much attention to this particular department because it has not affected their ridings. They should take a look at it, because it has become a little hierarchy of the civil service which will multiply without really going anywhere. I think nothing will result unless something is done in the very near future. As I say, I have met a number of 
people in this department and they are very capable people. However in my opinion they are not going anywhere.
I should like to talk about the one area in which I am concerned and in respect of which I have some knowledge. I refer to the whole role of the designated area and the part it plays within the department. Before I begin, Mr. Chairman, may I draw to the attention of the house something which happened the other day. Probably it will explain part of the problem as I see it. I have heard several members say that the minister has done a fair job and knows exactly what he is doing. I do not believe this is true, and I think the Prime Minister agrees. I believe this for the simple reason that the Prime Minister represents a riding in northern Ontario just as I do, and has been concerned about the fact that the Department of Industry and the designated area program have not helped northern Ontario one iota. Neither have they helped those who live in the maritimes, and the northern parts of Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, Quebec, and the other outlying areas which are not surrounded by the major metropolitan areas of Canada. I am sure these people also will say the program has not been helpful in those areas. The designated areas program has not assisted them in any way.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
The Prime Minister came into his own riding several weeks ago and met a delegation there which stated again that they were receiving absolutely no assistance in persuading industry to come into the area. Even more important, they said they were not receiving any help in conducting a survey or inventory of their resources in order that they might know how to exploit these resources and what industries should be located there. The Prime Minister admitted that he did not know the answers and had not been supplied with them. He agreed that a committee of the mayors and reeves of the municipalities should be set up to consider the situation, and he left if up to the mayor of North Bay to get in touch with the other persons who should form this committee.
The Prime Minister promised that this committee could come to Ottawa and sit down with officials here to discuss these economic problems. They have done this and found the ministers of industry and manpower to be very helpful, along with a number of the personnel of these departments. During the discussions it became apparent
May 20, 1966

that these people do not know what resources they have and do not know what assistance they need in developing them, or what may be available to them. They will never know until a survey and inventory have been carried out in the area.
There are a number of difficulties that prevent the attainment of a proper solution to the problem. Let me give one example. The minister of manpower suggested that one of his senior officials should get together with the committee to discuss the problems. It occurred to me that the development agency which is responsible for northern Ontario should also be represented at these discussions in order to avoid having two meetings, one with each department.
On the basis of that idea I telephoned the junior official responsible for the area and suggested that he attend these meetings. I was very surprised to learn later that my stenographer had received a call from this individual stating that he had been refused permission to attend this meeting because he had not been invited. In this country we have to co-operate with various provinces because this is a federal state. If we cannot send somebody from one department to another without a gilt-edged invitation, then I am sure we are damned well never going to be able to get along with the provincial governments.
I do not know what the answer is. Perhaps we should reduce the minister's salary to $1, but I do not think that will provide an answer to the problem. I am sure he does not know what to do about this matter. We said that this program would not work on the basis of the criteria that were laid down; the minister's senior officials told him that it would not work, and it has not worked.
It seems to me that these areas were selected by the Prime Minister and the premiers of the provinces who sat down and picked out a bunch of communities. Some of them meet one criterion and some meet another, while others do not meet any of them. It is interesting to note that the selection is more in keeping with the suggestion of the minister than with the ideas of the people who are working on this problem.
It is also interesting to note that Manitoulin island, located in the riding of the Prime Minister probably felt he should get something out of the selection. I am sure one premier said he wanted Bracebridge and another premier said he wanted something
Supply-Industry
else. I have no objection to that situation, but what the devil does it matter in the long run? I should like to see the entire northern Ontario area designated because we are all in the same boat.
If we can develop new industries in one area or another let us not play one against the other, but take advantage of the situation on a national basis and develop the industry in the area in which it is most likely to succeed economically. Any other method of designating areas is stupid. The minister made a statement the other day which I should like to paraphrase. I cannot quote him verbatim and may even be distorting his words, but it seems to me that what he said described the ripple theory. That is, when you throw a rock into a pool you create ripples which emanate from the centre in ever widening circles. This same theory has worked in respect of large metropolitan areas and the ripples have encompassed surrounding towns.
I can remember when Thornhill was on the edge of Toronto and the farmers in the area used to ship milk by streetcar into the city. When I was hitchhiking in the Toronto area some years ago I remember riding on that streetcar among milk cans, chickens and other farm produce. That area is now in downtown Toronto.
The industrial area has been extending farther out from Toronto each year. It now takes in Thornhill, Bracebridge, Orillia and other towns. In future years I am sure this industrial ripple will encompass Kirkland Lake, Midland, Owen Sound and Parry Sound. It does or will include Sturgeon Falls, but I cannot imagine why, because the only industry they have there is the pulp and paper industry, which is now operating full blast, whereas a few years back it only operated for two or three days each week. I do not understand the story there, but I am not very much concerned. However, under this ripple theory they all fall within the Toronto area which runs out 50, 60 or even 100 miles.
Some day North Bay will come within the circle and it is 250 miles away. Kirkland Lake will come within the circle and it is 300 miles away. Timmins, which is 350 miles away, will eventually come within the circle, as will Moosonee and other places, and eventually we will have more salt-water ports in Ontario.
This will all happen eventually, but I do not think I will live to see it. Nor do I think

May 20, 1966
Supply-Industry
the minister, this parliament or this program will live to see it. What do we do about the situation? We did not think there was going to be an election last year, but rather that we were going to have a recess, we had the assurance of the minister that somehting would be done about the situation immediately after we returned at the end of the recess. He was reluctant to give us his assurance in that regard, or that is the way it appeared. In any event he said, as reported in Hansard at page 3125 on June 30, 1965:
I have assured a number of members, and I am glad to assure the house, that the government will table at the opening of the next part of the session the order in council designating the areas and will endeavour at an early date thereafter to refer the order in council to the house committee on industry, research and energy development for discussion.
I do not think there has been any attempt to table this, nor do I think there has been much attempt to discuss it. If the minister wishes to live up to his commitments, we would be happy to have him state that he is going to do that now. We would be pleased if he would also indicate that sessional paper 1981, which sets up the regulation for development incentives that affect designated areas, will also be referred to a committee. Perhaps that would be sufficient to satisfy our requests. If he is not prepared to do that, I am left with only one alternative. I must take the only action that is available to a member of parliament. I will have to beat this thing to death and bore this house and government until something is done. That action is not fair to other members of the house, but it is one of two alternatives available to backbench members: They can either move a motion to reduce the estimates of a department or, in some way, force a discussion on the matter which will bring about a situation that may not be satisfactory to anyone.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I am not sure which proposition is the least unreasonable or the least unfair; but I believe it is vital that we in Canada find a solution to the problems presented by centralization, and arrest the flow of people from areas dependant on primary products to the major cities, which are centres not of production but of consumption. Not everyone will be interested in this question. Farmers will not be greatly interested. Many of them have not even considered it. I was always interested to hear people in the west say that the C.C.F. government had chased all the people out of Saskatchewan. I think they would find that

Saskatchewan is no different from any other agricultural area in this respect. Every time a farmer doubles his acreage something has to be done about the man who was sitting next door before the amalgamation took place. There is bound to be a large displacement of the agricultural population and a search for new types of employment.
Yet, this is, basically, not a physical problem. This is not a difficulty which cannot be solved. It has been faced by France for at least 300 years. Why do not those people of French extraction who are so anxious to protect the provincial autonomy take a look at what has happened in France as a means of decentralizing and maintaining a national industrial development program which would keep people at work in all segments of the country, rather than concentrate them in one or two areas?
This problem has been tackled in England. It is well known to the government. Why will the minister not consider what has been done in England to decentralize industry? Why is the minister not interested in deciding that it would be better for the people of Canada if certain industries were located in one area rather than another? Possibly he does not know what has been happening in other countries; but I think he does. He must therefore have a reason for not giving us the benefit of his views. If he has not studied this question, I can assure him the senior officials of his department have done so. They are well aware of what has happened in other countries and of the difficulties which have arisen with regard to our own arrangements -difficulties which will make them inoperative in most of the areas they are designed to serve.
Some have suggested that the designation of northern Ontario rather than Manitoulin island would not necessarily bring industry into the region. I am not saying that designation is the complete answer. But, should all of northern Ontario be designated, I know of three major companies which would go into that part of the country. Why? Not because they particularly want to move into the area, but for the simple reason that this is where they find their raw material. One of these companies is the E. B. Eddy Company which has been sitting on limits in my area for 60 years. They have now been given three years in which to decide whether they will put up a pulp and paper mill. In default of this, they will lose their present limits. The expenditure involved would be considerable-some $42
May 20, 1966

million-even for a company as big as E. B. Eddy.
Why should we offer incentives to industry to establish themselves in the suburbs of Toronto where all the necessary services have to be provided at great expense. These companies cannot afford to provide their own transportation or educational systems. The cost falls on the taxpayers as a whole. Meanwhile the rest of Ontario is drained of its population.
I do not know what the answer is, and in trying to find an answer I have been given little co-operation by the federal government. Of course, we are not a unitary state and the federal government cannot make all the decisions. But for years I have been a member of the committee on agriculture, and when the federal government is interested in developing a new pesticide helpful to those engaged in the growing of corn I never hear any objection from the western provinces. Similarly when there are plans for the development of insecticides to protect tobacco crops I do not hear any objections from Ontario. Similarly I do not believe any province would object if the government were to come forward with proposals which really would bring in new industries to areas where they are badly needed.
We know that the present criteria will not work in northern Ontario. There is virtually no unemployment in my riding. Of all the hundreds of students who graduate from high school in Kirkland Lake today, not more than 4 or 5 per cent will be able to work in the area. The great majority of these young people have to go to Toronto or other cities in southern Ontario to find work.
This is not because of the different wage level existing locally as compared with rates in the more populous centres. I am sure there are people working in Ottawa today who are earning 40 cents an hour less than they might be earning in Toronto. Yet they stay in Ottawa. They stay here because it is home to them. It is the same in northern Ontario and in many other areas where the local population is being displaced through lack of employment opportunity. The money is not as important as is the opportunity of getting a job near home. Then again, we do not send a boy to a technical institute or to a high school and then expect him to take a labourer's job digging ditches.
The Department of Labour, or the department of manpower as it is to be known, together with the Department of Industry
Supply-Industry
must find a solution. I do not expect the minister to present his estimates and say: Give me $30 million. I expect him to make some major pronouncement of his intentions about this industrialization program.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Let me tell you, this formula for the designation of areas at which we have arrived is obviously not satisfactory. It was so unsatisfactory there was an arrangement made to make these designations. The designations are not necessarily the best ones, but they are by no means the worst either. I have no disagreement with the areas that were designated. I can honestly say that in most cases they were no worse or no better than the areas alongside.
I have not been in the maritimes for the last two or three years. However, I know that the problems of the northern areas are similar to those of the maritimes. I do know that under the Conservative government an arrangement was made whereby assistance was provided to the maritimes on a regional basis for the development of some industries. I am aware also of the fact that the Atlantic provinces set up a self-help agency in which industry participated. I believe this type of organization could be kept in mind for the development of unequal growth areas in other parts of Canada. It could help to solve this problem which is not unique to northern Ontario or the maritimes.
This problem is common to those areas on the periphery of large centres of consumption. As I have said, Mr. Chairman, there are a number of things I could do. I could, with the assistance of some of my colleagues, hold up the estimates of this department for the next 30 days. I am sure we could do this. I do not believe it is an idle threat. However, I honestly do not believe this is the way to accomplish anything. Hon. members may recall that I did this, and got a commitment from the minister as a result of the pressure, to get the house closed in June of last year. It is more in sorrow than in anger that I say I am surprised the Liberal party, the Prime Minister and the cabinet, have allowed this kind of commitment to be made and not honoured it. I do not believe the government accepted it because of a threat. I believe they accepted it because they thought there had to be some more consideration for this problem.
It does not really fall on me to instigate this consideration. I believe that is the responsibility of the government. I believe too that if the government does not intend to

May 20, 1966
Supply-Industry
do this, then we are going to have to ask the industrial committee to visit other countries. The committee will come back united and decide it is going to run the government. This could be the answer, I do not know. There do not seem to be any readily available answers.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask a question? What did the hon. member mean by visiting other countries and then coming back and running this country that way?


William Arnold Peters: I referred earlier to the fact that France, England, Norway and Sweden have developed different types of programs for the decentralization of industry and the distribution of industry rather than allowing people into the industrial centres, wherever they may be. If the committee were to visit Norway, in particular, they would find a very despotic method of deciding where industries should be located. The government makes the decision and if somebody wants to run the industry, that is okay. If nobody wants to do so, then the government puts somebody in to operate it as a crown corporation. The Swedish system is not quite so severe. In England they use the carrot, the stick and two or three different ways. France probably has a much better thought out system for deciding on the distribution of people and industries.
If the committee went to those countries it would probably come back convinced that one of these methods would work, because I believe the members are interested in finding a logical and sensible solution to the problem. The committee would probably recommend legislation containing at least one aspect or a combination of aspects of the controls used in other countries. Then, what is the answer? Do they tell the government what to do? Does the committee force the government to introduce legislation? I am not sure how we do it. I know that this question is important enough to my riding, important enough to every northern riding in every province of this country and to the people in the mari-times, that they are going to have to do something about it. I would strongly urge the minister to stand up and give us some indication of the direction in which he intends to go with this designated program, because it is not working well now.


Maurice Rinfret: The hon. member for Villeneuve.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. This is the fourth speaker

from parties other than the Conservative party, which has 96 members in the house.


Maurice Rinfret: I wish to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre-


Gordon Minto Churchill: I just draw it to your attention, Mr. Chairman.


Maurice Rinfret: *-for reminding the Chair of the allocation of speakers. There is a certain number of speakers on behalf of the various parties, and the parties were allocated certain times. However, since there were no speakers available at certain periods, I have recognized the hon. member for Villeneuve.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have been here all day.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


David Réal Caouette: Just a few words, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the estimates of the Department of Industry.
The most fantastic point I find in the department's expenditures which amount to $50,582,400 is the difference between the:
(Fund) to sustain technological capability in Canadian industry by supporting selected defence development programs, on terms and conditions approved by Treasury Board-
A fund which amounts to $25,000,000 and the:
(Fund) to advance the technological capability of Canadian manufacturing industry by supporting selected civil (non-defence) development projects on terms and conditions approved by Treasury Board-
Mr. Chairman, this latter fund amounts to $8,700,000.
Now, the government spends four times less money on technological progress concerning non-military Canadian manufactured products than in the field of military defence.
I think it would be a good thing, for the enlightenment of members of Parliament and of the Canadian people, if the minister were to explain this difference, why he spends four times as much for defence as for non-military matters.
Such expenditures might be warranted if a war or some such thing were in the offering but I do not at the moment foresee any immediate conflict with another country; yet the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) is assigning $25 million for technological development in the field of defence, and only $8,770,000 for technological development concerning non-military matters.
May 20, 19G6

Mr. Chairman, it is worthwhile to see the extent of the personal interest of the Minister of Industry in industrial decentralization and so forth. His estimates do not deal much with this subject. All the members are loudly demanding industrial decentralization-in fact, we heard earlier the hon. member for Lot-biniere (Mr. Choquette) say that we should put an end to this rural exodus towards the urban centres where there are many industries, and that we should decentralize until industries can be established in all ridings or near the towns which will bring economic expansion to all Canadian ridings.
The member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) said that there are a dozen textile industries in his region. He also mentioned a very interesting point, which is that Canadian industries have established branches or subsidiaries in the Orient, in countries across the Pacific, either Japan or China, where labour is much cheaper than in Canada.
Some Canadian industries even operate in Japan or China, bringing back textile products and competing with themselves. At least, this is what I deduce from the statements made earlier by the member for Sherbrooke, and I am not surprised.
As for electrical appliances, they are manufactured in large quantities by branches in Japan and shipped back to Canada. In the United States, manufacturers compete with themselves by importing products made in Japan or China. The same manufacturers compete with themselves with products made in Canada on the one hand and in Japan on the other.
Is that being very honest with the Canadian industry, the Canadian people, the Canadian government? Is it very honest to allow those industries to do that?
Mr. Chairman, we have other concrete examples. I come from a mining area the Department of Industry knows well. We have copper, gold, iron, zinc and lithium mines, in short all kinds of mines. One of our most important mining companies, the Noranda Mines produces gold, copper and zinc in huge quantities.
Not so long ago, the Noranda Mines officials decided to build a refinery to process the zinc mined in our area. Now, I do not know by what stretch of the imagination this decision was arrived at, but the zinc refinery was built in Valleyfield near Montreal rather than in our immediate vicinity which would have help create hundreds of jobs in our area. Then, in view of the circumstances and
Supply-Industry
of the fact that our climate is severe, in short that we cannot set up in our region all kinds of new industry, the Minister of Industry could have opposed the building of this refinery in Valleyfield and proposed its establishment in our area, since they would have processed on the spot metals found in our part of the country. The federal Minister of Industry and his provincial counterpart did not pay any attention to this matter.
At present, in Malartic, there is talk about closing the gold mines because the grants given by the government are just enough to allow mines to die slowly; indeed, they are disappearing before your very eyes. If we continue to make grants, it is only from a social point of view, that is for the maintenance of families in urban communities, in small towns, as they are called here.
Why is the government not taking steps, for example, to promote the development of new iron ore deposits in our area? There is an immense potential of iron ore deposits in the area of Val d'Or, Malartic and Senneterre, and I realize that it is not the responsibility of the government to develop and operate mines, but if the government, as a result of its foreign trade, found a market as for the Ungava iron, there would be within a year at least a dozen mining companies operating in northwestern Quebec. At that time, the government would prove its good will toward a needy area.
As I have already said, our area has numerous copper mines. Noranda Mines is one of them; in fact, it is probably the largest mining company of its kind in Canada. It produces large quantities of copper which is cast into sheets or bars, then shipped to the Canada Wire Company, in Montreal, a branch of the Noranda company, where copper wire is made along with many other items.
Has the Minister of Industry consulted the management and the shareholders of the Noranda Mine, as he should, to suggest to them the establishment of a subsidiary plant or secondary industries in our area, to process the natural resources right where they are being extracted from the soil of Rouyn, Noranda, Malartic, Senneterre and Temis-camingue where there are bituminous mines?
Mr. Chairman, at the present time Canada would be accomplishing a beneficial gesture toward such areas, which are not designated but which nevertheless need secondary industries. In short, they have a great potential and a promising future.

May 20, 1966
Supply-Industry
Instead of spending $25 million to support the technological power of the Canadian defence industries, why could we not earmark this money to develop secondary industries, or else try to educate the officials of some companies as to the possibility and the logic of establishing secondary industries in our area, since we can supply the raw materials?
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Do you not believe, Mr. Chairman, that we could also process these raw materials in our area? We could have done so with zinc; we could do it with copper and lithium and have secondary industries there. We have unlimited possibilities in our district, provided the government and the minister would look at them and see what is going on.
Some members of the house were lucky enough to visit my region and to see the operations of beautiful mines such as Val d'Or located close to Noranda. We have splendid mining industries at present, but the ore is mined and nothing is done to create secondary industries which would enable us to process the ore on the spot, in the northwestern part of Quebec. I call the attention of the minister to this point.
I have no further comments, but I want to draw the minister's attention to the following point: I am not asking him nor the government to spend millions of dollars to set up industries. I am asking that they discuss, with company officials, the possibility of creating secondary industries there. In this way, the minister will help the population and respect private enterprise by explaining that it is in its best interest to help an area develop as much as possible.
Mr. Chairman, the estimates of this department may not be very high, since they total only $50 million.
Industry needs much more throughout the country. A few provinces, or one province only, could use up that amount. But the Minister of Industry can help without detriment to anyone by allowing copper to be processed in Noranda instead of Montreal. This seems logical to me. It could be processed in the area of Val d'Or or Malartic, which is disappearing from the Abitibi map, because gold mines have to close down. Hence it is important and urgent that the Minister of Industry should assume the responsibilities which fall on him to help the area to develop, survive and grow, in short be what it used to be in the past, of great
[Mr. Caouette.l
importance to the development of Canada and the province of Quebec.
Then, the minister will have helped not only my area but the Canadian economy as a whole. This will bring in more industries; decentralization will be achieved and we will be able to say that the Minister of Industry has played his part in maintaining our small towns, and establishing a more stable economy than that which we now have in the country.
[English1


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, the importance of the department that we are now discussing I think must be evident, in view of the number of members who have already spoken, and in view of the emphasis they have been placing on one of the functions of this department, which is to provide industrial development elsewhere than in the heavily industrialized sections of Canada.
The Minister of Industry occupies a very important position within the government. With his Departments of Industry and Defence Production, and expenditures of about $80 million with respect to both those departments, he has an opportunity of exerting great influence on the industrial development of Canada.
We are nowadays in this country showing a proper interest in education at all levels, and in technical and vocational training. We are showing a great interest in bringing skilled immigrants into this country. We are intensely concerned with the development of our natural resources. We are equally concerned with the development of our industrial strength. It is in this field that the minister has the opportunity, with his staff in the two departments, to chart the course for Canada for the future. I think that a long-range view certainly is desirable.
I now wish to refer to the Thompson report, which had specifically to do with Air Canada, and with the overhaul and maintenance base in Winnipeg. What I will say may well overlap into things having to do with the Department of Defence Production. I think the minister will not object. He will be happier to hear one speech rather than two from this side of the house.
I trust you will bear with me, Mr. Chairman. I will link what I have to say directly with the responsibility of the minister, as I see it, and with the opportunity that lies in his hand to play a great part in directing the
May 20, I960

future of this country. I spoke about that in my preliminary remarks.
I would direct the minister's attention to page 132 of the Thompson Commission report, which repeats a statement made by the Prime Minister of Canada at the Dominion-Provincial Conference held in 1965. I quote, and these are his words:
I would like first to refer to the economic items on the agenda. The first of these is concerned with regional problems. The federal government is well aware that the course of economic development in the various regions of Canada has been uneven. This has resulted in unequal opportunities for people in different parts of the country . . . Regional inequalities clearly mean that it is not enough to have policies designed to maintain a high rate of growth for Canada taken as a whole. We must also have policies to develop the full potential of all parts of Canada. Historically, regional inequalities have been the main divisive forces in our country and many national policies have therefore been directed toward overcoming such inequality. Changing circumstances require adaptations in the form of such policies but in no way lessen the importance of the objective . . . They must take into account the special needs of the individual regions. If all Canadians are to benefit as they should from economic growth we cannot rely entirely upon such general instruments as fiscal policy, monetary policy, and commercial policy. They have to be supplemented by more selective measures to achieve particular goals.
The Minister of Industry and of Defence Production is the person responsible for getting governmental approval to supplement fiscal policy, monetary policy and commercial policy by more selective measures to achieve particular goals. Indeed the Minister occupies a very challenging position.
One or two years ago I raised objections with regard to splitting up the Department of Trade and Commerce. Now, however, that split is an accomplished fact. It is now up to the minister to produce results. I think perhaps that he has able men on the staff to work with him. My words there apply to general policy. Let us apply the general policy to the particular situation in the city of Winnipeg, in the province of Manitoba, as outlined by the Thompson report dealing with the overhaul and maintenance base of Air Canada in that city and in that province.
I suggest to the minister that he need not read the whole report. The portions I want to deal with are largely to be found from page 119 to 133.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
The Minister of Transport has responsibility in this house to report on behalf of Air Canada. He is the one who tabled the report
Supply-Industry
and who gave the evasive replies on it yesterday, and to a certain extent today. I presume the Minister of Transport will say that this is the third report the government has received with regard to Air Canada, and consequently it will accept the suggestion of Air Canada that its operations with regard to overhaul and maintenance be confined to the one base at Dorval and that, over a period of a few years, the other base in the city of Winnipeg will be discontinued. I assume the minister will adopt that attitude, although this morning I had hoped he would take a different view and give us a policy statement.
I am not going to deal in any detail with the Thompson report which has come out against the retention of the overhaul and maintenance base in Winnipeg. Mr. Thompson had a specific investigation to make. He has now made his finding, and on economic grounds he reaffirms what earlier investigations had pointed out, that it is cheaper to operate the one base at Dorval than to have two, with the second at Winnipeg.
My only regret during the course of this rather long drawn-out controversy over the Winnipeg base is that in 1957 we did not have a distinct statement with regard to Air Canada's position, a statement which we subsequently received in 1962 and to which Mr. Thompson draws attention. It was only from 1962 on that it became clearly evident that it was the intention of the management of Air Canada to shift the base from Winnipeg to Dorval.
When I became apprised of what was going on I considered, and continue to hold the opinion, that the case having been clearly made out that it is uneconomic for Air Canada to support two bases, then the decision rests with the government as a matter of policy, based on the Prime Minister's statement which I have just read with regard to regional development and the economic progress of Canada.
It would be quite unfair to ask Air Canada to operate at a loss because of a decision made by government. If the government makes a decision which would cause that crown corporation to operate at a loss, then the loss should be borne by the people of Canada rather than by the corporation itself. That is the attitude I have taken for several years on this matter.
This is an instance where the government should say to Air Canada, "We would prefer that you would sustain more than one base in this country, but if economic surveys indicate

May 20. 1966
Supply-Industry
that the maintenance of two bases will result in a loss to your corporation, that loss will be borne by the government of Canada, in other words, by the people generally." That would be in keeping with the policy that has been pursued within this country on a great many matters over the years. The government has undertaken subsidization of railway development, shipbuilding and many other enterprises. Air Canada itself is a government operated crown company. It is owned by the people of Canada. It works for the benefit of the people of Canada. It is not a private enterprise looking for a handout. Therefore it is in a different position from some other enterprises. Nevertheless, in the interests of general development in Canada, generation after generation the government has made it possible for industry to develop.
One field in which we have seen great government activity has been that of railway development and building. Looking to the future the government would be well advised to reconsider the situation with regard to Air Canada and its overhaul and maintenance bases. It should decide as a matter of policy for Canada that the second overhaul and maintenance base should be maintained in the city of Winnipeg.
That base has been there for a long time. By virtue of its existence it has built up a strong force of highly skilled labour. There is also a social aspect which must be taken into account by a government. It could not be taken into account by a commission looking at just the economic aspects, but when it comes to a social aspect this is where a government should play and frequently does play an important part.
The social aspect means the uprooting from the city of Winnipeg of approximately 1,000 highly skilled personnel with their families, and the shifting of those people from western Canada to the city of Montreal. That is uprooting people in a very serious way. We are quite familiar with the mobility of our population, but when there is a major uprooting like this I say the government is obliged to take a second look at the matter.
Let us quite frankly accept the fact that on an economic basis Air Canada cannot support two overhaul bases, but from a government viewpoint the second base in the city of Winnipeg should be maintained. It has been pointed out in various arguments presented to various commissions, and certainly to the Thompson commission, that in case of danger, international warfare or some serious trouble,

accident or natural upheaval, a base might be put out of action. I quote from page 119 of the report to that effect:
In several submissions it was suggested that Air Canada should have not less than two overhaul bases in the event that by reason of war, insurrection, act of God, explosion or other disaster, one was disabled. Any of these contingencies could occur at Winnipeg or at Dorval, but of course the result would be more serious if it occurred at one base and there were no others available.
The cost of duplicate facilities would be a significant annual insurance premium, which other air lines do not seem to assume.
Air Canada stated that in the event of a contingency at Dorval recourse could be had, so far as airframes and components were concerned, to the C.P.A. base at Vancouver .... Air Canada also filed correspondence and memoranda indicating that there was in existence a North American pool of technical facilities and services for standby services should an air line's overhaul facilities become crippled. There are at least seven facilities in the U.S. where DC-8's, and presumably in due course DC-9's, can be overhauled.
Air Canada is an informal or associate member of this pool. It does seem to the commission that Air Canada could profit by close liaison with and development of the pool. Beyond that comment the commission has no recommendation to make.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that despite the fact that there may be places elsewhere in the North American continent where assistance could be given in the event of a disaster at the Dorval maintenance base, we should not rely on that. This means we are relying on the United States for assistance in time of trouble. If this is so, there may be no opportunity at all to rely on the United States bases; they themselves would be subjected to the disaster which would follow a missile attack on this continent. As a nation which prides itself on its wealth and its development, I think Canada should stand on its own feet. I would suggest to the government, on the basis of national defence alone if for no other reason, the overhaul and maintenance base in the city of Winnipeg should be continued. If there are additional charges, and I expect there would be, this would be a proper charge against the Departments of National Defence and Defence Production.
We maintain shipbuilding facilities on both coasts of this country.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: For economic reasons.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Not solely for economic reasons. We do so because it is cheaper to build the ships in eastern Canada than it is on the west coast. I can say that, having sat in on several policy decision matters related thereto. I suggest that our shipbuilding facilities
May 20, 1966

are sustained in this country on both coasts not solely for economic reasons, but also for defence purposes. Similarly I would do the same with regard to maintenance for our aircraft. I think the minister has another way of looking at this. Charged as he is with taking action in what he calls designated areas where unemployment is rife, I think he should take action in advance of unemployment occurring in an effort to prevent trouble arising along that line. Here, through various reports and certainly through this Thompson commission report, he has advance notice that a serious situation is going to develop in the city of Winnipeg with regard to 1,000 skilled personnel, not all of whom will find vacancies existing at the Dorval maintenance base.
I suggest that there is an opportunity here for him to take action before he is called in and asked to designate an area out there because of unemployment conditions. I suggest further that in his plans for the development of industry and the development of skills he should do everything in his power to sustain in the city of Winnipeg this highly skilled labour force. It may be that he would have to direct their activities into other channels or associated activities; but this is what the department exists for. There are hundreds of people in these two departments, industry and defence production, who have minds capable of grasping this problem and of producing half a dozen solutions from which the government may select one. This just takes a little imagination and some vision.
On the basis of his activities as the Minister of Defence Production I think the minister should consider very seriously and at a very early stage what can be done in defence production with that group of skilled personnel in the city of Winnipeg. I do not know with exactitude the plans of the Department of National Defence with regard to the aircraft they will use in the future, but over the last three years they have had innumerable seminars and study groups and they must have some plans along this line of which the Minister of Defence Production must be aware. It seems to me that here is an opportunity, in the field of defence production, to sustain that skilled work force in the city of Winnipeg. I am not suggesting for one minute that the activities of the Department of Defence Production presently being undertaken by Bristol, Standard and Western Aero companies should be diverted to the personnel at
Supply-Industry
the Air Canada base; quite the contrary. In the past the Department of Defence Production quite properly has seen that those companies I have mentioned have had work to do for defence purposes. I quite agree with that.
In our term of office the former minister of defence production, Mr. O'Hurley, was very sympathetic toward the development in western Canada of a pool of skilled labour which would be useful for defence purposes. I suggest that this minister should take a similar attitude in this regard; he should project his plans a few years ahead and see to it that some part of the work in the future for the Royal Canadian Air Force-if it retains that name-will be done in the city of Winnipeg by skilled personnel who already are there available, whose homes are there, and who should be permitted to live in an area of this country in which they have chosen to live and not be plucked out and diverted somewhere else.
In the field of defence production I should like to know from the minister specifically-we might not be able to obtain all the facts today-what is the allocation of money by areas in this country; to what extent is defence production carried on in western Canada, or is it all centred in the industrial area of Canada, as we speak of central Canada. Once we start talking about diversification you will find that westerners and people from the maritime provinces see eye to eye. Although we are sympathetic toward our friends in the central provinces, we do feel that some of the work done here could be done equally well elsewhere. We should have carried out the policy which the Prime Minister enunciated at the dominion-provincial conference and which has been enunciated on other occasions.
To what extent is the minister developing the highly skilled trades out in western Canada and the technological capability in Canadian industry for defence production purposes? We observed what had been done during wartime with regard to having our defence industries pretty well centralized in central Canada. In those days there was a great opportunity to diversify and spread out our defence effort, but it was not done. Now, in this cold war period we are in a continual state of having to spend a billion and a half dollars or perhaps more on defence matters. Year after year this goes on. To what extent are we widening out our basis of production for defence purposes and not having it centralized in one area of Canada?
Supply-Industry

May 20, 1988
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Those are the considerations that I draw to the minister's attention. It was rather dismaying that we did not, immediately following the Thompson report, the substance of which I presume has been known to the government for some considerable time, receive a statement of policy regarding that particular program. In the fields of the Departments of Industry and Defence Production there is an opportunity now to retain in western Canada the skilled personnel who have done such useful work for the air industry over the past years. Why should these people be displaced and dispersed?
The Thompson report in dealing with the military matter I was talking about states at page 129:
The total volume of all military aircraft work (including helicopter work), available in Canada was estimated by Mr. Elbert Cheyno of Los Angeles, appearing on behalf of the province of Manitoba, as involving some four million hours of work per year. Inquiries made by the commission indicate that there is likely a somewhat lesser number of work hours than estimated by Mr. Cheyno.
I am not going to quarrel in that regard, but there is a large number of work hours available.
At page 130 the commissioner states:
An annual workload of some 800,000 hours would be required to maintain a staff of approximately one thousand men at the AC Winnipeg o/h base.
That is the present enrolment there. The report goes on to state:
To maintain existing workloads at Standard Aero and Bristol and the AC base would mean that approximately one-third of all military aircraft work available in Canada would be done in Winnipeg. Such a transfer of work would require disregard for the operating areas of the aircraft, and their cruising ranges, the proximity of established bases in such areas, and the cost of duplication of specialized skills and equipment.
Standard Aero and Bristol are private enterprise operations in the same field. The report then goes on to state:
The aircraft industry with its related activities is dynamic and rapidly changing.
That certainly applies with regard to defence matters. I suggest to the minister, and I will conclude before you rise, Mr. Chairman, that in the various fields there is a real opportunity for him to apply in a practical sense an immediate policy for regional development as outlined by the Prime Minister. This is a policy with which I think most Canadians are in agreement.
IMr. Churchill.]


Mr. Jorgenson:: Mr. Chairman, in the few minutes that are available to me before five o'clock I should like to deal with one aspect of the minister's estimates as it applies to the constituency I represent, and particularly to the Pembina valley area. I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre that the minister's department is a very important one. In future years one can envisage how it can play a very important role in the development of industrial areas across Canada.
The hon. member for Lotbiniere spoke with some considerable vigour about the virtues of the minister. I do not quarrel with his energy or his ability, but unfortunately in so far as the Red river and Pembina valleys are concerned, a great deal of this energy is expended in running around in circles. We would not be so chagrined if we knew the department was just doing nothing in that area, but what in effect is happening is that the area development program as it applies to the province of Manitoba is creating a situation in which the municipalities, in attempting to locate industry in their areas, find themselves competing against one another.
This competition has been taking place for some considerable time. What the minister's department has done under the area development program is place a very serious obstacle in the way of certain municipalities which are not covered by this program in competing with other areas which are covered.
If one looks up the salary figures for the area of the Pembina valley, which comprises census divisions two and three, he will find that the total average income per family in those two areas is $3,598 and $3,608, respectively. In the Winnipeg census district the average family income is $5,899, and in census division four, which is the area comprising Brandon, the family income figure is $3,794, which is in excess of the incomes of census divisions two and three.
By what criteria is the Brandon area established as a designated area, other than by using national employment services figures? In our opinion the use of those figures as a criterion for designating an area is manifestly wrong because the entire southeastern part of Manitoba falls into the Winnipeg census district.
Because of the fact that the metropolitan Winnipeg area is an area of substantial growth each year-perhaps not as spectacular as some areas in Canada-it is able to accommodate the labour force which lives in the
May 20, 1966

area. Therefore we find that the national
employment service figures for the city of Winnipeg and the areas south and east, which are all in the same division, show a relatively low unemployment figure. The fact is, however, that the unemployment figure for the areas outside, particularly in southeastern Manitoba, which really should be considered as an ARDA area, show a much higher rate of unemployment than the city of Winnipeg. These people are being discriminated against by virtue of the criteria applied in establishing designated areas.
I would urge the minister again, and this has been done by the Pembina Valley Development Corporation on many occasions, to give consideration to changing the criteria for the establishment of designated areas. I think income must certainly, in particular areas, be considered as a criterion to be used, rather than using national employment service figures. Rather than basing the criteria on national employment figures they should be based on census divisions, because this is more likely to produce a clearer picture, so far as unemployment in a given area is concerned than national employment figures.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I again urge the minister to give serious consideration to the changing of this criteria so that a more equitable application may be made in the province of Manitoba. The people who comprise the Pembina Valley Development Corporation have worked hard and long to attract industry to that area, and until the minister's program came in they were successful. Now they find that despite all their efforts industry is moving into areas which need assistance much less than the Pembina river valley and southeastern Manitoba.
I do not wish to create the impression that the minister should not apply this area program to other parts of Manitoba, but I think it is wrong to include the southeastern part of Manitoba with the Winnipeg employment service district. If the minister cannot be of any help in assisting the people of this area, then in the name of God let him not hinder them and be an obstacle in the way of development of industry there.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are times in this house when the constituencies of Winnipeg South Centre and Winnipeg North Centre get confused. This sometimes leads to a bit of humour. But on this occasion the member for Winnipeg North Centre would be quite happy
Supply-Industry
if the speech made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre were attributed to him.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: We shall take it as read.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, I commend the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre for making these remarks today.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: They were out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of Industry
may feel they were out of order, but bearing in mind the responsibility of the department I do not think that was the case. If we are to have a statement soon from the Minister of Transport with regard to the recommendations in the Thompson report, I think it is a good idea that there should be an expression of opinion along the lines we heard today from the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.
I join with him in saying that I do not criticize Air Canada for making its decisions on an economic basis. But this country is what it is today because of many political and social decisions which have been made in order that it might become a great country from coast to coast. I agree that there are decisions which have to be taken to bring about the decentralization of industry and the parallel development of our country in all of its areas. I therefore hope consideration may yet be given by the government to the government's own objective of decentralization by exploring the possibility of arranging for the maintenance base to be retained at Winnipeg, even if this has to be done at the expense of the people of Canada.
All of us from Manitoba would support such a decision. This may make some members feel that a regional position is being taken. In my view this is the case. I believe we are taking a position which is in the interest of Canada as a whole. As I say, this argument has been well developed by the hon. gentleman on my right, so I need not repeat the speech he has made on behalf of all of us from Manitoba. We are interested in various recommendations contained in the report of the Thompson commission. We think something should be done to develop more polar routes from Winnipeg. An effort should be made to get a direct route to Chicago. We welcome the opening of an air cargo base at Winnipeg. But these things do not provide for the employment in Winnipeg of the skilled personnel who are working

May 20, 1966
Supply-Industry
there now in connection with the maintenance and overhaul base. This surely comes under the aegis of the minister, namely the development of industry on a parallel basis across the country.
I therefore hope consideration will be given by the entire government, the Minister of Industry, the Minister of Transport and all concerned, to what is involved in this question not only as far as Winnipeg itself is concerned but in relation to the needs and best interests of Canada as a whole. I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre for making it possible for me to say these things within the compass of two or three minutes. He spoke for all of us from Manitoba.


Thomas Miller Bell: Discussion has ranged out west for a few minutes, and rightly so. I should like to return to the maritimes for a few moments.
I support the remarks made by the two hon. members for Halifax with regard to the exclusion of Dartmouth, Halifax, Saint John and Fredericton from the areas designated under the incentive program. I have had my say on this subject, as the minister knows. I feel it is hopeless to do anything about it now. Perhaps I could take a moment to make a final appeal in the hope that the hon. gentleman will see the light and discontinue this discrimination against these cities in the maritimes.
I think it is significant that another agency, an independent body, the Nova Scotia Voluntary Economic Planning Board, has joined APEX and the Economic Council of Canada in recommending that these cities be included. I challenge the minister to quote any authority which recommends that these cities should not be in the incentive program area. There has been a barrage of criticism for many months in this connection, culminating the other day in the Saint John Times-Globe which had this to say on May 19:
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 the aid; potential new ones have been lost. The cities are being bled in the name of healing, and the whole region is weakened.
I make one final appeal to the minister in the closing hours of Friday as he hopes to wind up his estimates. Let him review his thinking and take better advice. Let his department do something, because the only thing he is accomplishing now is spreading poverty around the maritimes.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Richard):: As it
is now five o'clock-


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I wonder whether we might continue for a few minutes, by consent, as we are about to conclude?


John (Jack) McIntosh: May I call it five o'clock?


Mr. Latulippe:: Mr. Chairman, may I point out that it is five o'clock?

[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


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


Mr. Deachman:: I wonder if we could call item 65 on today's order paper, Bill No. C-100, to ascertain whether or not there is unanimous agreement to proceed with that bill today?


Mr. Speaker:: Is there agreement that all bills up to item No. 65 on today's order paper will stand, at the request of the government?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Grant Deachman: the second reading of Bill No. C-100, to amend the Canada Elections Act (students' franchise).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill No. C-100 is to correct an anomaly in the Canada Elections Act which became apparent in a number of constituencies throughout Canada during the last election. Perhaps I could best explain what happened by referring to a commentary by Edmund Morris, of station CHNS Halifax, made on February 5. This is a summary of events which took place as a result of this peculiarity in the Canada Elections Act. I quote:
In the November 8 election, many students were disfranchised under provisions of the Canada Elections Act, specifically subsection 9 of section 16. It provides that a person not ordinarily resident in a constituency must be duly registered and in attendance at a recognized educational institution on the day the writ of election is issued in order to qualify as an elector in that constituency. Many universities did not start classes last September until after the issue of the writ, the students were not therefore acually "in attendance", and they were therefore disqualified from voting in the electoral
May 20, 1966

district where they were living where that was other than their home constituency, at the time of the advance polls and on November 8.
Perhaps I might explain what took place in my own constituency in order to clarity the situation. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the writ of election was issued on September 8. At this time enumeration began to take place, and most university students had not yet moved into the university towns or into residence at the universities. However, resident students at universities were in residence at the time of the advance poll and were registered at universities when the election actually took place. According to the elections act, however, they should have been resident, registered and in attendance at university when the writ was issued on September 8. They were thus disqualified from voting in that election.
The University of British Columbia is located in my constituency of Vancouver Quadra. Today there are about 15,000 to 16,000 students at that university. I do not know how many of them are qualified to vote, but I would estimate at least 2,500 to 3,500 of those students are 21 and qualified electors. These young Canadians, although 21 years of age and looking forward to voting for the first time, were not able to cast their ballots in that election.
One of the peculiar situations which arose, and which put even more sting into this situation, was the fact that commonwealth students were able to vote. At the University of British Columbia, we have many students from the West Indies, from Africa, from Hong Kong, from India and Pakistan. Under the provisions which qualify a person from the commonwealth as an elector in Canada they were able to vote because they had established a residence in Canada. Most of these students do not go home during the summertime and, in fact, remain in Canada for several years until they complete their education. Under the elections act, they were qualified electors.
We had a situation where some young man or woman from Kamloops, Nelson or Prince George, who was 21 years of age and born in Canada, would go to the University of British Columbia but be unable to vote, while commonwealth students were qualified to vote if resident in that constituency.


Mr. Lamberi:: May I ask the hon. member a question? Where was the normal place of residence of these commonwealth students?
Canada Elections Act
This is one of the difficulties. The comparison between third or fourth year students from the commonwealth and students within the province, is not acceptable.


Grant Deachman: I think I shall come to some of these points as I move forward. I recognize this to be one of the difficulties. I do not believe the hon. member, or any other hon. member, wants to find Canadian university students who are of voting age when the election takes place and resident in a university, unable to take part in the election, while commonwealth students at the same university are in a position to cast their ballots. I do not believe he wants to see such a provision remaining on the statute books.
The statute now provides that if these students want to vote they have to go home 300 or 500 miles, cast their ballot and come back. This is not a situation which we, as Canadians, want to see in our universities today. The purpose of Bill No C-100, therefore, is to bring about a simple change in the act which will not allow this to happen again. My solution to the problem, I feel, is a relatively simple one. Under subsections 6 and 7 of section 16 of the Canada Elections Act, ministers and teachers may move into a new constituency at any time in the interval between the date of issuance of the writ and polling day and register as voters. It would appear that the student franchise problem is easily solved if this same privilege that is granted to ministers and teachers were extended to students and they were deemed to be residents of the electoral district in which they have temporary residence at the time of the election.
This situation came to light very forcibly in my own constituency where there are so many students, and I know it came to light also in many other areas of Canada. At that time I began to look around for a solution to this problem. One way I found that the question could be approached was through the Chief Electoral Officer. Under section 58(2) of the Canada Elections Act, you may approach the Chief Electoral Officer, if you have been a candidate, with any amendment or suggestion you have respecting the electoral law. I should just like to quote section 58(2) which reads as follows:
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Every candidate at any election and every official agent of any candidate has the right to send to the Chief Electoral Officer in writing any complaint he may have to make with respect to the conduct of the election or of any election officer, and to suggest any such changes or improvements in the law as he may consider desirable-

May 20. 1366
Canada Elections Act
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, taking advantage of that section on November 23, 1965 I wrote to Mr. Nelson Castonguay a letter, the relevant paragraphs of which are as follows:
Vancouver Quadra is the seat of the University of British Columbia. An estimated 2,000 U.B.C. students lost their votes in this election under the provision of Paragraph 16(9) of the Canada Elections Act because they were not duly registered and in attendance at university when the election writ was issued on September 8, although most were here when the enumerators called during the week of September 20 to register the voters.
Unless this section of the act is amended students at U.B.C. and other educational institutions will continue to be in danger of losing their franchise whenever a September election is called.
In accordance with section 58(2), suggestions made in writing to the Chief Electoral Officer must be included in his report to the Speaker of the House of Commons at the conclusion of the election. Therefore the suggestion I made to him, that an amendment be made in the area of section 16(7) dealing with ministers and teachers, is before the Chief Electoral Officer and-


Miss LaMarsh:: There is not one.


Grant Deachman: The Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) has just advised me that there is no Chief Electoral Officer at the moment, but I think this matter will be settled shortly, and I am sure the new electoral officer will have the files before him, with a recommendation from the former Chief Electoral Officer in regard to this matter. In any event, the matter has been put before him, and he is under law compelled to review this question when the matter comes before him.
This is another way in which, in addition to the bill I have presented to the house, an amendment may be brought about to our election laws in order to permit Canadian students 21 years of age and over resident at Canadian universities to exercise their vote. We are in an era when the number of students is increasing very rapidly. These students must never again be disfranchised at an election should they become resident at a university between the issuance of the writ and polling day.
I know that other hon. members in the chamber today who are interested in this problem will want to say something on this matter, but I hope they too will urge that steps be taken, either by the passage of this bill or through amendment of the elections act introduced by the government, to make sure

that Canadian students are not again disfranchised in this manner.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: first speaker, students at university age undergoing training should above all others have qualified and informed opinions; and we need the interest of these young people in parliament. We need, let me say, their advice. They are at the very age when they are thinking about the future of their country, and every effort should be made to make sure that they are enfranchised.
I would go further and suggest that we might take a look at enfranchising any student who has reached the stage of intellectual development at which he takes on himself advanced study courses and the added responsibilities entailed in running the country. We might well make some improvements to the whole electoral system whereby these students could bring a more direct influence to bear upon parliament itself, which perhaps could be done through direct representation. It would then be possible to campaign on the university campus itself, and these young people could take an active part in politics without actually going out on the hustings and taking part in an election campaign at a point perhaps 1,000 miles away from their university.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I think that this representation in the British parliament has always worked very well. I realize there has been considerable argument about the distribution of these university seats. It would perhaps be difficult to decide which university should have the representation in parliament. On the other hand, that might be a way where we could elect three, four, or even half a dozen university students to parliament. They have their own student councils. Their methods of choosing a candidate and of carrying on may not be quite similar to our own methods, but I am sure, bearing in mind their educational level, that they should certainly be consulted. I think that it is an interesting and exciting idea to bring young people into public life, as early in life as possible. We may be able to channel more of our young leaders into the public service, where they are so badly needed.
I think we should take a look, before any changes are made, at the system of prepolling, so that students could vote, perhaps in blocs, in university towns, in that way securing direct representation. Fitness to vote should be based on qualifications to vote. If we allow students the right to change their voting place prior to polling day, we should
Canada Elections Act
look at the danger that possibly hundreds, or thousands of those students possibly may be encouraged to change their voting place at the whim of the party in power or at the whim of any group in a position to exert pressure.
I am sure that that sort of thing was in the minds of the legislators when they said that your place of residence would have to be based as of the date of issuance of the writ, in order to prevent such unnatural fluctuations of political power which might be brought about by any change in the rules.
Therefore, what I am saying is that we would be hasty in passing any amendment like this without first giving it very careful consideration. I think it would be most unwise to pass a private member's bill in the house after consideration of it for somewhat less than one hour. By all means, we should make sure that every student in Canada has the right to his franchise. However, I think this matter should go before an appropriate committee. We should not rush into hasty legislation in this manner, because it might do more harm than good.


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, as we welcome the introduction of Bill C-100, and would like it to come to a vote, I shall be extremely brief in my remarks.
We think that this bill shows a move in the right direction. As the sponsor of the bill has said, it aims at the correction of an anomaly, and at the removal of an oversight existing in the electoral regulations.
In those regulations, through what is an outmoded technicality, we have been debarring a great many young Canadians from doing what we in this house and what their parents would like them to be doing, which is taking an intelligent interest in Canadian political affairs and casting their votes.
We think that this residential qualification regulation which debars students in certain elections from voting is a very artificial regulation, when one thinks of the very good reasons on the other side of the argument for encouraging young Canadians to cast their ballots. In brief, we think this bill is a step in the right direction.
Having said that, may I point out an even worse anomaly regarding voting in federal elections. If it is true, and it is, that many hundreds or perhaps thousands of university students are debarred from voting because of this technicality respecting residence, many

May 20. 1966
Canada Elections Act
many more Canadians are virtually disfranchised because of the present regulations. We have industrial workers in this country in that category. In British Columbia we have thousands of loggers, thousands of fishermen and many others who, in many federal elections, because of having been absent from their homes, either on the fishing grounds, or logging camps, or elsewhere, have in fact lost their votes. Many of these people are forced to leave their homes before the advance poll is taken, which, as we know, is taken but a few days before the actual poll.
It is almost impossible for any such fishermen, loggers or others in that category to cast a vote for or against a candidate in their home ridings. We think this is wrong. While we support and would like to vote for the bill introduced by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman), we want to take this chance to urge the elections committee of this house to take a look at the present elections act with a view to securing, as far as is possible, a vote for the absentee voter in federal elections, and to take care of the situation that exists in British Columbia.
Without more ado, I take my seat in the house, with the assurance that if this measure will come to a vote, we shall support it.


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak briefly about this bill, which in principle I support. I had in Peterborough the same experience the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra had in his riding. I remember trying to arrange for students who normally were resident in Peterborough, but who were attending Queen's, or the University of Toronto, or Carleton, or were in the Windsor area, to come back to Peterborough to vote. It was difficult to explain to students who were caught up in a political science class, and who were told by their professors of the importance of the right to vote and of its importance to democratic society, why, on the first occasion they could exercise this franchise, because of some technicality in the law, they were denied the opportunity to do so. For this reason I support the bill presented by my distinguished colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.
This bill deals with a specific problem in an act which is plagued with anomalies. The hon. member who has just taken his seat cited examples I had not heard mentioned before, probably because the industries affected are not major industries in my area.

It has been pointed out before, and should be no surprise to members of this house, that this act is plagued by all sorts of anomalies. I think therefore it is imperative for the totality of the act to be referred to the committee on privileges and elections for discussion.
This bill provides a solution to a particular problem, but other problems are posed by this solution. For instance, this bill does not deal with the question of voting age, and whether it should not be lowered to 18. I have supported the view that the voting age ought to be 18.
Another problem posed by this particular bill deals with the concentration of floating voters that will arise in certain areas. The University of Toronto in itself, if the students were able to co-ordinate their activities, would probably be in a position to determine who their member of parliament was going to be. Realizing that the same applies to McGill, as a graduate of that university I think that would be deplorable. There is the technical problem of a concentration of floating voters in a particular area and their possible influence on an election.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
There is one anomaly about which I feel very strongly. I refer to the deplorable situation of persons in hospitals and nursing homes who are not able to get out and vote and who thus lose their franchise. I remember very well during the last two elections visiting hospital patients and how depressed they were that they did not have the opportunity to vote. It is for this reason I suggest that though the principle of the bill is sound, the whole general area needs to be revamped. In my view the bill should be referred to the committee on privileges and elections where the problem could be dealt with in toto and not on a piecemeal basis.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say on behalf of this party that we are in favour of the amendment proposed by Bill C-100. It is correcting a problem that manifested itself last autumn because of the date on which the election was held. Serious injustices resulted because of the date and so we are in favour of taking this small step forward to correct the problem.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have some sympathy for the motive of the sponsor of the bill because I realize that in the last election a
May 20. 1966

number of university students were unable to vote without it costing them great time and expense, because their homes were some distance from the universities they attended. However, I feel the problem was overmagnified, and a great deal more emotion was expressed over it than it really warranted, especially when we consider the number of other people who, for one reason or other, are temporarily disfranchised. Further, in a university city or town there will always be a large proportion of the students over 21 already resident, and therefore not affected by the problem of transferring their temporary residences. Also, the problem only arises during a period of about five or six weeks in the year.
The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) did not speak about the university summer sessions which are an entirely different kettle of fish. These are usually of six weeks duration, and I would say almost 98 per cent of the students attending them are over 21. Therefore the incidence of application is much greater in their case.
Let us examine what happened on November 8 as a result of the writ being issued on September 8: Some faculties were already in residence. Also, a number of universities co-operated by organizing buses which carried students to their homes at no cost to themselves, and with an arrangement not to hold examinations on the days in question. Generally the problem was coped with by university authorities as best they could.
Of the proportion of students who were affected, now many would have voted in any event? I do not suppose there would be any greater proportion than the proportion of students who were already resident, who had the right to vote, and who cast ballots. In some constituencies this did not amount to more than 60 per cent or 65 per cent-something which is to be regretted, but this is one of the facts of life. I agree there should be no artificial barrier to any person who wishes to exercise his franchise, but I point out that there are other people who must be absent from their home constituencies by reason of work and who cannot vote at the advanced polls. We accept that as a fact of life.
We have not yet established the mail ballot. That may be the answer which the committee on the elections act may recommend, but in this instance we . should be careful that we do not create a greater problem than the one which the bill seeks to correct.
Canada Elections Act
The sponsor of the bill and the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Faulkner) pointed out that in some constituencies at a certain time of the year, particularly if the voting age were lowered to 18, a floating, temporary population of considerable size would be created, something which none of the constituency boundary commissions have taken into account, and these people would have an inordinate bearing on the outcome of elections.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
If it is wrong for the armed services to vote en masse in a constituency in which they are stationed, then certainly the same principle applies to a non-permanent resident student. Certainly it would be a lot simpler, from an administrative point of view, if the armed services could vote from wherever they were stationed in Canada. I am not talking about those who are abroad. So there is that particular problem.
As to the other classes of people who may be disfranchised, what about the paraplegics? There are very few polling stations which will accommodate a person who is in a wheelchair. These polling stations are located in schools, in community homes, and what have you. In my own constituency in Edmonton we have a situation which is very good in so far as something like 20 per cent of the polls are concerned. A polling station is established in the new rehabilitation centre where there are ramps built which can accommodate wheelchairs and these facilities which are used in the Callow buses or Volkswagen buses which are provided by the transportation companies for the handling of paraplegic cases. Therefore, the advance poll is set up there, and these persons can vote at this centre, at the advance pool, when you have all the time in the world to handle these particular people who do require more time.
I would say that a much more humanitarian and effective way would be to amend the act to provide that any person who is a paraplegic or any person who by reason of age or infirmity is confined to a wheelchair may vote at any advance poll, and particularly at an advance poll which is capable of handling wheelchairs. This is only one category, and I cite it merely to show that university students are not the only ones who might be adversely affected. In the last election, through a request directed to the chief returning officer of Canada, and through my own returning officer, I was able to arrange

May 20. 1966
Canada Elections Act
to have voluntary patients in a mental hospital vote. It was surprising the number who did avail themselves of the opportunity to get on the voters list by having a certificate from the chief medical superintendent. I held a political meeting there. It was an exercise in therapy for them and a novel experience for me. It was a very intelligent meeting. Persons who are voluntary patients in mental hospitals are not persons who are lacking in mental appreciation. As a matter of fact I would say that the standard there is much higher than it is in many nursing homes where we deal with persons of very advanced years who are suffering from senility and other infirmities.
On the face of it my view is that we should not accept the proposal of the hon. member. There are too many difficulties involved. Remember this: An amendment to the Canada Elections Act applies in every part of the country. If the same standards or conditions apply in all parts of the country, fine; but we know it is a fact of life that the same standards do not apply in all communities. The same thing applies with regard to hospital voting. In the provincial elections in my province, aand in the civic elections, there is voting in the hospitals. If there is a polling station within a hospital, an alert political organization can vote a great number of those people who are ambulatory patients. This depends upon whether they will go into the hospital and find out which patient can get to the polling station. There are ways and means to have them transferred; it is quite simple. In the elections in the province of Alberta we experienced no difficulty in having the patients in all categories in the general hospitals vote. That is all right, depending upon the number of constituencies. The problem is whether you can sort these votes out.
Provided you are satisfied that this will not be used as a means to suborn an election, I am sure it can be done; in other words, if you are satisfied that it will not be used as a means to materially affect the election result by the use of false ballots or by the substitution of ballot boxes. All these opportunities can arise. Every time you open up and handle a ballot box, unfortunately you create an opportunity for certain persons who are unscrupulous enough to try something to affect the honest result of an election. That is another consideration.
I would prefer to see the subject matter of this bill referred to the next committee of

this house which may sit to deal with the problems of the Canada Elections Act. There will be an opportunity when we have the report about election expenses and so on. I think this is a related subject. Certainly I would agree that we should not have to amend the Canada Elections Act piecemeal. There are points which I, and undoubtedly others, will raise to show that there are anomalies contained in the act. These should be dealt with at the same time.


Grant Deachman: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member not agree that in a country where increasing numbers of people are travelling and moving about the country because we are becoming that kind of a country, through mobility and so on, and where people are going to universities, that we have to accommodate the voting public. The way to do that is not by putting aside the Canada Elections Act because we find it difficult to accommodate the student and the man who moves from job to job, or the person who travels, because this is the kind of Canada we are going to have to live in.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I will reply to that. There are limitations. I will stand corrected, but I believe that in the province of Saskatchewan where they did have a mail ballot they have had problems because the result could not be declared for three weeks. Surely one of the desired qualities of an election is to get an early result. We know that when the government of Premier Lloyd was eventually voted out of office, the matter hung in abeyance for three weeks while they were collecting and counting the mail ballots.
There are two sides to every question. In this case I do not know that the advantages necessarily are all on the one side.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I should just like to ask the hon. member whether he does not agree that it is also a fact of life that these so-called floating votes made by university students would be nailed down in the constituencies where the universities are located if the writs are issued between October and April?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, but the student has an option. Under the proposed amendment he can vote either at the university or at his home poll. As a matter of fact, he has greater flexibility than the average voter who is pinned down to his own poll.
May 20, 1966


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The apprehensions of your program break down.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the hon. member a question? Would he agree that the inconvenience of having to wait even two or three weeks while the absentee ballots were counted represents much less of a hardship than disfranchising thousands of workers in construction camps and other people who have to travel around the country?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: As I indicated, I think this problem is over emphasized when you consider the realities regarding the number of individuals who actually do not get back to vote and the number who actually avail themselves of the opportunity.


Mr. Cashin:: That is a typical Tory attitude.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I think as far as the hon. member from Newfoundland is concerned, a great deal more effort is made in my area to get the people out to vote than is made in his.


Richard Joseph Cashin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. In my constituency one does not have to make the same effort to get the people to vote as in the hon. member's area because the people are genuinely interested as a result of their superior calibre.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Why do you not make a speech?


Richard Joseph Cashin: I will.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, had the hon. member been in his seat when I made my speech he would realize that I agree that the problem is not a simple one. My purpose in rising was to point out some of the problems involved and why the committee on the Canada Elections Act should study all aspects of the situation instead of just sitting down to look at it for three quarters of an hour and then passing the whole thing.


Mr. J. B. Siewart (Antigonish-Guys-borough):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin) would not applaud if he knew I am going to take what he would undoubtedly describe as a typical Tory attitude to the bill now before the house.	[DOT]
I think those things the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has cautioned us about are really quite relevant. Grave difficulties are involved.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame.
Canada Elections Act


John B. Stewart: I must say to those members of the N.D.P. who are exclaiming, that there are some of us in this house who would like to see the business of the country conducted in an orderly way, particularly at election times.
I should like to say in relation to the typical non-Tory attitude taken by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Bigg), when he proposed that new university seats should be authorized under the Canada Elections Act, that this would not be a good change or one that could be regarded as progressive.
University seats had their origin in the Middle Ages when universities were regarded as one of the classes of corporations in law which ought to be represented. The boroughs were another of those classes. I think it is now generally agreed, especially in the universities, that the restoration of a privileged class of voter represented by a special type of seat would not be desirable. I am sure that on reflection the committee on privileges and elections would come to that conclusion.
The hon. member for Edmonton West was insistent that a clarification in the Canada Elections Act concerning one's place of ordinary residence is important. I believe he is absolutely correct. There is no doubt about it that people proposing to vote in an election ought to know whether in law they are qualified; and consequently anything that makes it difficult for them to ascertain whether or not in law they are qualified is undesirable.
Ordinary residence is no mere technicality of the law, to use an expression that came from this side of the house. This is a very important ingredient of the electoral process. I should like to see this problem solved in so far as students are concerned, and in so far as industrial workers and other such persons who have to move around the country are concerned. This a problem that has to be confronted and not one that can be simply dismissed as a mere technicality of the law.
If we look at the bill now before us, sponsored by my hon. friend the member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman), we will see that it comes far short of specifying the regulations which govern qualification. The bill says that a person who, being a student, is duly registered in a university may qualify. What does that mean? Does it mean he is duly registered if he attends one course, perhaps during the evening program at a university? I think there are at least two or three interpretations of that expression that

May 20. 1966
Canada Elections Act
can be made. If we are going to have any law in regard to this important point it has to be perfectly clear what is meant by a student who is registered.
The bill goes on to refer to a recognized educational institution. There might be various criteria by which one could decide what kind of institution should be regarded as a recognized educational institution. In order that the bill should be better, it should set forth the tests defining what is a recognized educational institution.
There is another point in the hon. member's bill which seems somewhat defective. The hon. member talks about a student who is duly registered and in attendance at a recognized educational institution, but he does not go on directly to say that the institution must be in a constituency in which the student is not ordinarily resident. This is implied by a later part of his proposed amendment; but it should be perfectly clear that this would apply only in the case of a student engaged in a full-time program of study at a properly defined university.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to advise the hon. member that the hour for
consideration of private members' business has now expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, will someone on the government side who is authorized to do so let us know about the business of the house for Tuesday?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the government house leader indicated the business of the house last night as it is reported in Hansard at page 5352. I now confirm what he said then.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock this house stands adjourned until 2.30 o'clock in the afternoon of Tuesday next, pursuant to standing order 2(4).


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in Committee of Supply this day:]

[Stage Direction]
1. Postal services including Canada's share of the upkeep of the International Bureaux at Berne and Montevideo, $252,804,000.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 24, 1966