1969-03-20

[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 20, 1969


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, I would like to present to the house the possibility of making a procedural decision with regard to Bill C-173 respecting the organization of the Government of Canada. We have now spent eight sitting days on the bill and it is my impression that members generally would be pleased to see it pass without delay. I wonder if there would be agreement to have it completed before we adjourn this evening.
This could be done in two possible ways, by making an order that all questions should be put at ten o'clock this evening or, alternatively, we would be perfectly agreeable to an order that the time of the sitting be extended and that all questions be put at the end of the extended period of time. I might also indicate that we would be quite agreeable, if other hon. members are, to suspend private members' hour for this purpose.
I have taken the liberty of preparing two motions, Mr. Speaker, one to have all questions put at ten o'clock, and another motion to have all questions put at a later time, if that is the preferred alternative. If one or the other is found to be acceptable to the house we could have it made an order now.
I should add that if the bill is completed before ten o'clock, in view of the fact that the house sat late last evening it would not be the intention of the government to call another item of government business later today. Perhaps we could have an indication from hon. members as to whether one or other of these two courses would be acceptable.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, the portion of the reorganization bill that is left for discussion concerns the
regional development department. This is possibly one of the most fundamental and important sections of the bill, and we have not yet started upon it. We certainly would like to make progress on the bill and will do everything we can to see it is brought to completion, however we do have several speakers who want to make their views known, and who have questions they want to ask of the minister.
I would prefer to wait until this evening to see what sort of progress we have made. The motion for extension of the hours could be brought between nine o'clock and ten o'clock, if at that time it is felt to be useful; but at this particular time we are not prepared to agree to either of the motions that the President of the Privy Council has suggested.
9 (2:10 p.m.)


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Cen-ire):: Mr. Speaker, we too regard the portion of the government organization bill yet to be discussed as one of its most important aspects, but we feel it is not unreasonable that we make an effort to conclude the discussion on this bill today. Of the two proposals made by the President of the Privy Council, we believe the one that would allow extra time is preferable, so that hon. members who have contributions to make will not be cut off. We would have been prepared to reach an agreement at this point, but as it would appear this is not possible, perhaps we could discuss the matter during the day and re-open the question some time during this evening, depending upon the progress made.
We recognize that a number of days have been spent on this bill; but the President of the Privy Council will also recognize that we had to spend more time on the Post Office Department than we might otherwise have spent, for reasons which are pretty well known. We do not feel that the time we had to spend on that department should cut into the time to be spent on the important department which is before us today. Nevertheless we hope that by co-operation during the day we will make such progress as to make it possible to conclude debate on this bill tonight.

March 20, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he can now say briefly what message he has sent to the government of Nigeria through our High Commissioner in Lagos.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, our High Commissioner has not yet been able to make arrangements to see the principal officials of the Nigerian government.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I hope the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the High Commissioner are not relying on the mail services for this purpose.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: I hope we will not have to start using smoke signals.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Could the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicate to the house, in view of the obvious interest of other countries in co-operating in attempting to reach a settlement of the Nigerian problem, whether he, other members of the government or the government as a whole through its officials, has launched any new initiatives by way of talks with representatives of other countries such as Britain, Russia or France relating to the possibility of an effective cessation of arms shipments, and discussions leading also to a cessation of hostilities and effective negotiations.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government does not think any useful purpose would be served by taking an initiative in this regard. We have, however, discussed with a number of governments the possibility that an initiative might be taken by someone who could be fairly effective. As the hon. gentleman knows, quite a number of mediators have tried this from time to time, some of whom would I think be most suitable-such as the Emperor of Ethiopia, the Secretary General of the Commonwealth and others. I believe it would be more useful for us to support their efforts than to take a separate initiative.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicate when he will be in a position to inform the house
fMr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).]
concerning the suggestions his government has made to the government of Nigeria through its High Commissioner?


Mitchell William Sharp: I think it would be desirable to wait until after we have the reaction of the Nigerian government.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Can the minister give us any idea in terms of time?


Mitchell William Sharp: No; that does not depend only on us, but on the Nigerian government itself.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs regarding the recent events which have taken place in Anguilla. In view of our membership in the Commonwealth and Canada's very friendly interest in the people of the Caribbean area can the minister give us any report on what is happening and whether he has had any information from the government of the United Kingdom regarding its intentions.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have been following these events very closely. The United Kingdom government informed us in advance of the steps to be taken by Britain to establish a commissioner in Anguilla. We were not of course consulted, since the measures proposed and now put into effect are clearly within the constitutional authority of the United Kingdom government acting at the request of and in agreement with the government of St. Kitts. We recognize the difficulty of the position in which the British government found itself. From the reports we have and the statements made by the foreign minister of Britain the situation now is that they are trying to instal a commissioner in Anguilla, with the task of working out a long term solution to the problems of that island which is acceptable to all concerned, including the people of Anguilla.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if Mr. Arnold Smith, the Secretary General of the Commonwealth, is keeping in touch with the situation, and whether he is reporting and will be reporting from time to time to the Canadian government and other members of the Commonwealth regarding these developments?
March 20, 1969


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the answer to that question. I do not know just what action the Secretary General has taken. Of course he is not under the control of the Canadian government, but I am sure he will be reporting to all of us in due course.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am directing a question to the Prime Minister in connection with what is entitled "Viet Nam International Protest March April 6 Easter Sunday". There are quite a number of sponsors, many of them connected with the N.D.P., and holding various positions. I was not able to be here last evening because of a prior engagement, and I should therefore like to ask the Prime Minister what he has to say to suggestions contained in this pamphlet to the effect that there is shocking new evidence of the Trudeau government's complicity in Viet Nam; that Canadian troops are being trained in guerilla warfare, and that there is a standing offer by Trudeau and Sharp to send forces to Viet Nam?


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


John George Diefenbaker: What does the Prime
Minister think of this outrageous collection of so-called reasons for calling together >a march on behalf of Canadians?


Righi Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: If the propaganda is no more serious than that, I will tell the house that I do not plan to change my intention of not being in Ottawa on Easter Sunday.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that answer was rather more frivolous than I would have thought appropriate. I ask this question in all seriousness. This demonstration is not going to take place in Ottawa. Unused as the Prime Minister is to travel, this is in Vancouver, and the salubrious atmosphere there might attract even him. Is there any foundation for the suggestions made in this statement that is being used as a propaganda means to convene a meeting, and a march against the stand of Canada regarding Viet Nam?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I of course have not read this. I do not want to answer the question frivolously at all. If there is anything serious about the document, I would like to consider any suggestions. Everything
Inquiries of the Ministry quoted by the right hon. member appears to me just pure fantasy.


An hon. Member:: Just like the N.D.P. itself.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, just like the N.D.P.
itself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


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


Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Prime Minister could say if it was entirely fantasy when he referred to the Liberals as idiots.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Hees:: The answer is no, of course!



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
In view of the Prime Minister's recent statement, in Toronto, concerning the insufficient participation of the people in the lawmaking process, could he tell the house whether he is considering the use of concrete and practical methods to improve this situation and whether recommendations will be submitted to the house to this effect?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, most of the instruments or methods we are contemplating are related to the Liberal party organization. This great party has ramifications right across the country, but we want to make it a mass party and our projects are well underway.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
In view of the fact that the Canadian people belong to the party of their choice, Liberal, Progressive Conservative, New Democratic or Creditiste, would the Prime Minister tell us whether he is seriously considering using some means whereby all the people, young and old, will participate in. the law-making process?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we have in fact introduced several reforms in the house. One of these is intended to enable parliament to

March 20. 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry do its business more expeditiously. Another measure deals with the availability of funds to opposition parties as a means of obtaining the services of researchers that would assist them in asking better questions and finding some of the answers.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have another supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest to the hon. member that this subject should not be pursued further.



EFFECT ON INDUSTRY OF NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY

['My information is that three additional provinces will be coming in as of April 1 of this year, and that at least one or two others are considering coming in but have not definitely made up their minds.\nMarch 20, 1969']
Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Was the Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources expressing government policy when he told the Canadian Petroleum Association in Calgary on Tuesday that there would be no special consideration for Canadian oil in a national energy policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will have to verify the statement, Mr. Speaker; I am not aware of it.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I ask the minister if he would make available copies of his remarks in Calgary either to the house or individually to hon. members.


Mr. Orlikow:: Or to the Prime Minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Send it by mail.


George Harris Hees: Not until after Easter, then.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to have the tape of my remarks transcribed and make a copy of the transcript available to the hon. member. I appreciate his interest. I would only like to say that the particular reference to the speech he has made, and several others which I have seen, would not be verified by the transcript.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did the minister provide representatives of the petroleum industry with any indication of the position that would be taken on behalf of Canadian oil by the Prime Minister in his meetings next week?


Otto Emil Lang: No, I did not, Mr. Speaker. I in fact explained to the representatives of the oil

industry that clearly I would not be in a position to speak on that subject. I told the oil industry some pretty simple home truths about the reasonable positions they should expect, that they would have to take in Canada. I also told them quite plainly that they could expect the government of Canada to take a reasonable position in regard to them.



Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct this question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister done anything about his undertaking to sample public opinion in regard to Canada's recognition of the Vatican?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. We have done a great deal of sampling in cabinet and in caucus. We have had a lot of opinions expressed to the government in caucus and I have, of course, received a great deal of mail myself. But there has been no so-called scientific sampling of public opinion.


John George Diefenbaker: Is it scientific when you get it from your own party?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister in a position to make any statement concerning the discussions between himself and the minister of health of Ontario with respect to the prospect of that province coming into medicare?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I have nothing further to add, other than what I said about a week and a half ago subsequent to my last meeting with him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have a supplementary question. Can the minister indicate to the house how many other provinces, apart from those that are already in medicare, are discussing this possibility with the federal government?


John Carr Munro: My information is that three additional provinces will be coming in as of April 1 of this year, and that at least one or two others are considering coming in but have not definitely made up their minds.
March 20, 1969



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainle-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. In view of the violence which erupted yesterday in Montreal and in view of the fact that he will not be in the house Monday, I would like to ask the minister whether he could make a statement today regarding this situation?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The report will be a little longer than usual.

The situation in Montreal gives me cause for great concern. Public delivery has been disrupted. Much more seriously, men have been beaten up, tires have been slashed and windshields broken. This organized reign of terror is a culmination of a three year history of labour troubles and breakdowns in public service. We are seeking to resolve both the short term problem of violence and the long term problem of unsatisfactory service to the public.
On January 28, Rod Service announced it was laying off 110 drivers. Subsequently, because of labour problems, Rod Service informed us it wanted to withdraw entirely from its contract with us. For our part we are happy that it should do so. We did not seek this; it was imposed upon us. We are ready to absorb immediately Rod Service employees into the Post Office, including all but a maximum of 69 of the 110 to whom lay-off notices have been given. Of the 424 employees, 27 are already on our staff; another 254 have applied to join the department. As Post Office employees they would enjoy greater security and better fringe benefits.
The national union of Rod Service employees has insisted that the Post Office fulfil the union contract with Rod service which runs to March 30, 1970, and has demanded that we do this by creating a special Crown corporation or agency. This would mean that one year from now we would be back exactly where we started.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the minister when he is speaking on such an important matter. I wonder whether, if his statement is to be of some length, he would not prefer to revert to motions. Does he have the agreement of the house to complete his statement now?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Eric William Kierans: I have only another few sentences, Mr. Speaker. We are ready immediately, if the union agrees, to absorb all the employees we can into the public service. Alternatively, we are negotiating with another company to take over postal delivery in Montreal. Unhappily, no agreements1 have been reached. But pending such an agreement, I state flatly that we will not be intimidated, nor will we condone violence.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, could the Postmaster General tell us what seniority rights he is prepared to grant to the employees he wishes to reinstate?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, this will be a matter of negotiations between the postal union, the carriers union, the department and the employees themselves.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister must be familiar with the recent statement of the Letter Carriers' Union contradicting statements that he has made in the house and asserting that the minister has not been properly informed. However I should like to ask him whether there is any foundation for the assertion that the Post Office representatives have told the union that the statements made by the minister in the house are in no way binding upon the minister?


Eric William Kierans: I would like to know the
name of the man who made the statement.


An hon. Member:: There goes another unemployed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I suggest that the minister had better read the recent communication by the union. Would the Postmaster General say whether during the discussions with the postal unions his department has been asked to institute mediation or arbitration proceedings, as distinct from adjudication proceedings?


Eric William Kierans: The two major unions have contracts with the Treasury Board and these contracts outline all the procedures that they may take if there are complaints and dissatisfactions, important enough to warrant filing a grievance. So far as I know, there has been no demand for mediation in these particular complaints. On the four major differences involving the single mail processing system in particular, the union and the Post Office have

March 20, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry agreed to go directly to adjudication and, so tar as I know, both parties are satisfied.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to be perfectly clear. Am I correct in understanding the Postmaster General to say that he has no knowledge of the union asking whether he and his department will institute mediation or arbitration, as distinct from adjudication proceedings?


Eric William Kierans: There has been some difficulty about the translation of the word "adjudication". The word "arbitre" applies in French to both an adjudicator and an arbitrator, to the best of my knowledge. On one occasion, as Mr. Decarie admitted to me himself, when I was talking about adjudication-and the Prime Minister also used that word one day in the house-the journalists interpreted this to Mr. Decarie as "arbitre", and Mr. Decarie explained to me that he thought we meant arbitration when all I meant was adjudication. I think this point has been cleared up between us.


David Orlikow: When the Postmaster General says the Post Office Department is ready for this question to be adjudicated, is he ready, first of all, to settle the question whether the department has or has not the right to institute the straight-through walk system?


Eric William Kierans: These are precisely the issues which are going before the adjudicator. I certainly would not want to say what I consider the adjudicator would or would not have the right to decide.


David Orlikow: The question was this: Will the department suggest to the adjudicator that under the terms of the contract he has no right to rule on the straight-through walk?



DELAY IN MAIL DELIVERIES

John George Diefenbaker: My supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the seriousness of delays in the delivery of mail in this country, to the extent that some people are beginning to wonder whether transmission by smoke signals would not be faster, would the Prime Minister, bearing in mind the truculent and defiant attitude of the Postmaster General in connection with the postal employees, turn this problem over to the Minister of Labour who seems to have some diplomatic qualification for getting labour disputes settled?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am willing to look into this matter, but I feel that if we are obliged to resort to smoke signals I had better turn it over to the Minister of Health and Welfare.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the minister a supplementary question.
Considering the importance and the urgency of the matter, I believe that the minister owes it to himself to supply answers, since we are seeking a better postal service.
Since the taxpayers now have to bear the burden of increased postal rates, could the minister tell us when he hopes to conclude negotiations with the union and when he expects delivery to return to normal in the Montreal area?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, we have been negotiating with the union for six or seven weeks and we are keeping in touch with the union and the C.N.T.U. Of course, the discussions will continue over the week-end; however, a week ago, the representatives of Rod Service Limited bluntly informed us that they intend to give up their operations.



CIVIL SERVICE TESTS FOR ROD SERVICE EMPLOYEES

Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: I have a supplementary question which might be better handled by the Secretary of State, but in his absence I would direct it to the Prime Minister. Since the Prime Minister has indicated that Rod Service employees will be taken on as employees of the Post Office Department, will it be necessary for them to sit the civil service examinations and to qualify themselves in the usual way?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Secretary of State has had to leave for Paris to represent the Canadian government, but I shall draw the question to his attention.


Donald MacInnis: The Postmaster General may be able to handle the question.


Eric William Kierans: The 27 employees we have already hired have not yet taken the examination, but they have to fulfil all the requirements of the public service, of course.
March 20, 1969


Donald MacInnis: Will this include the provision for veterans preference?


Eric William Kierans: We observe all the regulations of the public service act.



WHEAT-REQUEST FOR FLOOR PRICE EQUALLING I.G.A. MINIMUM

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: May I
address my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Mr. Speaker? In view of the fact that a motion has been passed unanimously in the Saskatchewan legislature urging the federal government to guarantee farmers a floor price for export wheat equal to the minimum price of the International Grains Arrangement, and the institution of a domestic price for wheat of $1 a bushel above that figure, will the minister and the government give this request immediate and active consideration?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Of course we shall, Mr. Speaker, but as I have said repeatedly, there are real hopes that we shall return to the I.G.A. price schedule, and every effort is being made toward that objective now. So I think these gentlemen are anticipating a situation which may not develop to the extent they fear.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: May I point out to the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may not point things out to the minister; he can only ask questions.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Then may I rephrase what I have to say? In view of the fact that Wheat Board offering prices are now lower than at any time during the life of the International Grains Arrangement, will the minister give this motion careful thought?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Since wheat is now being sold below the floor price quoted under the International Grains Arrangement, is it the intention of the government to make up to the Wheat Board the losses which will be incurred during this period, until such time as we are able to get back to the schedule of prices contained in the agreement?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I apologize for having to use the formula that this would be a matter of government policy to be announced in due course.
29180-437J
Inquiries of the Ministry



WHEAT-PRICE DISCUSSIONS AT LONDON MEETING

Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Can the
Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce tell the house what progress was made toward settling this price dispute at the meeting held in London on Monday and Tuesday of this week?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have a short report from that meeting, Mr. Speaker. The committee acknowledged that a serious price situation has developed, particularly in recent weeks, and agreed that appropriate action should be taken as soon as possible to strengthen and maintain the International Grains Arrangement. The committee concluded that the pricing problem should be dealt with initially by exporters, and agreed to adjourn its meeting and to reconvene as soon as practicable, following the exporters meeting, which is to take place early in April.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: My
question is related to the questions asked earlier about the Post Office. Since the Postmaster General promised that with the introduction of the five-day week the need for casual employees would diminish, can he advise the house how soon we may expect that some of the 600 successful applicants for postal positions will replace casual employees, numbering over 100, in the Vancouver post office?


Eric William Kierans: In Vancouver, as in many other post offices, we have to take account of our own permanent employees and provide them with new positions first. I was not aware that 600 people had filed successful applications, but given the present employment situation in the Post Office and the fact that we have to find employment for approximately 2,000 of our own people it will be some time before we engage any new or additional help.


Mark Willson Rose: A supplementary question. The minister indicated to the house the other night that the casual workers would be gradually phased in as regular employees by April 1. Does he still feel that if some of the 600 successful applicants were casuals he will meet the April 1 deadline that he suggested?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that this is debate.

March 20, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry TENDERS TO REPLACE ROD SERVICE


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, the Postmaster General indicated that Rod Service were withdrawing their operation and that the government was presently negotiating with another company. Can he tell the house whether these services were put out to tender?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, we have simply indicated that we will be quite happy if some other private entrepreneurs or cartage companies are interested. Approximately three firms are looking at the matter, but how many will come forward with firm propositions we do not yet know. They would of course have to be satisfactory to Treasury Board as well as to the Post Office Department.



EXTERNAL AID


Mr. Roland Godin (Porineuf):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Is it true that the Canadian government intends to contribute to the financing of a housing project for Vietnamese refugees and, if so, how much and under what conditions?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that this question could be placed on the order paper.



INDUSTRY


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinihe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
On March 12, the minister announced in the house that a study was in progress to establish the economic possibilities of the Canadian textile industry. Is he now in a position to say when he expects to report on it in the house?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Speaker. The project is likely to be carried out before the end of the year. I am seeing to it that it is completed as soon as possible.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Would the minister tell us if representatives of the Canadian manufacturers and workers have been invited to participate in that study?


Jean-Luc Pepin: They shall be, Mr. Speaker. [English]



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Paul M. Gervais (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour-


Some hon. Members:: In French.


Paul Mullins Gervais: All right, I will speak in French. I do not mind.
Could the Minister of Labour tell the house whether there are recent developments concerning the difficulties with the C.B.C.?


Hon. Bryce S. Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to tell the house that ARTEC and the C.B.C. signed this morning a collective agreement, in order to settle the problem.



&quot;AIR OF DEATH&quot;-COMPETENCE OF C.R.T.C TO ADJUDICATE

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: My
question is for the Secretary of State but in his absence perhaps it could be answered or taken as notice by the acting minister or the parliamentary secretary.
With regard to the Canadian Radio-Television Commission hearing into the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation program "Air of Death" and the allegation by counsel for the C.B.C. that only the courts and not the C.R.T.C. have the power in law to adjudicate questions of this kind, has the government sought an opinion from the law officers of the crown respecting the legal competence of the C.R.T.C. in such matters, and has such an opinion been given?


Mr. Robert Sfanbury (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I know of no opinion being sought by the government but I am sure that such an opinion would be sought by the commission itself. I shall be glad to inquire from the commission on that subject.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In connection with the "Air of
March 20, 1969

Death" program, will the parliamentary secretary ascertain and report to the house on what action was taken internally by the C.B.C. management following the report of the royal commission appointed by the Ontario government?


Mr. Stanbury:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will recall that the C.B.C. president appeared before the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts and was questioned on this subject. He will be appearing again when the estimates of the C.B.C. are once more under consideration by the committee, and I am sure he will be glad to answer any such question at that time.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A further supplementary question. In view of the hearing that is currently being held, would the parliamentary secretary not agree that it would be advisable to report directly to the house?


Mr. Speaker:: Order; that is argument. COMBINES



MERGERS, TAKE-OVERS AND CONGLOMERATES IN ONTARIO

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who has just come out from behind the curtains, where I am sure he went because he was feeling a little neglected.
Is the minister aware of any action being taken by the government of Ontario to look into the question of company mergers and take-overs in the province? If so, what action does the minister propose to take under the Combines Investigation Act, which clearly has jurisdiction over this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not sure that this is a question of urgency; I think it is the type of question that could be placed on the order paper.


James Aloysius McGrath: Then may I rephrase my question, with respect, Mr. Speaker. Reports emanating from Toronto this morning indicate that the government of Ontario has asked its Securities Commission to look into this subject. Has the minister been advised of this, because clearly it is a matter that is under the jurisdiction of the Combines Investigation Act? If so, what action is the minister contemplating?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have
Inquiries of the Ministry not been advised that the Ontario government has asked the Ontario Securities Commission to look into the question of conglomerates, but I would think they are perfectly entitled to do so, as the matter does affect securities administration. I would welcome a study because this is a matter of great public interest, and the more study the subject receives, the better. I would remind the house that the question of competition policy is before the Economic Council for report, and I expect to receive it in due course. I would think that the Council itself would take a look at this question.



COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would he advise the house whether or not Canada has invited the Commonwealth Prime Ministers to hold their meeting in Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there is no necessity for making a decision at the present time.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question. I asked this question one month ago, on February 19, and at that time the minister gave the same answer. Surely a decision must be made-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the question should be placed on the order paper; in that way the hon. member may have better success.



RESEARCH


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe Norlh):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the statement that appeared in a leading newspaper to the effect that Canada's reputation in animal research, and even the health of scientists engaged in that field, has been put in jeopardy by the government's austerity measures, would the minister of health and welfare state what measures are now being taken to correct this terrible situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that he is inviting the minister to give the kind of information which in my view should be given by way of a statement on motions.

March 20, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE



BLACKLISTINGS BY U.S. SECURITIES COMMISSION

Mr. Max Sallsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Has the attention of the minister been drawn to the fact that Canada is now at the top of the blacklist of the securities commission in the United States? If his attention has been drawn to this fact, would he indicate to the house what measures he intends to take to restore Canada's good name?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the report the hon. member refers to has not been brought to my attention but I will see that it is immediately. It is in order to maintain and protect Canada's international reputation that both the government and I are anxious to make progress in the establishment of some form of national securities administration.


Stanley Ronald Basford: A moment ago in answer to the hon. member for Waterloo reference was made to a statement issued by the S.E.C. I have now had an opportunity to review that statement and I think I should place on record that this is a report from the Financial Post of March 8 which refers to 19 Canadian companies. It should not be taken as reflecting upon or in any way affecting the generally good reputation enjoyed by Canadian companies in foreign markets.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the President of the Privy Council in his role as house leader. Is it the intention of the government to bring forward the official languages bill before we adjourn for the Easter recess, or is it the government's plan to shelve it until after the by-election, as demanded by the Liberal organizers in British Columbia?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may recall that as a result of the federal-provincial conference my colleague the Minister of Justice agreed to consult with the western premiers regarding this bill in order to bring forward certain amendments, if

thought necessary. I think we should act in conformity with that request. Therefore I am not expecting that the bill will be before the house by next week.
Perhaps while I am on my feet I could make the statement of business for the coming week, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before the hon. minister does this, the Chair might be given an opportunity to recognize two or three members who are particularly anxious to ask a question.



ONIONS-SHIPMENT TO U.K. FROM MONTREAL

Mr. H. W. Danforth (Keni-Essex):: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker. I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Has the minister taken any action to facilitate the shipment of the 5,000 or 6,000 tons of Ontario onions to the United Kingdom from the port of Montreal, as requested by the industry, to enable the complete fulfilment of this very necessary sale?


Jean-Luc Pepin: My department has been involved in that, but if I am not mistaken the Minister of Labour took responsibility to help. I will report on the matter tomorrow anyway.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister relative to his trip to Washington? In view of his remarks yesterday regarding the A.B.M. system, indicating that he had not yet made up his mind he wished to deal with the matter, could he advise the house whether he will be seeing people in Washington other than the President concerning this matter? If so, will he in particular be seeing congressional leaders to discuss this matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the invitation is by the President of the United States, and that is the object of my travelling to Washington. During my stay there I hope to have informal meetings with other leaders and other people in Washington, but they will not be business meetings.
March 20, 1969



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS HUDSON BAY-AGREEMENT AS TO UNDERWATER RESOURCES

André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Does the government intend to approve the agreement concluded some time ago by Ontario, Manitoba and Quebec on dividing lines regarding the underwater resources of Hudson Bay?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the dividing line of those provinces on Hudson Bay has already been defined by a constitutional statute. The line follows the coast of the provinces and there has been no change. The provinces cannot on their own initiative amend the constitutional declaration.


André-Gilles Fortin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Since the federal government has not yet endorsed the agreement between those three provinces, does it intend to do so?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, perhaps my answer was too complex. The answer is positively no. The dividing lines have been established and we shall never agree to such a unilateral redefinition by the provinces.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, if I could make the weekly statement of business for the period March 20 to 28 inclusive. As non. members know, the business for today will be item 57, the government reorganization bill. We hope to complete the committee of the whole stage and also obtain third reading.
Tomorrow, Friday, March 21, the first item to be called will be the superannuation amendment bill for the report stage and third reading. This will be followed by item 56, the bill to amend the Financial Administration Act for report stage and third reading. Next Monday, March 24, we will call as the first item of business item 62, the Maritime Freight Rates Act legislation, which we hope, with the leave of the house, to carry through all stages on that day. As the second item on Monday, time permitting, we will call item 23
Inquiries of the Ministry with regard to the Canadian Overseas Telecommunications Corporation for the report stage and third reading. As the third item on that day, item 53, the bill with regard to Co-operative Credit Associations for report stage and third reading. The fourth item that day will be item 13, the drug prices bill, at the report stage.
Tuesday, March 25 and Wednesday, March 26 will be opposition allotted days. At the end of the allotted day in this period, a motion will be made for interim supply for the period April 1 to June 30.
On Thursday, March 27, we will call as the first item of business Bill S-15, the amendment to the Food and Drugs Act, for second reading. We will then call item 13, the drug prices bill. On Friday, March 28, we will again call the drug prices bill as the first item. This will be followed by item 52, the amendment to the act to deal with hazardous products, which at the moment is at the report stage.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, March 19, consideration in committee of Bill C-173, respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters relating or incidental thereto-Mr. Trudeau-Mr. Faulkner in the chair.
The Chairman:: House again in committee of the whole on Bill C-173. The committee will begin consideration of clause 20.
On clause 20-Definitions.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Mr. Marchand (Langelier):: Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak briefly today. To me and to people in disadvantaged areas in Canada, this is a very important occasion. The bill now before this house will, among other important measures, establish the new department of regional economic expansion, and give new emphasis to the government's commitment to reduce the economic disparities which exist between different regions of Canada. There are, I know, differences in detail among those of us
March 20, 1969

Government Organization who sit in various parts of the house. However, I think there will be general agreement when I say that the ideal toward which we must work is to ensure that Canadians have good opportunities to earn their living at roughly comparable standards wherever they live from sea to sea.
Canada as a nation can no longer live with the extremes of inequality which some people now must face simply because they are citizens of one part of Canada rather than another. Indeed, we cannot make the unity and identity of Canada secure unless we can remove the large disparities in the conditions of life in the regions of our country.
The recent constitutional conference recognized this point and clearly confirmed the importance which the federal government and the provincial governments attach to the objective of equality of opportunities for Canadians everywhere. The job of the new department, therefore, must be to get down to the roots of the problems which have produced the existing disparities between regions of Canada and help make the basic economic and social changes needed to create new employment and earning opportunities, and to make those opportunities available to the people who need them.
To put it another way, the department's goal will be to ensure that economic growth is dispersed widely enough across Canada to bring employment and earnings opportunities in the hitherto slow growth regions as close as possible to those in the rest of the country. Everyone knows that this is a difficult objective to attain. We have had a variety of programs operating independently, with too little co-ordination between them. This approach has obviously not worked. It may have stopped the gaps between regions from widening but it has not narrowed them.
This legislation will, therefore, firmly charge the new department, and myself as its first minister, with the central responsibility for federal regional development programs. This is the only way to secure the co-ordination of federal effort which is essential to the achievement of the most effective results.
With co-ordination we must have flexibility. The particular needs differ for different areas. The new department must be able to take a flexible approach, to look at the problems of an area or a region of Canada and to take action specifically designed to overcome those problems and to create new and selfsustaining expansion.

The organization legislation, of course, merely establishes the structure. The important thing is that it is a structure which will enable us to take this kind of a new approach.

This bill, Mr. Chairman, provides for the establishment of special areas when employment opportunities are very limited in the region itself or in the territory of which that region is a part.
This will promote assistance to the growth centres where economic expansion can be realized for the greatest benefit of the whole region. Up until now, those centres have often been left out of the federal aid programs.
The global planning concept contained in FRED will be extended to regions other than rural ones and will become one of the principal instruments capable of promoting economic growth.
The department-at least in the initial stage of its operations-will give priority to industrial development projects intended primarily for growth centres. However, we aim at the same time to focus our attention on social rehabilitation measures intended for rural regions.
The department will set up development plans for special areas in cooperation with other departments and will use, wherever possible, the services and facilities of such departments.
The department will coordinate federal activities to implement development programs and to carry out these portions of the programs which other departments are unable to undertake.
Although it should not necessarily be specified in the bill, one of the first responsibilities of the department will be the creation, at the official level, of the interdepartmental structure needed for efficient coordination.
Rural development must be accomplished through a federal-provincial process, because it comprises a wide range of activities involving both levels of government. The act therefore insists on the co-operation with the provinces and the participation of local groups in the drawing up and implementation of development programs for special areas. In order to better ensure that co-operation with the provinces, I intend to move, during the debate, an amendment to clause 26 (1) so that this co-operation might become a reality.
March 20. 1969

The department will enter into agreements with the provinces for the joint implementation of the programs, including sharing of the costs incurred by the provinces to carry them out. All departmental programs will be implemented in close co-operation with the provinces, even when federal-provincial agreements are not required.
The department will be able to grant subsidies or loans to a province to help establish, expand or modernize the infrastructures required for the economic expansion of a special area, when such works are essential to the achievement of a development program. The greatest impact of these measures will be felt in the industrial centres east of Trois-Rivieres.
The department will be able to provide various types of special aid, such as loans, subsidies of loan guarantees, to encourage commercial concerns to settle, expand or modernize their plants in a special area, if this is indicated for the success of a certain development program
This special assistance is a reserve measure that will apply only in those cases where the help extended to industry by the department through its main incentive programs is not sufficient to enable a particular concern to overcome the difficulties inherent in its situation in a special area.
The Area Development Incentive Act will continue to be the main instrument used by the department to encourage industrial expansion in disadvantaged areas.
Important changes to that act, to increase the efficiency of the incentives, will be announced soon, after consultations have been held with the provinces.
Mr. Chairman, before bringing these preliminary remarks to a close, I am pleased to announce to the house that professor William Smith-

Professor W. Y. Smith, head of the department of economics and political science at the University of New Brunswick, has agreed to act as the council's first chairman. He is a man who is very well known in the Mari-times, I think I consulted with all the premiers, unofficially of course, and they agreed that Mr. Smith is really the kind of man we need at this time to fill the kind of job that is open with the council.
That is all I want to say at the moment, Mr. Chairman. As I mentioned in French I
Government Organization intend to propose a small amendment to clause 26(1) in order to ensure that co-operation with the provinces will be of assistance all along. I am sure that hon. members after discussion will agree, if not necessarily on the policies of regional development, at least on the structure of this new department. The first thing we have to do is establish the department before we indicate to the house exactly what we intend to do.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Could the minister outline the nature of his amendment so that we can be considering it while the debate takes place?


Jean Marchand: I have no objection to that. After the words "the minister may" in clause 26(1) we intend to add the words "in co-operation with any province." This will provide that we have to co-operate with a province at that stage of the formulation of a plan.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Mr. Peters:: In referring to the council was the minister referring to the new council or to the Atlantic Development Board?


Jean Marchand: It is the council which is to be created by this bill, the new Atlantic Development Council which will replace the Atlantic Development Board.


Mr. Gundlock:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister how northern development fits into this program?


Jean Marchand: These are two different departments. Northern development comes under the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It is separate from an administrative point of view.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: The minister mentioned all parts of Canada so I wanted to have that made clear. They are completely separate.


Jean Marchand: I do not say that the northern part of Canada is outside the jurisdiction of the federal government, but I do say that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is responsible for the northern part of Canada. It is not covered by my department.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Chairman, it is not my
intention to go over once again the ground I covered on second reading of the bill. I expressed at that time a number of sources of concern with regard to the bill as conceived and the apparent intentions of the minister. I am a little disappointed that the minister did
March 20, 1969

Government Organization not touch upon the points that were raised then, but perhaps this will be done in the course of the debate. I called attention particularly to the dangers involved in the wide discretion provided to the minister and the Governor in Council concerning the definition of areas which may be prescribed as special areas for this purpose. I als'o called attention to the dangers involved in the wide discretion given the minister with regard to the type of industry which can be aided and the form of aid to be granted. I emphasized the importance of as much certainty as possible being created as soon as possible so that everyone will know where they fit. I also called attention to what we consider to be the unnecessary degree of centralization involved in the concept of administration in this bill.
I deplored the abolition of the Atlantic Development Board as an administrative and co-ordinating agency and suggested that agencies comparable with the Atlantic Development Board should be considered and discussed with provinces such as the province of Quebec in relation to the great area east of Trois-Rivieres which is of such concern to the minister and quite properly so. I do not propose to go over that ground again at this time except to emphasize the seriousness of these concerns with regard to the bill.
I do want to return, however, to the theme of the importance of co-ordination if any effective and adequate change is to be made in respect of regional disparity in any part of the country. I am referring to co-ordination with the provincial administrations concerned. It is clear that the efforts of the minister might very well be at cross-purposes with the aims; of the government of whatever province might be concerned. It is particularly important that there be the fullest possible co-ordiniation among all departments of the federal government because the minister will have under his direction a relatively small number of federal governmental activities that are involved in any question of economic development and must therefore be regarded as playing a very important role in regional development.
We have had a very striking example of the importance of this point since the bill was before the house on second reading. I mentioned then the important role all departments play, for example, the Department of Finance. Within the last couple of days we had a striking example of the importance of the policies of that department and an important example of the general financial policies

of the government of Canada with regard to the economic development of a province.
I am referring particularly to the province of New Brunswick and the budget which the provincial treasurer felt it necessary to bring down not for the purpose of financing any new services within that province, not, indeed, for the purpose of financing existing services on the scale that the government of that province had hoped to undertake in important areas as part of its declared policies, but merely for the purpose of trying to make ends meet. That province has had to cut back to the fullest extent possible and has found it necessary to institute tax increases involving a 10 per cent surcharge on income tax and a substantial increase in sales tax, not only the general sales tax but the special sales taxes relating to gasoline, liquor, cigarettes and so on. I emphasize that this is not for the purpose of new services but is for existing services. Of course the cost of education in that province would be an important aspect. I mention this point in connection with this bill because of the emphasis authorities on the subject of regional economic development have placed upon the importance of adequate government services relating to economic growth such as education, transportation, including highways, and public health services.
I should like to remind the committee of what the Economic Council of Canada had to say on this subject in its second annual review in 1965 when it called attention to the very striking disparity in the standard of growth-producing services in the various provinces of Canada. It pointed out the following:
Although there is some evidence of an uneven regional incidence of federal government expenditure, on the whole, federally provided services undoubtedly moderate interregional income disparity.
A distinctly diiferent situation applies at the level of provincial and municipal governments. Not only are there obvious differences in service requirements, but there are also important variations in the areas and degrees of responsibility assigned to the public sector. More fundamental, however, are the disparities in regional wealth and income which form the primary basis for the support of regional services. The obvious consequence is a wide range of variation in per capita expenditures at the provincial-municipal level and commensurate disparity among the various regions in the scope and standards of the public services provided at this level.
Interregional variations in the scope and standards of the public services are not only important because of their implications for interregional disparities in community income. They also bear directly upon the issue of regionally balanced
March 20, 1969

economic growth. Although it is difficult to draw a clear line between the consumption and investment elements of public spending, particularly in the case of services to people, it is now recognized that a significant proportion of public outlays may be looked upon as investment related to long-term economic growth. This applies particularly to expenditures concerned with the extension and development of human and physical capital, the provision of services to assist private production, and the general advance of knowledge.
The report goes on to emphasize the importance of bringing up to an adequate level the growth relating to public services in the Atlantic provinces, for example, in the areas of education, transportation and public health particularly. In the following year, 1966, the Economic Council returned to this theme and stated in its report at page 258:
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Notwithstanding the prolonged and substantial economic expansion across the whole country, a significant gap has persisted between the Atlantic area particularly and the rest of the country in provision for those public services most closely related to long-term growth. It is especially disturbing that disparities among the provinces in per capita expenditures on education have tended to widen, rather than contract, over the recent period.
The point I am making is not really peculiar to the Atlantic provinces, although it may be of particular significance there. It is also very significant in provinces such as Quebec in respect of its efforts to increase the incomes of the people in the area east of Trois-Rivieres.
There can be no question about the importance of provincial services in relation to growth. There is no question either about the degree of disparity that now exists in respect of the level of health, education and transportation services, to mention three. One must ask very seriously how far the minister and his department will get in attempting to raise the level of incomes and opportunities for the people in these disadvantaged areas if the local level of growth related services such as education, transportation and so on remains substantially below the national average. How much success is the minister likely to have in creating dynamic centres of growth under these conditions of relatively inferior growth related services which are also associated with higher taxes?
We know, for example, that in the province of New Brunswick there is not only a discouraging picture but rather extraordinarily high taxes associated with a standard of growth related services well below the
Government Organization national average. This is a discouraging situation for people who need growth if they are to succeed in lifting themselves by their bootstraps or responding successfully and effectively to the minister's policy and attempt to enable them to help themselves.
What disturbs me is the apparent failure of the minister's colleagues in the cabinet to recognize the significance of this matter. The Minister of Finance rose in his place the other night and contented himself with boasting about how much the government of Canada was doing by way of transfer payments. He did this on the eve of the day the provincial treasurer of New Brunswick felt it necessary to bring down a serious budget involving substantial tax increases for the people of that province. Perhaps it was coincidental but it indicated to me how unaware the Minister of Finance appears to be of the importance of the fiscal policy of his department to the work the minister is trying to do by way of regional development. I am afraid it is an indication of what I referred to as the possible tendency on the part of other ministers to "let Jean do it" and not accept their own responsibilities. It seems to me we have also had, and this is something the minister tried to explain to the committee, a striking degree of cynicism toward the province of Prince Edward Island. Let me say briefly what I have in mind.
Having regard to the cancellation of the causeway, this is a matter in respect of which the government ought at least to have taken the trouble to present the facts to the house and the people of that province. If the facts are as the government says they are, that the cost-benefit studies show that an adequate service can be provided more economically by ferry, the government should lay those facts before the house and the people of that province. I know of no better way to alienate the people of a whole province, in this case a small one, from the rest of Canada and from Ottawa than by simply announcing the cancellation of what was a solemn promise without the slightest effort on the part of the government to explain why it was necessary or to give the figures and convince the people that the government was right in its decision. This seems to me to have been a highly cynical step on the part of the government which is likely to produce a great degree of cynicism on the part of the people of Prince Edward Island.
The government substituted for the causeway project a new regional development
6898	COMMONS DEBATES	March 20, 1969
Government Organization agreement. As I understand it, the government of Canada is undertaking to make available some $225 million over a 15-year period as a federal contribution to a $700 million economic development program. Some of us have a little trouble figuring out just how Prince Edward Island is going to produce the balance of approximately $500 million. We have difficulty in understanding how that government is going to produce approximately $2 for every $1 the government of Canada puts into the plan. Under these circumstances we may be excused for being a little sceptical about this venture which is more or less coincidental with the launching of this new department.
The minister should give us some satisfactory explanation or factual information about the cost-benefit studies in respect of the causeway versus ferries. I think we should have some explanation as to how the province of Prince Edward Island can proceed effectively with this development program when it has to find $2 for every $1 put up by the federal government.
The government of Canada must recognize the importance of and face honestly the budgetary problems of the provinces, particularly those faced with serious regional economic disparity, and I have in mind the province of Quebec and the eastern provinces. The government of Canada must honestly recognize that unless these provinces are able to provide an adequate standard of growth related services as conceived by the Economic Council of Canada, the minister is likely to have little success in making substantial progress in reducing economic disparity. I say this as plainly and bluntly to the minister as I can.
I am disturbed that other ministers, including the Minister of Finance and the minister in charge of the Treasury Board, take the attitude that by setting up this new department and putting so much in its budget we will take care of regional development, and that the government as a whole will not then have to continue to be conscious of its responsibility and will not have to act in respect of the problem I have outlined this afternoon. It is clear from the budget of the province of New Brunswick that the government of Canada must act quickly in this matter unless it is prepared to sit back and see the morale of the people of that province completely destroyed, to see its people completely submerged by their difficulty in providing services while paying possibly the highest taxes in the country out of their inadequate incomes. As I

have said, the government must act quickly in this regard.
e (3:30 p.m.)
I hope that the attitude expressed by the Minister of Finance the other night does not really represent the attitude of the government. I hope that what appears to be a rather cynical attitude displayed so far toward the little province of Prince Edward Island does not really reflect the determination of the government to deal with this problem.
The minister announced this afternoon the appointment of Professor Bill Smith to the Atlantic Development Council. There is no question that he is an excellent man, well informed on this subject. I have heard rumours, quite frankly, of another excellent appointment the minister has in mind. These men, even if they are associated with others, cannot accomplish very much unless they are operating in a proper framework, unless they are operating under properly conceived plans, unless they are operating with proper financial support. This support must involve facing honestly the kind of problems the government of New Brunswick had to face the other night. If the situation continues as it has, I say again that the minister will have little success in doing very much in those areas.
The government of Canada must face up to its total responsibility. There is no sign of it doing so yet despite what I am sure is the very sincere intention of the minister who spoke just a few moments ago.


Mr. Broadbent:: Mr. Chairman, fortunately the few remarks the minister made at the beginning of the debate this afternoon do not require any change in the text of the speech I have prepared. Perhaps in his remarks later today or possibly tomorrow the minister will suggest different orientations in the development programs of his department such as some of us would expect. If so, some of my criticisms may turn out to be irrelevant. I hope this is the case.
The problem of regional economic disparities in Canada is scarcely a new one. It has been with us throughout our history. What is comparatively new is the statistical documentation of these persisting disparities. Since the end of the 1920's, when the first statistical studies were made, we have seen that the growth of the Canadian economy as a whole has not in any way reduced the gap in wealth which exists between provinces and regions within provinces.
March 20, 1969	COMMONS
The most striking feature of regional economic comparisons throughout Canadian history is the substantial difference in per capita income between the highest and lowest provinces. In the most recent period for which meaningful statistics are available, 1962-64, personal income per capita was $2,025 in Ontario, $1,521 in Quebec, $1,302 in Nova Scotia, $1,167 in New Brunswick, $1,115 in Prince Edward Island and $1,007 in Newfoundland.
As one would expect-it does not necessarily follow, of course, but normally on an empirical basis one discusses this kind of correlation-we also have substantial differences in employment levels across the country. The Atlantic provinces in particular, as the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out today and hon. members have mentioned a number of times in other debates this session, have suffered from much heavier unemployment than the country as a whole. This has been going on for a 20-year period. For example, in the 1956-60 period average unemployment in the Atlantic provinces was nearly 10 per cent of the labour force, in contrast with my own province of Ontario which averaged 4 per cent. Even today when unemployment is again becoming a major problem across the whole country, the rate is 10.1 per cent in the Atlantic provinces, 8.4 per cent in Quebec and a comparatively low-comparatively only-3.8 per cent in Ontario and 4 per cent in the prairie provinces.
What these persisting inequalities mean, of course, is that it matters a great deal where a Canadian child is born. To spend one's childhood in a richer area means to have better schools, employed parents with a sense of self-respect, adequate housing and the opportunity to pursue a variety of occupations. To grow up in a poorer region, in contrast, is to lack these advantages either completely or relatively to the rest of Canada. In many cases one might just as well grow up in an underdeveloped country. In short, the opportunity for self-realization in Canada is determined to a considerable extent not only by the parents one is blessed with but also the region of the country in which one is born.
Apart from this unfairness to individuals there are inevitable economic consequences affecting the community as a whole. An uneducated or badly educated child cannot make the contribution to his community that an educated one can. The effect of this on the already relatively poor region is that available material resources cannot be developed. The Canadian economy then operates well
DEBATES	6899
Government Organization below its full capacity and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of productivity are lost every year. Underdeveloped regions are caught in a vicious cycle in which low income and un'employment, low capital accumulation and low productivity, lead to lower educational attainment, inadequate health and welfare services and emigration of the skilled and the young to areas where employment opportunities are better. Regional poverty, in short, reproduces itself ad infinitum.
Since confederation Canadians have believed that only by acting together in a united country can we establish equal opportunities for self-development for all our people. But persisting economic disparities, becoming more widely known with each year and, of course, with each report of the Economic Council of Canada, are causing increasing numbers to question the desirability of the Canadian union. Unless some significant changes take place in the years ahead we will witness the emergence of new, serious and justifiable threats to confederation.
I would like to say something briefly about past government programs. One of the principal reasons for the persistence of economic disparities is that in the past neither Liberal nor Conservative governments have been able to provide policies which would foster the economic growth of underdeveloped regions. The Minister of Forestry and Rural Development recently admitted that while over $1 billion had been spent in recent years on programs intended to overcome regional disparities, over half of this money has been a complete waste. We have witnessed a proliferation of programs, all well intended but nevertheless ineffective. This is the minister's own judgment.
e (3:40 p.m.)
We have had programs to build roads to resources, to develop transportation facilities, to retrain manpower, to give area industrial grants and incentives, and to provide rural adjustment and relocation of the victims of technological change. But still the same regional inequalities exist. These policies of previous Conservative and Liberal governments have lacked the over-all direction and cohesiveness that alone could render them effective, especially the allocation of substantial resources.
We have had ARDA programs and FRED programs. We have had ADA, A.D.B. and DEVCO. Some of these projects have involved co-operation with the provinces and some have not. Some have concentrated on
6900	COMMONS
Government Organization areas of growth potential and others have simply used high levels of unemployment as the criterion of eligibility. I am pleased to see that the government is finally moving away from this outmoded approach. Most of the projects have been completely unconcerned with the social consequences of significant economic change in areas unaccustomed to it. Most have failed to consider the importance of personal involvement in the planning and execution of programs on the part of those who will be affected by them.
Now I should .like to say a few words about the new department. The New Democratic Party has recommended for a number of years now that this unco-ordinated effort I have just described to overcome regional economic disparities could be remedied only by creating a department which has this goal as its sole objective. For this reason we welcome the new Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
However, what is also needed is the establishment of a national plan which sets down national objectives and priorities. The government has not established such objectives into which regional growth and development programs could be fitted, with appropriate adjustments made for the allocation of funds. The result of this will be the continuation of programs frequently with conflicting goals carried out by a number of competing agencies. There will be little or no indication of how the system is supposed to work, and how one region is related to another in the national context or what should be the timing of specific steps. The only difference from the past will be that this will now go on within one department instead of many.
The following example will reflect the almost impossible task of a federal minister concerned with regional economic development who is forced to work without objectives and priorities agreed upon by parliament and by cabinet. The minister has to be the spokesman in cabinet and in parliament for all the lagging regions of Canada, not only on a provincial basis but also on an area basis. His views and judgment, and the advice of his officials, bear on most of the economic policies pursued by the Canadian government. This is because many government decisions have significant regional or area implications, whether it is a decision to pay subsidies to farmers or fishermen, to assist the C.N.R. to build a railway spur to open up a northern mining area, to offer financial assistance for a power grid for the
[Mr. Broadbent.J
DEBATES	March 20, 1969
maritime provinces, or to approve an urban renewal project in Quebec city.
The prime responsibility to deal with such matters, however, rests with the appropriate department or government agency responsible for finance, agriculture, fisheries, northern development, mining, or housing, all of which report to their respective ministers. The officials of these departments and agencies would not look too kindly on officers of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion telling them what they should or should not be doing, nor would the ministers of these departments be too happy to be told by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion what their policy should be in1 areas of their responsibility.
It is true that some of the difficulties and irritations may be reduced through consultation both at the ministerial and departmental levels through those traditional delaying techniques of referring controversial issues to committees. But in the end somebody has to make a decision, and if the decision is made by the minister responsible the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion may disagree, and vice-versa.
When such difficulties arise they are usually resolved by a dictum of the Prime Minister or as a result of an understanding reached by the cabinet as a whole. But government decisions affecting regional economic development are so numerous and the possibility of conflict on specific programs or policies between the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and his colleagues is so great that the cabinet or even a cabinet committee would be heavily burdened with the task of acting as an arbiter rather than going on with the job of formulating policies, leaving their implementation up to the ministers responsible.
I should like to give a practical example of what in theory appears to me to be a difficulty. Canada Manpower of the Department of Manpower and Immigration has recently arranged for several thousand maritimers, unemployed coal miners and their families in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, to migrate to Alberta and eastern British Columbia over the next four years. In these two areas there is a labour shortage in the coal mining industry and a need to meet the growing Japanese demand for Canadian coal. Financial assistance is being made available to these recruited miners through the manpower mobility program which is designed to pay moving costs of unemployed workers who cannot find jobs in their own areas but who, because of
March 20, 1969

their special skills, are offered employment in other regions. However, the program will develop at a modest rate initially because of associated problems of providing adequate housing for these miners in the Alberta and British Columbia mining areas. Conventional approaches to the housing problem cannot be employed as the present mortgage rates make it virtually impossible for the average employed miner to purchase a home.
The above example clearly shows that in the absence of a well defined goal or objective and a national plan agreed to by the cabinet and by parliament, the problem of tackling regional disparities is an immense one for the minister concerned. He is bound to run into all kinds of conflict with his cabinet colleagues which, I suggest, cannot be worked out on a purely ad hoc basis.
I would like now to raise a number of miscellaneous although, I hope, relevent brief points. First, the area development agency which provides incentives to designated areas experiencing low employment and' low growth should be scrapped immediately in favour of developing growth potential areas in less developed regions of the country. In other words, the minister should not wait, as he is planning to do, until late in the session to bring in his new industrial incentives act to attract industry into areas of potential high growth.
Second, it is obvious from the bill that the minister will have substantial discretionary power, to which the Leader of the Opposition has referred and on which I would like to comment briefly. The minister will have substantial discretionary power which will enable him to pick the areas which should be helped by federal incentive programs. In addition, he will be able to extend loans and grants to industries and firms that he chooses. Consultation with the provinces is envisioned, and this is a good thing, but the provinces' agreement is not mandatory and the minister will only need cabinet and not parliamentary approval for his programs. Once again I think this is a good thing. Discretionary power is desirable; it is economically foolish to be boxed in by narrow and inflexible criteria. However, I think it is clear that the discretionary power provided in this bill is much too broad. It leaves open the clear possibility of abuse in the form of political favouritism, or at least accusations of such abuse.
Government Organization
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I do not, of course, allude to the personal character of the present minister in any way. The point I am making is that with such broad discretionary powers the temptation is there for any minister to use them for political reasons and, whether or not he does so, an accusation to this effect will no doubt be made from opposition benches from time to time. Certain common criteria of a broad nature can and should be established to avoid such a situation. Specifically they should focus on the potential for economic growth. They should be stipulated in advance and the discretionary power of the minister ought to be exercised within this framework.
The minister indicated in his speech on February 20 to the Quebec Co-operative Federation that he hopes to enlist the help of big business in his new task, and that industrialists will be encouraged by means of guaranteed loans to set up shop in special areas. One of the less fortunate possibilities of this approach is that it might lead to a continuation of the old policies which perpetuated Dosco in Cape Breton instead of the mixing of the public and private use of capital in an imaginative way.
I was recently dismayed, though not entirely surprised, to hear that Dosco was sending $1 million a year to its parent firm in Britain as consultant fees. As taxpayers the Canadian people are in effect channelling this sum across the Atlantic through Dosco to a corporation in Britain. In return for this substantial fee Dosco, I understand, is receiving almost no managerial advice. It may not be a coincidence that since this corporation has been made a public enterprise it has shown a profit of $2.5 million in its first year of operation. So much for at least one kind of private enterprise in comparison with public enterprise.
The Canadian people should be under no illusion that the new department will deal with poverty throughout Canada, though some have already made this mistake. It was made by the Toronto Star, for instance, in an editorial which appeared on February 25 lauding the establishment of the department and suggesting that action was at last being taken to abolish poverty in Canada. This, of course, is absurd. The new department will have nothing to do with the substantial problems faced' by many poor people who exist in our major urban centres.


James Hugh Faulkner: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has
6902	COMMONS
Government Organization expired. If it is the disposition of the committee that he continue-


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Edward Broadbent: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I shall try to be brief. I was saying that the new department would not really deal with the problem of poverty in the urban centres. In addition, I am convinced that in the foreseeable future it will not be dealing in any meaningful way with the poverty associated with regional economic disparity. I say this because the current estimates provide an increase of only $37 million for the purpose of dealing with economic disparity. This comes to less than the price of a movie ticket for every Canadian; it is the price of 20 pop-sicles for every Canadian. I suggest this is a disgracefully small figure, scarcely enough to deal with poverty in one small region let alone with the poverty which exists in many regions spread across the country.
I should like to conclude by making two additional proposals. I should be glad to hear the minister's comments on the suggestion now being put forward by a number of economists that it would be desirable to introduce a variable monetary policy in Canada at this time. Is there any good economic reason why we should establish the same interest rates in British Columbia, Ontario and the maritimes? Perhaps the government should give careful consideration to instituting a variable monetary policy in line with the varied economic conditions which exist in this country.
The second suggestion I should like to make concerns community involvement. One of the encouraging aspects of recent ARDA and FRED agreements has been a recognition of the importance of community participation. I think the government is to be commended in this regard. Of course, if people are to play a meaningful role in working out their own fate there are bound to be delays in the planning and decision-making process. However, there can be no doubt that both in personal and economic terms the benefit should be greater. People gain in self-respect, and the economy gains by having men and women personally committed to work projects.
The government should extend this involvement principle beyond ARDA and FRED and make it a central aspect of all its programs aimed at overcoming regional economic differences. Ordinary people all round the world, particularly in the industrially advanced nations, are now challenging all
[The Chairman.]
DEBATES	March 20, 1969
forms of authoritarian paternalism. We should welcome this trend. Indeed, we should foster it. And one of the best places to begin is with our own government programs.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, first of all, as I have not yet had an opportunity to do so, may I offer my congratulations to the new Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. He has worked towards the establishment of this department and he certainly deserves our admiration.
This is, I believe, a very judicious undertaking. Of course, it will not solve all problems; it is inconceivable, in this day of very complex administrative processes, that all problems can be dealt with at once.
In any event, this will be a useful tool, an essential one for a modern government that wishes to solve the dramatic problem facing Canadians today, that is regional disparity.
Mr. Chairman, Canadians from all parts of the country should share equally in the economic expansion of the nation. One region should not benefit from this at the expense of the others, as was the case under the former concept of regional development. That is the whole problem.
Successive governments, Mr. Chairman, have favoured the economic development of certain well-defined regions, while vast areas, more or less densely populated and generally well-provided with natural resources, were deprived of financial assistance from the government or of participation in regional development programs.
To give one example of particular interest to Quebecers, I shall mention Montreal which for the people of Quebec is a marvelous and extraordinary city with almost unlimited possibilities in international, industrial, commercial and other areas. For the rest of the province, this city is an economic monster that swallows up all the initiatives other regions could possibly undertake. Montreal today represents a menace to the economic growth of central Quebec, of the Gaspe, Abitibi, Quebec City area, etc.
We do not hold it against Montreal. Far from it. The city of Montreal must expand. The economic development of the metropolitan area must be sustained and progressive.
But, Mr. Chairman, the other parts of Quebec must not be forgotten. The Ottawa region-Pontiac-Temiscamingue-could	be
mentioned as just another example of an area far behind economically, so we can say
March 20, 1969

that in Quebec there is but one economic, financial and commercial pole formed by the Montreal metropolitan area.
Mr. Chairman, in view of those obvious regional disparities it would do no good to talk nonsense and compare one region to another. When regional comparisons are made, I think all hon. members realize that all is not perfect in Canada.
Suffice it to say that there are very rich provinces and rich provinces which are underdeveloped. Some eastern provinces are in an essentially different situation from the western or central provinces. In short, our country is such that it cannot be considered as a whole. Does it mean that it is impossible to imagine an absolutely homogeneous economy or government investments? On the contrary, Mr. Chairman, we must grant assistance adjusted to the various areas, according to their needs.
It is no longer possible, Mr. Chairman, to have a uniform policy of economic growth throughout Canada. It is inconceivable. Canada is not truly an homogeneous whole and it was a mistake in the past to believe it and to act accordingly, because if we considered Canada as an homogeneous whole, it would be impossible to prevent it from plunging into economic confusion, as it is now in danger of falling into linguistic confusion.
How does Canada look right now, Mr. Chairman? Like a country thoroughly disturbed by a revolution, a quiet one according to some, an economic one according to others. We see a nervous Quebec, puzzled, rich and poor provinces. And today a new department is established, that of Regional Economic Expansion. Even if it cannot be expected to solve every problem, I believe none the less that with the instruments mentioned by the minister in his preliminary remarks it shall certainly be possible to help Canadians provided that before setting up his department or making any grants whatever the minister gets closer to the people and tries to understand their needs instead of sticking to the Establishment, as I am afraid he will, and holding on to an administration more and more alien from the people.
The minister was talking about measures such as social rehabilitation in rural surroundings, an industrial development program, regional development programs, the establishment of an interdepartmental structure through a federal-provincial process. He was also talking of making grants or loans to
Government Organization provinces or municipalities as well as grants or loan guarantees under an industrial incentive program. Such measures, Mr. Chairman, can on the whole benefit regional economic expansion and contribute to the progress of Canada where injustices brought about by regional disparities will disappear.
However, Mr. Chairman, at the present stage of the debate on the establishment of this new department, I have to direct some questions to the minister.
For instance, while he speaks of making grants or loans to the provinces and the municipalities, could the minister explain clearly what the interest rates might be? I wish to remind him that at this stage of the debate, the Ralliement Creditiste is in favour of grants or loans but believes that the aid supplied by the Canadian government to foreign countries should also be available to the Canadian people, since public enterprises are involved.
Mr. Chairman, why should high finance be allowed to make profits on loans from the federal government to the provinces and1 the municipalities for regional economic expansion? Can the minister state precisely the terms of such loans, so that we may see whether they are the same as the ones supplied to foreign countries?
Mr. Chairman, the Speech from the Throne opening the 28th Parliament started as follows. I quote:
Across the land there are great expectations of what this Parliament will produce.
Further on, the Speech from the Throne refers also, and I quote, to:
-a sober awareness of reality.
Now, Mr. Chairman, while establishing that new superdepartment, as the newspapers have called it, the government intends to grapple with regional disparities.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Canada is now going through a monetary crisis which is at the heart of the problem. Economic and social problems inevitably follow, Mr. Chairman. In order to demonstrate that what I am saying is true, I shall merely point out as an example the financing of the public sector.
For a very long time, Liberal or Progressive Conservative governments have adopted a policy of borrowing billions of dollars abroad. Every year, the minister starts on a pilgrimage to foreign countries in order to collect the funds necessary to refloat our economy. Foreign countries willingly make
March 20, 1969

Government Organization loans to Canada since the Canadian market is all the same interesting and they know Canada will pay back.
There follows a third consequence: the government does not borrow-we can ascertain the fact-from the Bank of Canada to finance the public sector but rather from foreign countries and from high finance. This is the reason for our economic stagnation and our social unrest.
The economic consequences first reveal that, instead of Obtaining money from the Bank of Canada, the government goes deeper and deeper into debt each year through borrowing from foreign countries. For the past hundred years, there has not been one single year in which the financing of the public debt of Canada has shown a decrease. The interests on our national debt and the debt itself have been continually increasing.
As another economic result of this distorted and sick monetary policy which is unadapted to a modern and rich country such as ours, the federal budgets are heavily burdened by an enormous annual reimbursement for loans.
Another consequence yet is the indebtedness incurred by the provincial and municipal governments. As a result of all this, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) now would like us to discuss with him this particular problem of regional disparities.
I wish the minister would ponder the reason why some regions are subjected to so much suffering, so many economic inequalities and why there is so much injustice in Canada. It is because the government is not in control of money in this country. This is rather the prerogative of high financial interests and foreign countries.
Mr. Chairman, I do not think this department will solve all the problems. It will only serve as a temporary solution, a buffer solution that will reduce to some extent the external ill effects, without getting at the source which is in the heart of individuals.
Mr. Chairman, as a result of these economic problems attributable to an inadequate monetary control, there are social consequences which include overtaxation contributing to a decrease ini the purchasing power of individuals and to an increase in individual indebtedness, poverty, depreciation of social environment, discouragement and unemployment.
Mr. Chairman, the same logic could be applied to the housing problem and to agriculture.

The problems we are facing are the result primarily of the government's policy.
The housing problem is due to a poorly-adapted policy, for example the 11 per cent sales tax, etc. We are presented with a bill designed to solve that problem, and we wish the minister good luck.
But we wish to tell him that we are very uncertain as to the solution of the poverty problem in Canada. We are also uncertain as to whether the regional disparities will be reduced or eliminated, because it is primarily a financial problem. No matter what the ministers say, that is a fact.
The future minister of the new department, in his preliminary remarks, spoke of setting up an inter-departmental structure.
Mr. Chairman, I could make a brief comment on that statement, to the effect that it is an urgent matter and that we are happy the minister has foreseen, in creating this department, a closer coordination between the departments. In fact, we now realize that action within each of them is rather limited, spread out and broken up, which can only bring about poor results.
Mr. Chairman, in his preliminary remarks, the minister spoke of setting up an industrial development program. I have but a few brief comments on that. If we wish to promote the establishment and expansion of industry, in any part of Canada, the first thing to do, to my way of thinking, is to reduce taxation.
Why always try to dodge the problem? Let us deal with the real problem. It does not lie where the minister thinks it does, as the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) said.
According to the third annual review of the Economic Council of Canada, dated November 1966, from 1949 to 1965 indirect taxes increased more per production unit than any other major factor of the gross national product in such a way that today it accounts for about 15 per cent of the gross national product as a whole.
For instance, Mr. Chairman, let us look at the 11 per cent tax on building materials, machinery and equipment. These taxes make for higher consumer prices resulting in lack of purchasing power, and hardship and poverty.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that we should facilitate financing for businesses, and in that respect it seems that the minister is considering some most interesting plans. However, I have a few brief comments to make on this. Savings should be developed by encouraging
March 20, 1969

taxpayers to save. This is not possible today, as taxes take up even part of what is absolutely necessary to live. Moreover, Mr. Chairman, we should contribute to the development of productivity.
As for the department's proposal to give financial aid, in co-operation with the other departments, it could perhaps bring some hope for a solution, although Mr. Chairman, it would be enough if we did what is necessary to compete with American industries.
Because of our weak domestic market, mass production cannot be successful in Canada, and as a result it is* impossible to attain parity of salaries overnight. The unions that demand such parity are doing nothing to ensure a sound Canadian economy.
The Canadian Economic Council claims and I quote:
It parity of the nominal income was ordered for every Canadian citizen at 10 a.m., it is most likely that the processes of the foreign exchange market would abolish the real parity around 3 p.m.
As for the use of cheap wood species, one could refer to commercial agreements and to the Kennedy Round to prove that even if we want to facilitate the development of Canadian industry and regional expansion, we are exploited by American industry.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Richard):: Order. I am sorry to inform the hon. member that his time has expired. The hon. member for Gatineau.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Mr. Clermont:: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest, if the house agrees, that the hon. member for Lotbiniere be permitted to complete his speech.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Does the house agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I thank the house for its co-operation. I want also to thank the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont) who was kind enough to ask that I be granted a few minutes more to complete my speech. I would like to say that, even if we want to facilitate the development of Canadian industry, we must implement a national policy for Canadian industry in order to check American industry and actually compete with it. In my opinion, that can be one of the important roles of that new department in order to help Canadian industry compete with American industry, which unfortunately
Government Organization stifles Canadian industry and threatens the domestic trade.
Mr. Chairman, in connection with the establishment of that new department, a well-known editorial writer, Mr. Clement Brown, wrote an excellent article that was published on February 19 in Montreal-Matin and which I would like to quote. It reads as follows:
The key to the success of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion will lie in the spirit of its negotiations with the provinces.
Indeed, a rapid perusal of the bill convinces us that the development policy is headed for failure is there is not, at every level and every moment, close co-operation between the federal government and the provinces.
That, Mr. Chairman, is an extremely important point which we cannot stress enough because today, in a federative system, we cannot conceive of a battle against poverty and regional disparities without, first and foremost, a serious agreement reached by the federal and provincial governments in a spirit of co-operation.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, I am anxious to know the terms of the amendment mentioned by the minister during his preliminary remarks. In fact, he said that he would introduce an amendment to clause 26(1) with regard to federal-provincial relations.
I think that this is one of the basic points of this discussion and I am extremely sorry not to have more time available to me to deal with it. Nevertheless the basic principle of regional economic expansion should be very close, very human and very fair co-operation between the provinces and the federal government and it should not be detrimental to the provinces nor a one-way affair. It should be carried out jointly, otherwise these programs will come to nothing and in view of the fact that they will not solve the problem they will simply widen the gap between the provinces and the federal government.
Mr. Chairman, I close with this. We are happy that the minister responsible for the new department is a man we are acquainted with since we know that he is aware of the problems of the people. In view of the fact that he now has the tools which he has longed for for a long time, namely this new Department of Regional Economic Expansion, we hope that he will make good use of it, in a human way, so as to help the Canadian people to get out of the financial and economic stagnation in which they are now.
We also hope that, when the time comes to give subsidies and loans to provinces and
6908	COMMONS
Government Organization municipalities, in order to eradicate unemployment and economic problems in Canada, the minister will not be afraid to use the Bank of Canada as we do for foreign countries, by offering interesting terms. If it is a good thing for foreigners, we should continue it but we should do the same for our Canadian people, since misery also exists in our rich country, which should not be.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Order, please. I would like to remind hon. members that the time allotted for speech is 20 minutes. It can be extended when only a few members wish to speak but in the case of such an important department, when a great number of members have expressed their intention to take the floor, I would ask them to limit their speeches to 20 or 21 minutes.


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Chairman, we are now considering the setting up of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion intended to take care of the economic expansion and social upgrading of areas where there is a need for specific measures in order to bring about opportunities for productive employment and to secure access to it. With this new department, Canada is entering a new phase of regional development, the third phase, in fact. The first one, which followed World War II, saw the equalization payments which for the past twelve years, the last of which will end next March 31, have enabled the four Atlantic provinces to cash in for a little more than $1 billion and the province of Quebec to reap $835 million during the financial years running from 1961-62 to 1967-68.
During the second phase, the federal government established various programs and bodies to cope with special aspects of regional disparities such as regional development assistance programs. The Atlantic Development Board, the ARDA and FRED programs, launched by the Department of Manpower and Immigration, as well as the Cape Breton Development Corporation. These various bodies did not escape criticism but I dare say they have not been idle.
Take, for instance, the Regional Development Assistance program. It has its drawbacks but the fact remains that in May 1967, more than 700 applications for aid had been approved or considered under this program. The total cost exceeded $1.5 billion and jobs had been secured for over 44,000 workers.
As for the ARDA program, the index of the works tells us that from 1962 to 1965, 735 projects were carried out or started for a total

DEBATES	March 20, 1989
of shared costs amounting to $63,626,470 to which the federal government contributed $34,488,198. From 1965 to 1967, 672 projects were started or completed, with shared costs amounting to $130,322,421 and the federal government contributed $56,957,139. For 1967-68, which brings us to May 31, 1968, 317 projects were completed or started with shared costs totalling $71,606,633 and the federal government contributing $30,788,693.
The over-all total shared costs for 1724 projects add up to $265,555,524 with the federal government contributing $122,234,030.
As regards the province of Quebec, with respect to the period I just mentioned, Mr. Chairman, 350 projects were carried out, the total shared costs being $51,342,244 and the federal government's share, $23,432,182.
As for the share of the province of Ontario, an hon. member claimed that it was much larger than that of the province of Quebec whereas during the same period, 114 projects were carried out in Ontario, the shared costs amounting to $60,599,394 and the federal government's share being $25,567,526.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, we also know that in 1966, a new scheme was added to ARDA, the FRED program, and up to now five agreements have been signed. The first and second agreements concerned areas in New Brunswick; the third one, a Manitoba area, the fourth was connected with the province of Quebec, and more especially the eastern part of that province and the fifth, signed recently, concerned Prince Edward Island. The over-all purpose of such programs is to promote the economic and social development of the areas concerned. It is sought to reduce the employment, income and productivity disparities existing between the areas where those programs will be carried out and the rest of Canada.
At this stage, Mr. Chairman, I must say that western Quebec-I apologize for dealing now with regional problems-of which I am one of the representatives in this house, got almost nothing out of the ARDA and FRED programs. That area comprises the provincial ridings of Gatineau, Hull, Dabelle, Papineau and Pontiac and has a population of about 265,000.
Now the only two development projects I could find for this region in the ARDA list, concern the county of Papineau and a study on the La Rouge valley area.
March 20. 1969
No doubt we benefited in that area by the alternate land use, and the soil and water conservation program but as far as well-planned projects were concerned, we did not get the full benefit of them. If such schemes were carried out in western Quebec, we could derive great advantages in the planning field, for instance, with a view to attracting new industries, so as to foster the modernization and development of existing ones and provide substantial assistance in order to find customers outside of the area and ensure a well-structured transportation system likely to promote the sale of products and permit access to our tourist centres.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to open a parenthesis at this point to say that western Quebec, the areas of the valley of the Petite Nation river, of the Lievre river and the Gatineau area are real paradises for the tourists.
We know how important the tourist industry is for Canada.
I believe that industry ranks third or fourth amongst our most important sources of revenue, after the newsprint, the wheat, and the automobile industries.
Those areas have tremendous potential for the tourist industry; they have natural and extremely varied attractions. Tourist centres and relays, camping sites, ski-lifts and snowmobile centres, which is a very popular sport nowadays, and a provincial park have already been developed. In 1966, with the co-operation of the federal government and the province of Quebec, eight provincial parks were developed in that province. In view of the powers entrusted to the minister who will preside over the destiny of that department, I trust that area will be taken into consideration in future plans.
I should also like to make a few remarks at this point on clauses 20 to 40 of Bill C-173 which deals with the establishment of that department.
I see that clause 26 grants the minister the power to enter into agreements with the provinces. The minister mentioned that he intends to amend clause 26(1). If I am not mistaken, he will add after the word "may", the words "in co-operation with the provinces". Indeed, I agree with a 100 per cent cooperation. But what does the word "cooperation" mean? Does it mean the same as it does in the case of ARDA and the BRED
Government Organization programs? Let me quote an excerpt from the act:
ARDA is a federal act, but the program undertaken by virtue of it, is federal-provincial in character, each province being responsible for drawing up plans and programs, implementing them and paying half the cost.
I ask the minister if that co-operation means, as is the case for the ARDA and FRED programs, that the federal government participation will consist in supplying 50 per cent or more of the funds allocated to those programs and that their administration will be left entirely to the provinces?
I hope that such is not the case, Mr. Chairman, for I also note myself, like the previous speakers, that the bill gives the minister very wide powers.
I also note with pleasure that under the provisions of section 24 and Schedule A the areas now considered as designated will be actually recognized as special areas.
Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, I note from sections 29, 30 and 31 that there shall be a council known as the Atlantic Development Council, the function of which will be to advise the minister on matters to which the duties and powers of the minister extend and in particular to the studies to be made.
I think that this will interest only the Maritimes. Will such a council or agency be established for the other areas of Canada? In fact I note that, in 1966, section 7 of the amendment to the ARDA Act provided for the establishment of an Advisory Council of not more than ten officials, or representatives of agencies, and so on.
We have seen, Mr. Chairman, that an identical section applies to the establishment of the FRED program.
In ending my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote from an article by Mr. Roger Champoux which appeared in La Presse on February 19 under the heading: "Operation Relief". I quote:
The undertaking is gigantic and the tool has lust been designed!
As a response to the challenge it is facing, the federal government is establishing a super-department responsible for the solution of the country's economic disparities.
At the same time, the government is fulfilling an election promise and this must be said seriously. But, above all, it is a last a concession to those reasonable people who are asking for strong action and ingenious ideas that will remove several Canadian regions from economic stagnation. This is an urgent and dramatic situation.

March 20, 1969

Government Organization
Here is another excerpt:
A quick glance at the bill intended to establish this new department illustrates one major aspect. It is not a matter of pouring tremendous sums of money into underdeveloped regions: it involves the association of responsible people for the achievement of renewal projects. There will be some money invested, surely, as loans for new industries, for guarantees involving modernization, and in the way of subsidies for specific purposes.
As the new super-department will be granted the highest appropriations among all the other departments, the Canadian government is clearly indicating its serious concern over the economic deterioration of too many areas.
There is a need for balance. Some regions cannot be left to perish and huge tracts of land deplorably eroded and on the verge of being abandoned cannot be left to their own fate. Political quarrels never produce equilibrium. Co-operation is not a humiliating factor and it is the sole successful process.
Mr. Chairman, on concluding my remarks, I wish every success to the minister responsible for this department. Considering his efforts in the past in other departments and agencies, he will contribute to the achievements of this new department.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Chairman, I rise to participate in this debate with a good deal of interest even though we have had to drag out the substance of the debate off and on over the past few weeks since the bill was introduced in February. I must admit that I continue to be somewhat disappointed that the minister has not been able to shed more light on some of the relevant questions in respect of this important enterprise. I have been amazed that the minister has not been able to give us more information on this bill as a result of the questions we have asked in the last few weeks.
The minister might have shed more light this afternoon on this subject in answer to several questions relating to the substance of the legislation we are supposed to receive later this session in respect of the whole problem of industrial incentives and assistance. Two or three weeks ago I asked the minister when that legislation would be introduced in order that we might examine it in connection with the legislation before us today. He said it could not be introduced yet because it had not been drafted but he would give us some indication of what it involved. He indicated he would inform us of the general framework in order that we might understand it during our examination of this

bill. Unless my hearing was not functioning the minister did not make any specific statements in respect of this important area.
The bill now before us largely centres on the whole question of industrial development in disadvantaged regions of this country. Surely we are entitled to have information in this regard from the minister. If he is not prepared to give it this afternoon, I hope that after the general roster of speakers on the first clause has been exhausted he will give us a supplementary statement. Such a statement would make our work much easier. It is not fair to the many individuals and provincial governments involved in this whole matter not to have the information necessary to co-ordinate provincial attacks on regional disparity.
Several weeks ago when introducing this bill the minister made a statement to the effect that many other interesting programs would be reviewed. It is important to us to know the specific programs to be reviewed. A number of speakers have outlined the ramifications of government intervention in terms of economic works in this country which do not fall within the responsibility of this minister. We should know what programs are to be considered with the view of possible alteration or change, especially in respect of the regulations which apply to those programs. This is particularly important to the provinces involved.
Most of the provincial legislatures are now in session. If changes are to be implemented it is important that this information be given as early as possible. The minister was unable to say previously whether or not a special effort was made to attract large scale industry to the Atlantic region. He indicated that this subject would be dealt with during the course of this debate. I hope we will have some further word in this regard.
I was interested to hear the minister indicate that he plans to introduce an amendment. While the amendment may not contain many words, I think it is fundamental. Perhaps it indicates an increasing awareness and understanding on the part of the government that consultation, co-ordination and co-operation with the provincial governments is a necessity. I am sure the effort the minister is making in respect of regional disparity, will prove to be vital.
I find it difficult to understand how the minister's amendment is going to change the effect of clause 26(1) and, more importantly,
March 20, 1969

Government Organization
the implications of clause 26(2). I am not a lawyer and I know the minister is not a lawyer, but we have many lawyers in the house who will help us. Clause 26(2) clearly states that Ottawa knows best and once the government has made its decision it will announce it from on high and the provinces are expected to follow. The minister is shaking his head indicating that is not true. I think we must have an amendment to make this clear.
I have talked to people who know more about this than I and have been assured that the effect of what is contained in clause 26(2) is to pit the pre-eminent wisdom and authority of the federal government against the full and open co-operation of the provinces. We should not disregard this concept because it is becoming increasingly important. Other bodies, particularly municipalities and regional districts, are important.
I think the intent of the minister's amendment is good. We certainly encourage him to build into this legislation that kind of cooperation we regard! as fundamental to an effective program. I am still very much disappointed that the minister has been unable to answer some of the basic questions we have asked in respect of the establishment of the department.
_ One of the difficulties we all have in dealing with this matter is related to the broadness of the concept of this measure. Almost everything can be included. Perhaps for that reason the minister has been unwilling to give an explanation. To a very large degree this is a new venture and the minister is afraid to answer the very difficult questions involved in it.
Obviously one of the difficult questions is: how are we going to know what standards or criteria are to be adopted in order that the minister in one, two or three years from now can advise members of the opposition as to the effectiveness of this program and this new department? We must have some information at this time as to what the government thinks are the achievable or measurable goals. We are still dealing in a kind of airy-fairy fashion with this matter. We are trying a little of this and a little of that in the hope that something may result.
There is a weakness in the structure of the Atlantic Development Board. It has never really come to grips with the problem of regional disparity. It is rather ironic that the government contemplates the winding up of this board at a time when it is beginning to
tackle important problems that exist in various sectors of the Atlantic region. The board is beginning to show promise in respect of the solution of problems in that area.
The minister has assured us that before the board is wound up the answers to certain questions must be found and that perhaps these answers will be forthcoming when this department gets into operation. Unfortunately the more I hear from people about this concept of regional development the more I become confused. There are many concepts of what is meant by regional development. There are more concepts in this regard than there are people who consider it a suspicious theory. It is not enough for the government to have a whole assortment of theories it may look at from time to time. Because it is committed to certain kinds of action, obviously it must commit itself to certain concepts with regard to regions. It will be crucial for the workings of this department, and for any new programs to be developed within it or other departments, to know what the provinces think about the problems. The government must begin to come to terms with that question.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
In my estimation there has not been nearly enough elaboration of the structure of this department. In the comments the minister has made to date there has not been any definite elaboration of what the government plans to do by way of consultation. This has been one of the real weaknesses of all federal programs carried on in the past. Consultation, particularly with the provinces but in many cases with other agencies, has been lacking. In the setting up of this department there is, of course, an attempt to include in it at least some of the basic programs concerned with correcting the whole problem of regional inequality. If I may put this in a general way, one of my overriding concerns after studying this part of the bill is that it seems to be largely centred on industrial development. Certainly no one in the region from which I come is opposed to industrial development. It is a kind of golden word in this age. If you have problems with your economy, if you have a great deal of unemployment and underutilization of people, you immediately start talking about industrial development.
I think there has been a fairly wide consensus that the concept of the growth centre is a good one and in a general way is an advance over what the government has been doing.
6910	COMMONS
Government Organization But I thinik we really fool ourselves if we believe that regional development can be fully and completely equated with what passes for industrial development. Industrial development is one aspect of the foundation, if you like, for many other things that must happen. I hope the minister will indicate how he visualizes other questions related to the economic and social aspects of development being handled by this department.
In the few minutes I have remaining I would like to make two or three specific points with regard to this legislation. One of the basic weaknesses to be found in the bill is the effective gutting of the Atlantic Development Board. The government seems to have had a highly ambivalent feeling all the way through the piece about the Atlantic Development Board. In 1963 the government suggested it was not satisfied with what the previous' government did in 1962. The government wanted more than just an advisory agency; it wanted one that had some real powers of initiation and administration. Therefore amendments were introduced in 1963. There was always a fair amount of pull and tug between what the Atlantic Development Board was set up to do and what it actually did in terms of the kind of control that Treasury Board exercised over it. But at least there was an attempt to deal with problems of the Atlantic region in a somewhat rational way through this agency.
Now we are told, in 1969, that the idea put forward in 1963 was not really such a good one. It is said that what we had before was not really better, that although it may have been said to be better, this really has not been the case. The change being made now is a variation of that theme. We are told we are to have an advisory council. The advisory council will have very little opportunity to function except as the minister desires. From a reading of the provisions in the legislation one would expect it will not function on a very active or high level. I think this is most unfortunate.
It seems to me that the federal government must establish some kind of intermediary agency through which it can meet the provinces. I feel that the Atlantic Development Board was that kind of agency. It was not perfect, obviously, but if changes had been made to give it sufficient credibility in the Atlantic region it could have become a tool functioning effectively for regional development in the Atlantic area.
[Mr. MacDonald (Egmont)J
DEBATES	March 20, 1969
What we have in this legislation is a facesaving device for a government that is reluctant to go whole hog with regard to this program. The government says: We really do not need it, but we are not wiping it completely off the books. We are not really changing things very much. We have given the new council some of the administrative and executive functions of the A.D.B. We have also given it much larger powers to look at the whole field and comment on all the other programs and agencies under the new department.
The government is in fact trying to console people on that basis. I hope no one is fooled into being consoled on that basis, because it is not true. The minister knows it is not true. If he really believed that the Atlantic Development Council would be so important to his work and that of his department, if he thought it would be of some significance, I am sure that in the legislation provision would have been made for other councils, particularly for an area close to the minister's own concern, the area east of Trois-Rivieres within the boundary of Quebec. One could name other parts of Canada that should probably come within the responsibility of this department and with regard to which there is no provision in the bill. I was interested to hear the hon. member for Gatineau make somewhat similar comments.
If the Atlantic Development Council means anything, surely that concept should not be lost sight of in dealing with other areas in need of regional development for which the new department will have responsibility. I hope, and perhaps the minister will deal with this matter in his remarks later, we will be given a definite assurance that the kind of studies being worked on by the Atlantic Development Board and which are just about to see the light of day will be continued. It will be nothing short of farcical to set up new studies when we have already had a team of people working on studies for some years.
It would seem to me that if there is a genuine desire to attack the long-term problems of economic disparity in the Atlantic region a plan will have to be developed in the next few years which has the consent of the provinces of eastern Canada and in which there can be co-operation and co-ordination between the federal and provincial governments. Only in this way can the federal government and the provinces work together to alleviate what are very long-term problems.
March 20, 1969

There does not at the moment seem to be in this legislation the kind of framework necessary to encourage the provinces that this will be the case and to direct the activities of the department toward that end. I feel that unless we can elicit a very high level of active consultation and co-operation with the provinces we shall be going down another very blind alley. In concluding these remarks, Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak on one other matter which I think is of great importance in the setting up of the new department. It has been commented on by others.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could interrupt the hon. member and suggest that rather than the hon. member feeling constrained at this point, we might report progress and then be in a position to waive private members' hour.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Jean-Thomas Richard: had been allowed, I would have advised the hon. member that his time has expired. However, if there had been agreement I would have suggested that he continue for one or two minutes more.
Progress reported.



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill C-138, an act to amend the Bret-ton Woods Agreements Act and the Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act, without any amendment.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: It is my
duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the house that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather)-External Aid-provision of food through transfer of armament funds; the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney)-Consumer Affairs-lumber-inquiry as to task force finding; the hon. 29180-438
Government Organization member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose)- Labour Conditions-alternative to compensate for cancelled winter works program.
It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business 'as listed on today's order paper.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the house would be agreeable to waiving private members' hour for this afternoon so that we might continue with our discussion of Bill C-173?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-173, respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters relating or incidental thereto-Mr. Trudeau-Mr. Richard in the chair.
Jean-Thomas Richard: House again in committee of the whole on Bill C-173.
On clause 20-Definitions.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like a minute more to conclude my remarks.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Is it
the wish of the committee that the hon. member have a few more minutes?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to one specific matter before resuming my seat. It concerns the extra powers which are to be granted to the minister of this new department. If this department is to be effective in the over-all co-ordination of fiscal and monetary policies with regard to the development of the Atlantic or other regions of Canada, then quite obviously the minister must be given powers similar to those that are found in this legislation. I have no objection to such powers being granted the minister, but this creates a situation which can lead to considerable suspicion, and I think rightly so, because it is not normal for a minister to be granted the powers sought in
G912	COMMONS
Government Organization this bill. Therefore before we have completed discussion of the bill I think hon. members will have to consider how parliament can function most effectively with respect to this new department.
If there is to be ministerial responsibility in the areas which are assigned to the minister, then obviously there must be a provision in the statute to make sure that the related parliamentary committee is given a full understanding of the activities and programs that are to be carried out by the new department. Unless we are willing to provide this kind of parliamentary responsibility, we will be irresponsible in allowing the minister to assume powers which in normal situations are not usually granted to any minister. Perhaps in our further consideration of this legislation I may be able to elaborate on this subject a little more, and if there is agreement in the house I will even be prepared to introduce an amendment in that regard.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by adding to the feeling which was expressed by my colleague, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, and by the hon. member for Egmont as well as, may I point out to the minister, by many people in the areas of slow growth and of poverty which should get the benefit of the activities of the minister's department. In my opinion sufficient facts and details have not been given us about what the minister and his department will be doing to assure us that its establishment will make a difference to these areas. The minister is one of my favourite ministers, but too many people, myself included, have feelings of apprehension with regard to this department and the minister in charge of it similar to those we had when he was put in charge of the Department of Manpower and Immigration.
Today I want to deal with one aspect of the minister's responsibility. I refer to the implementation of the agreements which he or the former minister signed with the provinces of Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Manitoba and Quebec. I have a good deal of sympathy for the ARDA and FRED programs under these agreements because I believe they are moving in the right direction. However, I submit that so far as they commit the federal government to the expenditure of tens of millions of dollars for education-and I approve of that particular program-they wipe out and make a mockery of all the principles which this minister and the Prime Minister have enunciated over the years that in their one Canada education, as

DEBATES	March 20, 1969
they see it, is the sole responsibility of the provincial governments.
Since I only have a short time in which to speak I will not put on the record the dozens, if not hundreds, of statements which the Prime Minister and the minister have made about the subject in the most precise terms. I shall simply quote just a few. The first is in a book called "Federalism And The French Canadians", which is a volume of articles written by the Prime Minister. It is contained in an article entitled "Federal Grants To Universities" in which the Prime Minister quotes with approval the position taken by Mr. F. A. Angers who said:
In general, the Canadian state is not the central government, but the central and the provincial governments taken together ... In matters of education the Canadian state is the provincial state, and none other.
Later in the same article the Prime Minister said:
-Consequently, if there is federal legislation to grant taxation money for provincial purposes, this legislation is illegal for the excellent reason that the federal government cannot by law have money in its coffers which it then claims should be used for provincial purposes.
I will come back to that later but let me say now that we are spending tens of millions of dollars on education under agreements with the provinces.
In a brief which the Prime Minister prepared for the Quebec Federation of Industrial Unions for submission to a Quebec royal commission in 1954 the Prime Minister spelled out his views again. He said that if Ottawa regularly provided funds for the building of schools simply because all the provinces need more money or do not care enough for education, the federal government would be violating the first principle of fiscal collaboration and, greater still, it would be attacking the very basis of the federal system. Those were the views of the Prime Minister written before he became Prime Minister.
What happened after he came to Ottawa? He was able to convince the then prime minister and the present minister who is piloting this legislation through the house that he was correct. As a result of his point of view the federal government took the decision to get out of agreements which the former government had reached with the provinces in the field of university education and of technical and vocational training. The then prime minister, Mr. Pearson, speaking on
March 20, 1969

October 24, 1966, to the federal-provincial conference, said:
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
The federal government recognizes that education is, and must remain, within provincial jurisdiction.
He went on to make a distinction between education and manpower training. The present minister, in a statement made on October 25 to the federal-provincial conference, spelled out why the federal government had decided to get out of the technical and vocational training agreements which had been of tremendous value in upgrading education in all the provinces. In making a distinction between technical and vocational training and manpower training, he said:
The distinction we do make is quite different. It is not between kinds of education. It is a distinction between the needs of people-between, on the one hand, students in the ordinary sense and, on the other hand, men and women who are or have been earning their living but who need further training or retraining for productive employment.
In the same speech to the representatives of the provinces he said:
So unless you are prepared to argue that the federal government should have the permanent influence on your programs that shared-cost arrangements give us, I suggest you must accept the principle of our withdrawal. Otherwise the level of government which doesn't have constitutional responsibility would more and more be raising the money for it and having an increasing indirect influence on the school system. That would not be healthy. It would not make any kind of sense. We are not going to do it.
That was the position taken by the federal government as expressed by the minister. Now let us look at the agreement with Prince Edward Island signed by the same minister. The federal government agrees to make available under this agreement more than $76 million. I believe it is a good agreement. I do not think enough is being done but I believe it is a good agreement. What will this money be spent on? Bear in mind that on an earlier occasion the minister said the federal government had no business to be in the field of education. Yet section 2(1) of this agreement contains the following on page 31:
The province therefore intends as an integral part of the comprehensive plan to embark on a major restructuring of its system of education.
Remember, this is a plan which is being financed in large part by the federal government. Later, the agreement says:
The basic objectives of the province in undertaking this program are to improve the quality 29180-4381
Government Organization
of education; to double the proportion of students who complete grade 12; and in general, to give the people of Prince Edward Island a flexible education system capable of overcoming short-term problems and meeting long-term needs.
This is a worth while objective, and I support it. But it makes a mockery of all the things which the Prime Minister and the minister have enunciated as basic principles which the country must observe if the constitution is to be upheld.
Let us turn to the agreement with my own province of Manitoba. Here the federal government has agreed to spend over $49 million. What will part of this money be spent for? I refer to page 13 of the agreement, part one, under the heading "Education". It says:
The purpose and intent of this part is to improve the educational facilities and opportunities in the area.
The province shall undertake as a program under this agreement to expand and modernize school facilities in the area through:
(a)	the consolidation of existing school boards into one board for each of the five school divisions;
(b)	the investment during the five years immediately following the signing of this agreement of an estimated $4,700,000 in school facilities in the area;
(c)	the construction of a technical vocational high school for a minimum of 500 students in the area at an estimated cost of $3,000,000; and
(d)	the provision of approximately $19,000,000 during the life of this agreement to meet the increase in the cost of operation and maintenance of the school program.
So the department agrees to build in the province of Manitoba in the Interlake area a technical and vocational school of the kind which in 1966 the minister said ought not to be built by the federal government. He was junking the program to build technical and vocational schools right across the country because he believed the federal government should not be involved in this kind of activity; it was illegal under the constitution and it would break down the fabric of this country, as the Prime Minister has said so often.
Look at the agreement with New Brunswick, The federal government agrees to the expenditure of some $25 million as its share. The amount which will be spent on education by the federal government is listed-$5,100,-
000.	What will it be spent for? Talk about the federal government being involved in education-here is what we find on page 15:
(a) The extensive consolidation of schools and of school districts into new and larger districts, the centres of which shall be situated in communities jointly approved by the parties hereto;
6914	COMMONS
Government Organization
(b) the investment during the period of five years from the date upon which this agreement becomes signed by both Canada and the province of not less than $21,600,000 with respect to schools serving the centres designated under subparagraph (a) hereof, but in any case secondary schools shall have first priority in respect of the said moneys.
An increased teacher training program. Educational development. This is the kind of agreement the Liberal government is signing but which the minister is condemning. I could go on to give other examples but my time is limited.
There is an agreement with the province of Quebec. One can look at it very carefully, one can read it word by word, one can put it under a microscope, without finding in it one word about education. I do not know whether this means that Quebec does not need the amount of money for education that the other three provinces need. Possibly the province of Quebec would not take money for education, believing, as the Prime Minister used to say before he became Prime Minister, that education is the sole responsibility of the provinces and that the federal government should not incur expenditures in this field.
On the other hand, it might be that the federal government is spending money for education in the redevelopment area of eastern Quebec but that for reasons of politics, or so as to avoid wounding anyone's susceptibilities, the funds provided for it are hidden. The point I am making, and which I think I have demonstrated conclusively, is that the government and the minister are doing things which the Prime Minister and the minister said were wrong, things which they said were illegal and which would destroy the very fabric of Canada.
The present Prime Minister might argue that he cannot be held responsible for the agreements with Manitoba, New Brunswick and Quebec because they were signed before he took office. But he is certainly responsible as Prime Minister for the agreement which was signed some ten days ago with the province of Prince Edward Island. It is possible he does not even know of the contents of that agreement, though I find this hard to believe. The minister shakes his head. Then I suggest that in fact the Prime Minister and the government have scrapped the basic principles which they espoused.
There is nothing wrong about that, Mr. Chairman. If, within less than a year of forming a government the Prime Minister has found, as so many of us have tried to point nut, that you cannot operate this country on

DEBATES	March 20, 1969
the basis of a simple constitutional division of certain responsibilities between the federal government and the provinces, then we are happy. We have to approach matters in a pragmatic manner and solve problems as they arise. If the Prime Minister and the government realize this, then we are happy. But I hope that an obvious consequence of that discovery on the part of the Prime Minister and the government will be that there will be an end to the kind of lecturing that opposition members of parliament have been given by the Prime Minister, both inside and outside the house.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
This sort of thing has been done unfairly, I think, but very effectively. During the last election campaign the Prime Minister took the simplistic approach that he and his party stood for one Canada, that the Conservatives stood for something known as "deux nations", whatever that meant, that the New Democratic party stood for special status for Quebec, that the Conservatives and the New Democrats were really out to break up this country, that only the Liberals had a God-given right to power 99 per cent of the time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They are not the chosen people, are they?


David Orlikow: No, and I do know who the chosen people are, although the Liberals claim to have all the answers.
The Prime Minister and the government must learn that they do not have all the answers. Perhaps they will learn that from what I suggest is a retreat in less than one year from one of the basic principles enunciated by the Prime Minister for a considerable period of time. The government must stop attacking the opposition parties by unfair and oversimplified means. Like other Canadians these parties have stated that the problems Canada faces in the fields of education, health and welfare, economic development and poverty are not simple but require a variety of techniques to solve, as well as the complete co-operation of all governments, federal, provincial and municipal. If the government has learned this, then perhaps we may begin to deal with some of the basic problems in this country.


Mr. Gendron:: Mr. Chairman, we, members from the underprivileged areas, greet enthusiastically the setting up of this new department and we take this opportunity to
March 20, 1969

warmly congratulate the new minister. We know how energetic, how dynamic he is and how much he is concerned over the lot of the underprivileged in our society. We therefore are confident that his work will be successful and that he will be able to meet this terrific challenge.
Some will say: But were you not among those who favoured the establishment of this department? Of course, we were, but it was the right hon. Prime Minister himself (Mr. Trudeau) who was to be at its head, because only the Prime Minister could co-ordinate the efforts of all departments in order to reach the ultimate objective, which is to re-evaluate the underprivileged areas, and to give every department and every crown corporation their share of responsibilities in reaching this goal.
I am still endorsing the same idea. I think that everybody will recognize that there is such a close relationship, such an identity of views between the present head of this department and the right hon. Prime Minister himself that this co-ordination, this work-I should say this joint effort-in order to put to use all departments, all crown corporations will be done in an harmonious way and will ensure to the responsible minister the necessary support to reach his objectives.
I endorse the opinion of a spokesman of the New Democratic Party in that I am afraid the efforts of this very department, will prove useless unless there exists an over-all planifi-cation.
Several economists, and particularly those attached to the Economic Council of Canada, will say that planning is impossible, even at the national level, unless the United States themselves co-ordinate their efforts with ours towards such objectives, so great is our economic dependence on our neighbour.
I dare hope that the Prime Minister, during his forthcoming visit to the United States, can, jointly with the president of the United States, ensure such essential co-ordination of both countries' economies, for the benefit of our business, our trade and, by way of consequence, our social status.
The spokesman for the Ralliement Credi-tiste dealt with the need for such a department and suggested, at the same time, a lowering of taxes. I can hardly reconcile both philosophies. Of course-and I am convinced the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) admits it-the government squeezes money out of taxpayers in order to redistribute it and restore the balance between individuals and classes through equalization
Government Organization payments. Between collection and redistribution there is no miraculous inflating, because the money supply would have to be increased so that more money than is collected could be distributed.
With regard to war against poverty, and undoubtedly that department will seek to carry out part of this project, there must be an all-out effort. But the public is often led to believe that in wartime the necessary money was found and that the same measures should be taken to fight poverty.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
However, the hon. member should perhaps be reminded that to wage war, specially the last one, the national debt was increased fourfold, income tax was much higher, personal exemptions, were only $600 for an unmarried person and $1200 for married people, income tax was levied from the rate of 33J, taxes were levied from $5,000, almost up to 100 per cent certain years and up to 75 per cent in others, on the income from excess profits, and there was price control, etc.
Needless to say that if the government wanted, in a democratic system and in peace time, to take such drastic measures, it would hardly be able to remain in power to attain its objectives, however worthwhile they may be.
We have to agree that nothing will be achieved in the war against poverty without a complete co-ordination of efforts. I was pleased to hear the responsible minister say that as one of his main tasks, he would have to establish new interdepartmental structures, and ensure the integration of activities because every department must provide the best management possible. As far from regional planning as he is, he can nonetheless help considerably to alleviate the distress prevailing in some areas.
For example, the Department of Justice does not as such exert an economic influence but in establishing a penitentiary in an underdeveloped region, it could make jobs available in the construction and in the operation of the institution.
And inevitably other departments, like those of Transport, Communications, Public Works, have the possibility to act much more directly to influence the economy and assist underdeveloped areas.
Because of the personality of the minister and of the co-operation he will receive, because of the understanding of the Prime
March 20, 1969

Government Organization Minister himself, it will be really possible to give that vocation to each department. That desire to eliminate the serious problem of poverty seems to be shown by the representatives of the people and the individuals in general.
The minister also indicated his intention to bring about a greater co-operation with the provinces. It is really necessary that at the level of every province, there should also be a department of regional development. And here again the minister of that department will have to have, as far as possible, a great deal of authority in order to ensure the coordination of efforts.
As to ourselves, from the province of Quebec, we can raise questions about the nature of that co-operation. The most autonomist of Quebecers will agree that regional planning cannot be successful unless there is a coordination of efforts between the federal and provincial governments.
One should not try, through those agreements necessary to carry out those objectives, to remake the whole constitution. If all those who live in underdeveloped areas were asked about the necessity of co-ordination and cooperation between the federal and provincial authorities, 99 per cent would urge the governments to refrain from trying indirectly to remake the constitution at the expense of the poor people of underdeveloped areas, when such co-ordination is so greatly needed in order to finally bring about programs designed to alleviate the distress which prevails in the underdeveloped areas and to restore confidence in the future among the elite and all those who fight for the common good in those areas.
We should also secure co-operation between areas, for we are growing every day more aware of the impossibility of pulling those people out of their misery unless they contribute to their own development and share in the making of the decisions which will bring about their social and economic freedom. There are three ways of securing this participation.
We should first of all set up projects. If the areas concerned reject them we may as well give up for it is impossible to achieve true development without the participation of those concerned, in the present case, the depressed areas and the very poor.
The second answer would be to have the citizens of those areas entrust their land to experts.


There is no point in trying to carry out projects, willy nilly, in an area. The sole result would be to breed feelings of frustration and futile hopes.
There is but one answer. Have the people of the area take a strong hand in their own surroundings with the help of planners, of specialists from the higher authorities.
The planners-a new breed of experts born from this theory of land planning-will have to sit around a table with the people and discuss their future with them. Father Lebret, a pioneer in this field, said we need to tackle with a humble heart the problems of the underdeveloped areas. He added:
For we have much more to learn from them than they have from us.
Planners in some way will be the architects called upon to build according to the wishes of the depressed areas, and also-and this follows-according to professional rules, the regional dwellings which the people want to suit their taste, their needs and their future plans.
In order to do that, intensive periods of information, will have to be organized as well as authentic consultations at every level and a regional framework will have to be set up in order to make a true dialogue possible in an unqualified democracy.
I can see the problem which we will have to face at the regional level: Are we going to create bodies of technocrats called upon to establish professional development rules or are we going to revitalize our municipalities which are the government level closest to the people, the third level which necessarily has to adapt its structures to twentieth century conditions, enjoy a certain authority so as to look after the planning of their territory? At the present time, on the contrary, our cities have no authority outside their territory, and yet their influence extends way beyond that. Therefore, their action or inaction has a considerable impact on the territory although they have nothing to say when regional decisions are made.
There are also county councils which have practically no authority left and which cannot really play the part of competent agents in the planning and development of an area.
Such organizations must be modernized so that the city may be represented within these same county councils and so that the jurisdiction of the latter may be extended to cover a whole region. It is very difficult, I admit, to define a region. We could perhaps say that it is an area within the limits of which a feeling
March 20, 1969

of belonging prevails, where the same social and economic problems exist.
The county councillors, being elected by the people, would, in a democratic manner, look after the interests of the whole territory, of the whole region. And experts, made available by the higher authorities, both federal and provincial, could help in carrying out the projects under study. Instead of witnessing a sterile and constant opposition between rural and urban populations, which phenomena is not exclusive to Canada, we should know a more promising future.
We know that the urban phenomenon is ever increasing, and that rural municipalities left on their own cannot develop harmoniously and help their citizens.
This brings me to the question that is often brought up, that of polarization versus dissemination which is an extremely complex phenomenon. Everyone agrees that the small municipality, devoid of the necessary instruments, of the basic infrastructure to foster industrial development, cannot aspire to industrial growth.
Still, if only certain areas are designated, it gives rise to a feeling of despair, of frustration in all the other municipalities that are not designated. There is one possible compromise: we must draw up such criteria as will foster the creation of industrial infrastructures in the municipalities that are willing to regroup and which together, thanks to this union, can have the necessary strength and stature to develop industrial parks, obtain the necessary sources of energy and communications for their development; in short allow them to modernize their structures in the face of their vocation in today's world, and to encourage through their investments industry to settle there and thereby bring back economic balance throughout the country. This is an extremely important phenomenon.
Forgive me for referring to the environment that I know best. People are often blamed for speaking of themselves too much; yet, that is the subject they know best. I shall refer to the planning carried out in the St. Lawrence valley and the Gaspe region, more often known as the BAEQ (Eastern Quebec Planning Bureau Incorporated).
The planning experts who worked in that area during four years finally recommended the regrouping of resources and farms in ten provincial counties in the lower St. Lawrence area. Out of 10,000 farms, 1,500 should be kept; thus, 8,500 farmers, married, and with
Government Organization an average of five children per family, would leave. That means that roughly 50,000 persons would leave that traditional field of endeavour, agriculture, and invade the labour market.
The experts also advocate that dairies, of which there are 26 at the present time, be reduced to three modem ones. As for the sawmills-there are now 110-25 should be kept; the others should be closed down by the state, that is all those that produce 4 million feet of lumber or less.
Needless to say, if that program were implemented, approximately 100,000 out of
300.000	inhabitants of that area would be freed; on the other hand1 the situation of the
200.000	remaining would grow worse. It might even lead to a massive impoverishment of the whole experimental region.
Then there is no real solution to this serious problem, unless along with providing more economic farming units, dairy industries, saw-mills and other concerns, it is sought to provide also more advanced industrialization. Otherwise, we might as well fill the great urban centres with all those displaced persons.
Besides, there will not be any real participation from the people, unless regional government, like the ones I mentioned a while ago, are able to take in hand the future of their area. In fact, they are not more stupid than anybody else and can make vigorous and worth while decisions. Bossuet used to say: Common sense, is to be found among the people. Those who are endowed with such common sense have given many proofs of their vigour. They have worked voluntarily year after year for the development of their area, in order to bring the authorities to recognize their problems and to look after their own future.
Planning is not an easy thing. I could perhaps venture in the poetical field and say "Everybody speaks of planning, Foolish is the one who reckons on it, Nothing is as common as the name Nothing is as rare as the thing".
However, I do not think we should be as pessimistic as that.
It is true that governments have had the habit of following events instead of foreseeing them. Thus, they went from one urgency to another and the depressed areas were left with their problems. Those citizens were the ones known as the voiceless people, or the voice that cries in the wilderness.
Today, with the establishment of this department, we are getting more confident,
March 20, 1969

Government Organization for we realize that someone is willing to look after those serious problems. Besides, that was the general theme of the whole campaign of the right hon. Prime Minister, andi his only-election promise, to try to establish a just society. But we must have it, that is a sure thing.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon, member but his time has expired unless it is the disposition of the committee that he continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Rosaire Gendron: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On concluding my remarks, I say that we would be happy to be given a generous thought by the higher authorities. It would be in their interest to do so, because otherwise it would be just as costly, considering the fact that the ten counties I was referring to are granted $150 million yearly in subsidies and assistance of some kind or another.
I wonder whether it would not be preferable to ask the people for their participation and their investments for the creation of employment, to restore confidence and to revalorize environments instead of getting everybody into the habit of relying on welfare benefits which only result in depriving them of their self-respect.
I think that those living in underdeveloped areas, where they were the first owners, are capable of showing a great deal of generosity, of broadmindedness, of energy and to acknowledge the need for modern solutions to new problems, the need to regroup themselves, to communicate, to try to acknowledge and understand the proposed solutions and to decide through a vote.
It is also necessary to understand that, if economic balance is to be re-established in the country, we must reunite our energies, our enterprises, our community services and our municipalities. We must create some unity and sufficient powers to counterbalance any undue centralization of which we are the first victims and which is depriving our environment of its most capable human resources.
Intellectual knowledge combined to experience through love of our country as a catalyst and this natural pride in our environment will create such a strength that an irresistible trend of progress will definitely be launched in our regions.


Mr. MacEwan;: Mr. Chairman, the bill before us is one for which we have awaited for several months, and which has been given prominence by the government. Indeed, I go back to the time of the last election when at one point during the campaign the Prime Minister asserted, and I trust he still believes this, that the question of regional development, particularly Atlantic development, was as important to Canadian unity as the constitutional linguistic issue. I certainly agree with that statement.
I note that the minister was in the Atlantic provinces at the APEC meeting last October, at which time he suggested that the regional development department was a reflection of the high priority assigned by the government to this question. We accept this statement, but we on this side have certain reservations regarding this department, and I want to go into them very briefly. I do not know if I will finish before six o'clock, Mr. Chairman, but there are matters I wish to put to the minister. I hope he will reply to them before this debate concludes.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
The first of these is the matter of the Atlantic Development Board, something which was referred to by my leader and also by the hon. member for Egmont. It is being replaced by the Atlantic Development Council and we will want to know more about that. Another matter which I have pursued with the minister for some time, and with his predecessor, is the ARDA report on the nine eastern counties of Nova Scotia. I do not know where it stands now. Yesterday, the minister stated that he had received a letter from the minister of agriculture of the province of Nova Scotia. He also stated that if the minister wants the report made public he will reconsider the matter at that time. I mention this now because the ARDA report took several years to prepare under the combined resources of two governments. I am afraid, and this fear is echoed in the Chronicle-Herald of Halifax for March 11, that the report may be buried that the two governments may decide not to make it public. I hope this report, which I understand covers many facets of the economy of the nine counties which I represent, will be considered by the government. The government announced that the last FRED program, which was in respect of Prince Edward Island, would be the final one. There was one in New Brunswick. Per-
March 20, 1969

haps I might quote from the editorial in the Chronicle Herald for March 11.
Whatever the outcome, it is clear that Nova Scotia should be high on the new department's priority list. The disappearance of FRED before the nine-counties scheme got off the ground, and the fact that FRED plans are operating in other provinces, make such an emphasis appropriate.
Among other things which the minister will have under him is the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act which was brought in during the time when we formed the government. It was very important in that it provided funds to build transmission lines in the Atlantic area in my constituency. Also, a large addition was made to the thermal plant at Trenton. I trust that this act will be continued. It has played an important role in helping the area. In Schedule B to Bill C-173, under Area Development Incentives Act, we find the following:
"designated area" means an area that was a designated area pursuant to the Department of Industry Act immediately prior to the repeal of that act-
I am glad to see that. The area which I represent is one of these designated areas. However, in common with the hon. member for Egmont, I wonder what will happen when the new act is implemented. We will want to know more about that. The minister now will say, "You have said a few things, what other concerns have you?" What I, and I believe members from all areas are concerned about, is that these various agencies which will be incorporated in this important department may be lost. We are afraid they may be lost in the bureaucracy in Ottawa and that the bureaucracy will run the show rather than the private citizens of 'the Atlantic area who could give the necessary instructions and do the necessary work in this regard.
I did hear the minister mention Professor Smith today. I think it was a good move to have him appointed the head of this council. But I am wondering who else will be appointed to the council and how much power they will have. I am afraid that the final solutions, submissions and recommendations of the Atlantic Development Council, which are so important to our area will be decided finally only by the bureaucracy-I do not say that unkindly-here in Ottawa. I hope that will not be the case.
There are a few questions I have for the minister which I believe are well phrased. I shall refer again to the Chronicle-Herald of January 25 of this year in which there are a few questions. They are as follows:
Given a reduced A.D.B., and a new department with responsibility for disadvantaged areas in all 29180-439
Government Organization parts of the country, how sensitive will federal responses be to Atlantic needs?
Will the new department judge Atlantic projects by the same standards as those applied in depressed areas elsewhere, and thus fall into the same trap which very early captured the Area Development Agency program-the industry location scheme which, in effect, discriminated against this region, and in favour of depressed areas of Quebec and Ontario?
Will it be as willing as the A.D.B. to discriminate in favour of the Atlantic Provinces, in those many cases in which the needs are different and greater, and against, say, northern Ontario? Will a program devised for, say, the Gaspe be applied to this region, whether appropriate or not?
Will Mr. Marchand, and Tom Kent, the new department's deputy minister, have the same personal commitment to Atlantic development as had the Hon. J. W. Pickersgill and Nova Scotia's Allan MacEachen, Mr. Marchand's predecessors in charge of the A.D.B., and Dr. E. P. Weeks, executive director of the board since its formation six years ago?
Perhaps more to the point will a Quebec-based minister and the civil servants assigned to the new department, few-
I hope this will not be the case.
-of whom will have-
This is what I	mentioned about
bureaucracy.
-any personal connection with the Atlantic region, be as sensitive to Atlantic opinion as the citizens of the four provinces who serve as A.D.B. directors?
Without the A.D.B. as a buffer, and with the new department thrust forward to deal with the provinces in regional development matters, is there not a danger that federal-provincial tensions in other fields (tax-sharing, shared-cost programs, and the like) will make their unwelcome presence felt more strongly in the war against economic disparity? Will the new department co-operate with the provinces-
The minister says it will.
-for example, as has the A.D.B., in the preparation of an overall development plan for the region?
I think this last part sums it up well.
In sum, will the new department be able to bring itself to the view, of which the A.D.B. is an expression, that the Atlantic region is a special area with special problems which require special solutions?
If it can, it will represent a great step forward. If it cannot, it will become the largest Ottawa target in Canadian history, for the accumulated economic frustrations of the Atlantic Provinces' 2,000,000 people.
With that, Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock?


James Hugh Faulkner: It being six o'clock, I now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
March 20, 1969

Government Organization AFTER RECESS
The committee resumed at 8 p.m.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Mr. Chairman, as the saying goes, I had a go at this bill before dinner. 1 have now replenished myself with a good dinner but I do not intend to go on at great length. In any event, I believe I have only about ten minutes left to speak on the bill.
Just before six o'clock I was putting some questions to the minister. One thing discussed by earlier speakers this afternoon as the matter of estimates for this new department. In the days of the A.D.B., ARDA and AIDA, the normal estimates included amounts which were spent under these programs. There were amounts included in the estimates of the Department of Transport, the Department of Public Works and so on, for projects necessary in the Atlantic area, particularly public works such as wharves and breakwaters.
What I am wondering is whether under the new set up, when this bill is passed as it will be in due course, amounts will still be included in the estimates of the Department of Public Works for wharves, breakwaters and so on, and in the estimates of other departments, as well as additional estimates for this new department? In other words, I hope that all the amounts of money proposed for the Atlantic area will not be included in one basket in the estimates for this new department. I doubt if this will be the case, but it is something that occurred to me when reading the terms of the bill.
Another matter I wish to mention is the power given to the minister under clause 24 which reads:
The Governor in Council may, by order, designate as a special area, for the period set out in the order, any area in Canada that is determined to require, by reason of the exceptional inadequacy of opportunities for productive employment of the people of that area or of the region of which that area is a part, special measures to facilitate economic expansion and social adjustment.
Those powers are very wide. They have been likened to the powers given to a former Liberal cabinet minister now long gone, the Right Hon. C. D. Howe. In this connection I would like to read from an article in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald. I do not have the date of the issue but it was not long ago. It is headed, "Powerful Echo of the Liberals' Past." Perhaps the minister has seen it, but if not he may be interested in it. It reads in part:
A study of the legislation now before parliament to create a new department of regional economic expansion stirs memories of the powerful wartime

and post-war economic reign of C. D. Howe, who practically wrote his own ticket in government and became known as "minister of everything." The former French Canadian labour union boss, Jean Marchand, who will head the department, perhaps is not given, under the bill, as broad a field for using a free industrial development rein as Mr. Howe had. But he isn't far behind. Certainly, there has been no ordinary minister in the interim who has been assigned a similar measure of sweeping authority in the economic arena.
Then the article refers to the Deputy Minister, Mr. Kent. I hope that the minister will use these powers properly. If I may put it kindly, perhaps we now have a "Pocket Rocket" C. D. Howe in this new Liberal cabinet. I have a little concern with this clause in the bill, and I repeat that I hope the minister will use these powers properly.
Earlier this afternoon the suggestion was made that with these powers a certain part of the country might be favoured over another part. However, I think the minister is a reasonable man. I have seen and heard him since he came into parliament, and I would be willing to put my money on him until something else is proven. As I say, we will keep in mind that he is a "Pocket Rocket" C. D. Howe, and we hope that he will not say, for instance, "what's a million?"


Mr. Breau:: What's the picture the hon. member has in his hand?


Howard Russell MacEwan: It is a picture of Mr. Trudeau which appeared in the Atlantic Advocate, and I shall have something to say about it later. It was the issue of March, 1969. I told the hon. member about it when we were in the elevator coming over from suburbia in the West Block, and he thought it was great. I do not quite admit that.


Mr. Mongrain:: You should send us copies of that.


Howard Russell MacEwan: 
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Howard Russell MacEwan: I am glad you are applauding; he is your boss, not mine. I do not say that in a derogatory way. The subheading to the article reads:
Prime Minister Trudeau's article is exclusive to the Atlantic Advocate. In it he explains the philosophy allied to the new department of Regional Economic Expansion, and describes the working of the Marchand Plan which will give effect to the new federal policy.
29180-439^
DEBATES	6921
Government Organization
During the last election campaign the Prime Minister described what he then called a Marshall plan for the Atlantic area. Now, it is the Marchand plan. Whatever the name, it is important. We hope the Minister will get on with his work on this plan. He has a great responsibility to the Atlantic area, and we will look to him to carry out the undertakings of the Prime Minister as quickly as possible. We realize that everything cannot be done overnight. As I say, the minister will have great responsibility. We will give him a chance to carry out this responsibility, but from this side of the house we will be watching him very closely.


Mr. Whiling:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few comments on this part of Bill C-173 which pertains1 to the establishment of a Department of Regional Economic Expansion. We cannot expect to have true national unity while there are regions within the country with wage levels as much as 30 per cent below the national average, and an unemployment figure which at times doubles that of the more prosperous parts of this great country.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
I think the government is to be commended for its efforts to correct these grievous situations by establishing this new department. I further believe the minister who has been chosen for the portfolio is a man well qualified for the job. We trust that his ability and that of those associated with him, together with the support provided by the government, will make this department self-liquidating; in other words, we hope its need will diminish with its achievements. There have been many previous attempts by governments to shore up the economy in various areas. This is especially true so far as the maritimes are concerned. Over the years millions of dollars have been appropriated for this purpose under various government plans, projects, and programs. These efforts were all well-meaning, but unfortunately few have been effective in achieving any worth-while results.
Not only does unemployment continue at a high rate in the maritimes, but there is an exodus of people from that region of almost
20,000	per year. This exodus not only reflects the poor conditions existing in the maritimes but actually aggravates it by decreasing the markets for the products of the industries presently located in the area and for those
6922	COMMONS
Government Organization who would seek a livelihood through agriculture. Therefore, the purpose of this department becomes more pressing and the need becomes greater each year.
However, it should- in no way be regarded as a welfare department. As a matter of fact its purpose should be to eliminate welfare by being exceptionally careful in the choice of areas and industries which have the potential to respond to economic stimulus. The proper choice as to where they will extend help and co-operation should be a basic concept of this department's operation.
In the past, I think the former department's effectiveness was handicapped to some extent by not being able to assist growth centres within disadvantaged regions. The Hali-fax-Dartmouth area, for example, was considered a growth area and therefore did not qualify for the special federal programs but the region surrounding these cities did because it was classified as a designated area.
This, in my opinion, was not sound economic planning as it encouraged industries to locate in an area which may not have the required facilities to help insure their success. It is, therefore, a welcome change to note in this legislation that growth centres within disadvantaged regions will now be able to take advantage of these special programs.
One of the problems facing this department is that of co-ordinating the work of the various groups and bodies which are already involved. Plans now in existence such as ARDA, ADA, FRED, and so on will all come under the control of the new department. It will take some considerable diplomacy to weld them together so that they all have a clear idea of the basic concept of what is to be achieved, and why money is being expended in this particular effort. This department will be dealing with many people, including various departments of the federal government, corresponding departments of the provincial governments, and through the provinces with municipalities whose interests are involved. It will be dealing also with the private sector because we hope the private sector will co-operate fully in this program.
In the formation of plans, one of the major needs will be to encourage industries and production programs which will stimulate exports to foreign countries and to other parts of Canada. This is especially true of the maritimes because it is through exports that the supply of money in any community is increased, broadening the opportunity for

DEBATES	March 20, 1969
employment and increasing the standard of living.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
In my opinion it should not be a case of shoring up industries in submarginal areas, but rather of giving assistance to industries which have a chance to succeed through the co-operation of this department. The principle here is to bring people to the industries. This would involve the government moving people from one community to another and retraining them. This, I feel, would be money well spent because we are dealing with human resources, and human resources are the life blood of the country itself.
I was pleased to see that this was the approach used to develop the agreement recently reached between the province of Prince Edward Island and the federal government. This is a program based on self-help which is the proper basis on which to operate any such plan. The plan has established goals which involve an increase in the value of the economy of the province. It will take advantage of the present assets of the province to develop its agriculture, tourism, fishing and those industries which have a chance to succeed with proper encouragement and in a proper environment.
I am very pleased to be a member of the Standing Committee on Regional Economic Expansion even though my own constituency of Halton will not be directly involved. But even in a prosperous constituency like Halton we, too, have our pockets of poverty, and these are of grave concern to me. Such pockets of poverty as exist in the riding of Halton unfortunately exist throughout the whole country, and this type of poverty should also be a concern of the government. It has its worst effect in housing, and I hope the new legislation on housing soon to be announced will help to alleviate this condition in my riding and throughout Canada.
However, according to D.B.S. figures, Halton is one of the more affluent areas in the country. I know the people of Halton will endorse any effort to upgrade the economic standards of those persons living in parts of Canada which are in need of assistance. We must recognize, however, that they will be sharing in the costs and together with the rest of Canada will be vitally interested in the success of any program or agreement which is put into effect.
In this respect, in my opinion, it would be most valuable to have a detailed system of
March 20, 1969	COMMONS
achievement evaluation. In other words, if a project shows signs of success, let us encourage and push it. If it does not show signs of reasonable progress, let us scrap it and not waste money flogging a dead horse. This latter alternative may take some courage to carry through in certain instances, but nevertheless hard facts must be faced in life and failure is one of them. If we fail in an area, let us not continue to pour in more money and add to our failure.
In conclusion, there is one other thing that we must bear in mind, and that is simply that we cannot expect miracles because our objectives will not be achieved overnight. Some of the proposed programs may take years to bear fruit, and in many cases it may take considerable time to formulate these plans. It will also take patience and understanding, and it will require a large measure of tact and diplomacy.


Mr. Lundrigan:: It gives me great pleasure to be able to say a few words on Bill C-173. I have been waiting now for approximately nine months for this portion of the bill on the reorganization of the government to be brought before the house to have a chance to make some observations on it.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the minister's statement this afternoon, as I did to the statements which he made on his election to office for I feel that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion has one of the most demanding and important portfolios in the present administration. When I speak of the importance of his task to the whole of Canada, I admit to a certain feeling of guilt in having thought about regional disparity as a problem peculiar to the Atlantic regions. However, having heard a number of people who have participated1 in the debate, I realize more fully now that this problem is not one which affects only Atlantic Canada, although perhaps that is where the greatest incidence of disparity is to be found. I am certainly aware of the fact that in the whole of northern Canada, in British Columbia, in parts of Ontario, in most of Quebec and in all of the Atlantic region there are areas of slow economic growth which must be rectified by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
I consider this task to be a major challenge for the minister for another reason. The present administration and the new Prime Minister made two commitments to Canada, both of which I hope will be fulfilled. I will certainly not criticize the Prime Minister if he can achieve the two goals which he set for his
DEBATES	6923
Government Organization administration. The first one was to create a just society, about which we have heard so much, and the second' was the elimination of regional disparities in Canada. So, I consider the minister to have right in his mitt the responsibility for the execution of the greatest plan that has been enunciated by the Prime Minister, that is the elimination in large measure of regional disparities and economic inequalities which exist in Canada. This is why I feel that the minister bears the major responsibility in the cabinet. I think also that the reputation of the minister and the whole government will rest largely on the success of the government in contending with regional disparities.
I have been keenly interested in observing the government's efforts in restructuring itself as it is assuming its responsibilities in office. I remember that the Prime Minister, on introducing the bill, tried to anticipate the remarks of the members of the opposition as well as the remarks that I am making now. He referred to a Roman in ancient times, and others who have made some remarks about people who spend their time restructuring. It reminds me of the Atlantic jellyfish which is always changing shape and never takes any fixed form or assumes any definite shape. I think this is a great danger with new governments.
If I had become the prime minister of Canada on June 25 of the past year, these are some of the things I would have done. The first would be to appoint half a dozen task forces and all kinds of study groups. This would give me time to learn my role if I did not know it. One of the reasons I was not elected prime minister was that I do not know how to run a country as yet. I would have become involved in a great debate on linguistics and on the cultural and multicultural problems of Canada. I would have made that a major issue in our parliament. I would have introduced legislation on abortion and homosexuality, and I would have spoken about diplomatic recognition of the Vatican. If I did not know what to do, these are the things I would have done.
What I am really saying is that I welcome this legislation because I think it is time we got rid of a government by no comment, a government by escape hatches and a government by red herring. This is the way a government can act while it spends time learning what to do. The government has before it four years, at least this is the mandate which: was given the present administration by the
March 20, 1969

Government Organization people of Canada. That is why it is imperative that it get on with the business of restructuring itself to enable it to deal effectively with the serious problems facing Canada. Nine months has gone by since June 25, and. I think it is time we got this department off the ground because it has a mammoth task before it.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: You forgot about Red China.


John Howard Lundrigan: I forgot about Red China, Mr. Chairman. I was glad to hear the minister say that an amendment is to be made to 25 (1) because I think there is a great need for consultation with the provinces on all matters. I do not think any of us like the idea of unilateral decisions being taken in matters which affect more than one party.
I wish to refer now to what I call the science of technocracy. I do not think this is a new phrase. I shall not deny that one of the most important things a government has to do is to decide how to use its economic resources to the best advantage. But I do quarrel with any government which uses economic criteria alone when making decisions. Other factors have to be considered-humanistic factors. When we talk about a more humane approach to the seal fishery we ought always to remember there is a need' for greater humanity in the treatment of people.
Often, it seems, Members of Parliament of all parties and members of the great civil service of Canada can grow insensitive to the needs of people. This is something which bothers me. Frequently the people who feed computers and reach decisions on the basis of statistics alone are not those who will favourably affect the development of our community and make Canada a just society. I am afraid there are people in the minister's department who are statisticians first, foremost and always, people who are economists first, foremost and always, people who feed computers and base their decisions on inhuman processes without being aware of the sensitivity of people and of the importance of keeping humanistic considerations in mind.
I listened with great attention to the minister's statement on the Atlantic region last November. I listened to what he has had to say in the house and in the committee. I heard the hon. member on my immediate right talk about the mobility of people, the resettlement program and the growth centre *concept. These are all good things. Nobody
fMr. Lundrigan.]
quarrels with the idea of resettlement or growth centres provided the concept is broad enough to encompass some of the thoughts of my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition.
However, if the government expects to reduce regional disparity effectively using Montreal as a model we can forget about Atlantic Canada because it is not possible to apply to Atlantic Canada the concept in vogue in Montreal. Atlantic Canada and northern Canada generally are different regions. Mobilization of people for the sake of doing so will not solve the problem. I listened to the Leader of the Opposition talking about the growth centre concept. I should like to see the government base its decisions about growth centres on the resources which are to be developed rather than on the mobilization of people and their transfer to areas which, it is hoped, will become productive. I think the Minister of Fisheries and the minister responsible for economic expansion will agree that tragedies have resulted from taking people from semi-productive areas to non-productive areas. Those affected lost their identity, their heritage and their whole way of life because they anticipated they would get a few cheaper services.
Any real attempt to remove these disparities will necessitate a great variety of different approaches. No single approach, even if it is a commendable one, such as that involving growth centres, will be successful.
The problem of getting co-operation from the other departments of government will be the major task facing the minister. This has been alluded to by almost every member who has spoken in the debate today. During the past nine months the people of Canada have been in double jeopardy. The government has taken nine months to get this department fit for sailing. Within1 12 months it is hoped' it will be activated and on the road. I have mentioned this already. Other government departments have gone on the road with their kinds of behaviour. I see the Minister of Finance has just walked into the house. Earlier this year he admitted that the government program of retrenchment and reductions had resulted in increased unemployment in the Atlantic region. I have hadi occasion to deal with the Minister of Transport. He is so bound up with the problems of Montreal airport, Toronto airport and Vancouver airport that he has quite forgotten about the other little airports in Canada. This is no way to deal with regional disparity.
March 20, 1969	COMMONS
Since the house opened, the Minister of Public Works has gone on holiday. We have received practically nothing in the whole of the Atlantic region since the session opened in September. There is practically nothing in the estimates. How can the minister charged with the mammoth task of securing regional economic expansion do his job if his colleague goes on holiday? There has been more action in Hull, Ottawa and Toronto than ever before, yet the Atlantic region gets nothing. This Department of Public Works will not do a darned thing. I do not know what it is waiting for. It has made great efforts to cut back. The minister tells us he will neither build up nor cut back because his department has not yet taken shape. Mr. Chairman, I could talk about public works. I could say a great deal about the winter works program. But I shall not bore hon. members with details of what they already know.
As I say, we have been in double jeopardy. One department is just getting on the road; we have agreed to wait until the minister gets set. Meanwhile, other departments have had the knife out ever since September, cutting expenditures right, left and centre. The Minister of Finance, in the white paper presented prior to his bombshell of last fall, admitted that these cuts have resulted in an increase in unemployment in the Atlantic region.


Mr. Benson:: Read it.


John Howard Lundrigan: The minister responsible for this new department will need tremendous co-operation from every other government department. If he does no more than make other departments sensitive to the need for expansion in areas other than the major metropolitan complexes he will have done his job. The funds available to him-$200 million, and I have called it peanuts-are not important. He alone will not be able to make any impact on regional economic expansion, and he is not expected to. Every government department must give priority to the need for economic expansion in various regions of Canada. The Prime Minister should say to every government department: we demand your co-operation; we want you to give priority to regional development. Every department of government must tackle this task if the commitment given to those parts of Canada where disparity exists is to be carried out.
I could tell a little story, Mr. Chairman. I shall not tell it in detail because to do so might embarrass some members of the civil
DEBATES	6925
Government Organization service who might be sitting in the gallery. I know an area where a $2 million public wharf structure had just been completed by the Department of Public Works. The Department of Transport was giving a small subsidy to a shipping service so that the service could be carried on. The department removed this subsidy and as a result the service was discontinued. But, Mr. Chairman, the only reason for spending this $2 million was to provide shipping facilities in connection with the service. I telephoned the department about this situation and they replied. Oh, that does not concern us, that is a problem for the Department of Public Works. I said: Listen. It is my money you are talking about. It is my problem. And it ought to be your problem as well. And it all has to do with this issue of regional expansion, so it ought to be the minister's problem as well.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
What I am trying to say is this. Unless the minister, with a genuine desire to benefit Atlantic Canada, gets co-operation from his colleagues then he might just as well pack up and go home right now. I will conclude in a moment, Mr. Chairman, but I want to say that my feeling is that this government is not thinking big enough in its program of regional economic expansion. We are hearing a lot of talk about elimination of regional disparities, and I fully realize we are setting up a new government department to correct these disparities. However, I do not believe that the front bench opposite, or for that matter the benches behind it, are as sincere about regional economic expansion as one would like them to be. However, perhaps the minister can persuade me otherwise.
I contend we are not thinking big enough. Let me explain: Although, there will be some $200 million in the kitty for the purpose of eliminating regional disparities in Canada, I suggest we must give some thought to major resource development. For example, one province on the east coast has spent perhaps $200 million to develop Churchill Falls, a great resource in northern Canada. The benefits of this resource will be shared by Quebec and Newfoundland. This is one area of great economic expansion.
We also have tremendous oil resources in northern Canada as well as great mineral resources. The government will have to attack regional disparities by developing our resources on a large scale. We do not want just two or three metropolis in Canada; what we want are several tremendous areas of
March 20, 1969

Government Organization development. Here I am thinking 20 years ahead. Several of my colleagues who are not here tonight have some great thoughts on this subject.
Transportation is also important. If you are going to develop resources on a massive scale, transportation facilities are essential. There are two reasons for this: firstly, you must get your products to the market; secondly, you must provide avenues for imports from outside markets in order to reduce the high cost of living prevalent today. So, transportation facilities are a major factor.
We must also think in terms of improving our wage structure. This might sound unbelievable, but Atlantic Canada has the lowest wage structure in Canada. In order to make an impact in the field of regional economic expansion you must put money in the pockets of the people. I am sorry the Minister of Transport is not here to listen to my remarks, but I have referred to the wage structure in his own department for those personnel employed to clear snow from airports. There is a differential of $1 per hour between personnel employed in various parts of Atlantic Canada and people doing the same work in Vancouver and Montreal. I say that before we can further regional economic expansion the minister must put money into the pockets of the people.
I am sure that the Minister of Finance is very familiar with all the theories about money and about the multiplier effect of the dollar. People in Atlantic Canada are getting wages that are 30 per cent lower than other places in Canada, even people in the employ of the government. This is the kind of thing that will have to be dealt with. There is also the matter of growth centres to which the Leader of the Opposition referred when he was talking on this bill about a month ago. Twenty years ago governments were advised that they had better start thinking about the growth centre concept. Surely, today we are far enough advanced to use the abilities of our economists and to take advantage of the computers to which the Minister of Finance referred in order to make a significant impact in the area of regional economic expansion.
The Depuiy Chairman: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


John Howard Lundrigan: May I just finish my remarks, Mr. Chairman?

The Depuiy Chairman: Does the committee agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Howard Lundrigan: I thank the members of the committee and I will not abuse the privilege that has been given to me. I conclude by saying that I think the minister will agree with me that unless there is co-operation from all departments of government and the Prime Minister literally issues an ultimatum to every cabinet minister to give regional economic expansion top priority, then we will do little better than a patchwork job.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, if brilliant oratory displays similar to the waters at Niagara falls could settle the matter, I think that the honourable member who spoke before me would have settled the matter of regional economic expansion.
Generally speaking, I do not have much objection to what he just asserted in this house except that he gives me the impression of preaching to the converted and of suggesting to the minister measures which seem already included in the bill which was introduced by the minister.
Therefore, let us say that we agree and that we have a great deal of sympathy for the member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) but we, from the province of Quebec, feel that in Canada all the provinces are responsible for one another.
If the Maritimes enjoy prosperity, the province of Quebec will benefit from it and we shall be very happy if the wishes of our friends come true. We can assure him if our information is correct-which is not perhaps printed in black and white in the bill that the Maritimes and especially Newfoundland, will be the territories particularly selected under this legislation. Therefore, for once, we are happy.
The Depuiy Chairman: Order. The honourable member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) rises on a point of order.


Mr. Corbin:: Mr. Speaker, I have noticed in the past that my colleague from Trois-Rivieres would rise on a point of order when someone would refer to "Three Rivers" instead of "Trois-Rivieres" and now I catch him confusing the Maritimes with the Atlantic provinces. There is a difference Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
March 20, 1969	COMMONS


Eymard G. Corbin: The Maritime provinces consist of the provinces of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia whereas when we talk about the Atlantic provinces we also include the new province of Newfoundland.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful indeed to my colleague for providing me with this information for, contrary to some of my friends in the opposition, I for one like to learn about things. So I thank him and tell him that I shall remember the lesson for a long time.
Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many, the bill under consideration comes a little late maybe since of course the parliamentary procedure must be followed. The hon. member who spoke just before me, said it took us nine months. Well, it takes nine months to give birth to a healthy child and you cannot expect it to be a premature baby. However, this is a good bill. It can be improved upon whenever new circumstances warrant it and new depressed areas appear.
The official opposition complained that the minister was given too much power and I heard others from that side say that the minister had probably not enough power to face all the needs of the provinces or of those underdeveloped areas of Canada.
There were even some to say that the minister was a "pocket C. D. Howe". On the contrary, I believe the minister needs the utmost power to find the answers to what the opposition has been complaining about for nine months, namely that there is still too much poverty in Canada and too much unemployment, that the economy in Canada is at a standstill. Of course this is not something special to Canada. Everybody knows that it is a plague that affects all of mankind.
We were glad to read in the newspapers, yesterday or the day before, that Canada is the third most successful country in the world, after Western Germany and Holland, in its fight against inflation.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, the minister must have extensive enough powers to be able to synchronize the efforts of all the departments, so that we do not run into red tape when the time comes to pass fundamental measures. That red tape requires that in addition to the minister and the deputy minister, civil servants, technocrats, task forces, members, agencies representing the regional promotion
DEBATES	6927
Government Organization organizations, all must intervene, in addition to which the consent of the provinces must be obtained. In fact, there is no end to it. The minister must therefore be granted powers.
I have absolutely no objection to his resembling the late Right Hon. C. D. Howe who was one of the most active advocates of economic promotion we have known in a century. I am sure history will judge him differently from the way the opposition did at the time when he fought political battles here. One can pass judgment by looking at the results of his work here, because he was a realist. I only hope that the new minister of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion will produce as much as the Right Hon. C. D. Howe.
Mr. Chairman, it is high time for us to be realists, to keep both feet on the ground. It is high time to stop discussing such nebulous matters as the constitution for instance.
I am sure that the Newfoundland fishermen who are now going through a critical period are far less interested in the constitution than they are in knowing what they will get next week for their take.
I am sure also that the unemployed of Ste-Rose-du-Degele or St-Etienne-des-Gres are far less interested in knowing whether the constitution will eventually be revised than in getting a job as soon as possible that they might earn a living.
That is why I am of those who rejoice in the introduction of this bill which will allow a minister to synchronize the efforts of all his colleagues and deal with regional economic disparities in this country to fight poverty so that we might all live in honest affluence.
Mr. Chairman, I say again it is time to stop dreaming and waiting for Santa Claus to bring something every year.
I heard fantastic things in this house, in the last few weeks. For instance, some want everyone to live well on free government allowances of a $100 a month, and at the same time, they say that we should not create too many industries which would ruin other industries. All the same, we must be realistic if we want Canadians to earn a living. Indeed, we must give them an opportunity to support themselves and allow financiers to make profits they will re-invest in the economy thus creating employment for workers who otherwise would depend on the state and would increase the financial burdens of government.
March 20, 1969

Government Organization
Mr. Chairman, some fundamental things must be pointed out when speaking about economic development particularly in less favored sectors. So, I would like to make some remarks to the minister.
We would be in a much better position, Mr. Chairman, to promote a strong and lasting economic expansion if, instead of exporting our natural resources to the United States at ridiculous prices, we could have them processed here, by our people and sell the products to other countries, so that Canadians could really benefit from the resources nature has given them.
I am one of those who are shocked to see in front of the city of Trois-Rivieres that I represent, large boats so heavily loaded that each year, the St. Lawrence must be dredged to let them bring, as far as the Great Lakes, to American harbors, our iron ore that the United States will refine, make into tools or machines that they will sell back to us at high prices, with the result that the Americans make profits with the natural resources that we sold them, often for very little.
I do not want to blame the government for this situation, because I know it has been going on for many years. I know who is most responsible and I wonder if the federal government could not, after having concluded an agreement with the provinces, legislate so that our natural resources would be processed here, in the best interests of ah Canadians.
I shall quote as an example, someone who is no more, but who earned himself much fame in Canadian politics, the Hon. Alexandre Taschereau. He said once to American capitalists: If you wish to develop our forest resources, you should build mills and manufacture paper here. As far as my area is concerned, this has always ensured our prosperity. I feel that under a well-planned economic development program, we should try to take steps in order to compel foreigners to process our natural resources' here.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to make another suggestion which I think is constructive and realistic. It would be that foreign companies, either British, French or American, which come here to get into business and make profits-I am thinking especially of insurance and finance companies whose headquarters are in Canada-should be compelled, under the law, to invest a considerable proportion of their profits in Canadian industry, so that Canadians may take advantage of that money which was made here, and to prevent it from being directly or indirectly transferred abroad.

I was pleased to note in the bill under consideration, that there would be some cooperation among provinces, municipalities and all organizations concerned.
I should like to plead particularly in favour of municipalities which, in most cases, are treated like poor relatives, when negotiations are under way between the federal and provincial governments.
I would like to plead in favour of regional organizations set up by municipalities which to do so need the assistance of the federal and provincial governments.
Planning bodies, which my colleagues from Timiscouata (Mr. Gendron) referred to a while ago, and economic promotion organizations are used at times to diagnose the problems which business concerns may run into and to find some solutions.
Should the federal government be willing, in conjunction with provincial governments, to help finance such organizations whose members work benevolently and which urgently need experts, the problem of regional disparities could be solved. I should like to quote the case of La Mauricie which brings together some 85 municipalities forming a geographical entity different from the neighbouring regions. Now, the needs of these municipalities are quite alike. They have wanted for many years to set up a dynamic organization but they are unable to do so by their own means .
I recently learned through newspapers- that the Quebec government was expecting a burst of economic expansion which will permit it to invest some $40 million. This is a rather important amount of money for the province. As for the department it intends to invest about $30 million.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I hope that the two governments in question will help these regional organizations establish specialized offices. These will not only serve to create new enterprises but will permit the old ones to evade difficulties, to find new markets, to develop their operations and, in case of need, to encourage people from the region to invest in the industry and contribute to the economy's revival.
Mr. Chairman, there is another factor upon which I feel I have to dwell, at the risk of being considered a heretic or a babbler.
In fact, I am convinced that governments should legislate on the right to strike which has become a curse and which indirectly
March 20, 1969	COMMONS
undoes governments' efforts to ensure the prosperity of the country.
These days, the right to strike is shamefully misused and most union members have had enough of those recurrent strikes which in the end only increase inflation, add to the worker's burden and make matters worse.
For example, these last few days it was announced that in February alone, 137,070 work-days were lost in the country, for a loss of $2,193,120.
While we are trying to stimulate the economy, there are union leaders without any sense of responsibility who urge workers to strike, get them in debt, and moreover contribute to ruin some businesses.
I could name sax businesses that had to close their doors and two or three others that will have to do the same soon because of unfair strikes.
That is reminiscent of the Middle Ages, and governments should legislate in order to correct that situation.
I could quote testimony of union leaders, who are not just anybody, and who state vigorously that it is time that governments give the workers the machinery needed to settle their disputes without having every time to resort to strike action, to run the risk of jeopardizing the economy of the country and to solve their problems at the expense of the community.
Such little time as I have left does not allow me to elaborate on the legislative priorities that should be established. In any case, others have studied this matter more thoroughly than I have. Legislation should be passed to reduce the number of strikes. Strikes contribute to economic ruin and most union members are fed up with them. After all, they only help to increase the prestige of some labour leaders.
I apologize if my remarks should reflect on the minister, who was active in labour movements in the past, but I know that the special grace pertaining to his function that inspires him today will make him understand things that the grace provided him in his former activity would not allow him to understand then. My charge is constructive, however.
Mr. Chairman, I also wish to speak on another problem. The minister might tell me whether this legislation could solve it.
I know of a French Canadian industry that manufactures snowmobiles, or skidoos, that
DEBATES	6929
Government Organization settled in a rural area represented by a member of the Ralliement Creditiste, and which employs some 300 workers. That industry has been in operation for about four years. It sells 75 per cent of its production to the United States and, being short of capital funds- since it was established with capital invested by farmers and workers1-it has been receiving attractive offers from American financiers. It might soon be sold to some American people.
Therefore, I urge the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) to try and do something and I hope that the act provides some arrangements in favour of such profitable enterprises to keep them in Canadian hands and prevent them from falling into foreign hands, American or others. We should not forget that they have been built at the cost of great sacrifices.
Mr. Chairman, mention was made a while ago of industries that can contribute to regional economic expansion. Among them we find tourism. However, there is always one point that causes difficulties, at least in my province. I mean the constitutional question. Some people are haunted by the constitutional question. Their disease is incurable-


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. Does the committee agree that the hon. member should continue his interesting remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I am almost overwhelmed by the fact that my friends from the Ralliement Creditiste should be so unanimous in wanting me to continue my speech.
I shall be very brief because I like to be in order. I simply want to say that I hope this constitutional red tape will be done away with and that people will be given the opportunity to set up a tourist industry by creating attraction centres, by developing and promoting them.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you as well as my colleagues for their kindness.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Mr. Chairman, one
minister and one department to bring together all the federal economic assistance programs for a concerted attack on regional disparity may be all right in theory, but if the
March 20, 1969

Government Organization motivation of the minister and the department is wrong it could result in making a bad situation worse. There will be little hope for success if this newly created instrument is used in the manner that the minister's recent statement indicated it will be used, or if it is employed according to the prevailing philosophy and methods of the government.
Once more, as demonstrated time and time again, we see the trend to centralization and bigness. This government worships at the shrine of bigness-big government, big business, big bureaucracy and big concentrations of votes' such as we find in the metropolitan areas from coast to coast. In its thinking, its planning, in its legislation and in its actions, we have been shown the obsession of this government with figures and theory to the exclusion of the human factor.
In this legislation, as in most of the other measures introduced by the present administration, there appears to be a total absence of human feeling. Individual Canadians rank no higher than so many digits in an economic statistical table. I believe it is time that we, as a nation, stopped catering to bigness. I believe it is time to declare a moratorium on bigness. Let us give some attention and concern to the small things and to the little people of this country. Every day, and more and more, we see evidence of the fact that the individual is rapidly losing his identity and his place in society, his rights. Perhaps this is why we live in a society of dissent, of disorder, of destruction.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, this legislation and this portfolio carry with them the absence of humanity, unless we can convince the minister to redirect the attention of the government to the individual and the small masses, those unfortunates who are unable to present their cases, the small farmers, the Indians, the Metis, the Eskimos and the low income family men. We seem to be dominated by computers, figures, percentages, dollars and per capita formulae.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I hope to see some direction in relieving the rurally depressed areas of Canada. What about the fisherman, the farmer, or the small business firms, all of whom are in a desperate position because of lack of markets for fish and grain. The result is they have low incomes while inflation and high living costs continue. If some direction is not given to provide alternative means for these people to secure a living our situation in the cities will

only become worse. I think it is common sense to assume that unemployment is not solved in the rural areas by directing it to the cities.
The minister has already mentioned specific programs for a number of eastern cities. If all the effort of this department is to be placed on the centres of large population then I say, God help Canada's rural areas and her slow growth centres of low population which represent 90 per cent of this country's land area. What about these thousands of people who are in between? I would hope they would not be written off like the wheat producers of western Canada.
Are all Canadians who do not wish to live in large urban areas now to be labelled "expendable"? It is high time we took a long, close look at this bigness1 that seems to be the governing factor in this government's thinking. Bigness in so far as cities in this country are concerned breeds most of the major problems which face us as a nation. It not only breeds but multiplies them. Where is housing most inadequate and the most pressing problem? It is in the large cities. Where is1 pollution the worst? In and adjacent to the big cities. Where is transportation the most serious problem? In and around the big cities. Where is crime at its1 worst? In the large cities. Where is the cost of living the highest and the quality of life lowest? In the large metropolitan centres. This is inexcusable in a country like Canada where space is one of our outstanding national assets and features. There may be some excuse for urban problems in small European countries; there can be none in Canada. Yet, the government apparently plans to devote the bulk of its attention and public funds to these very same monstrosities.
I believe the whole direction and emphasis in respect of the work of this' new department is wrong and should be corrected in terms of its directive. I believe we should be concentrating on building and developing the rural areas and small population centres. We should be attempting to give all Canadians a fair share of national funds and national effort rather than allowing the already big cities to grow fatter and hog the lion's share of our tax dollars and government effort. In my view, this is- the only way we can hope to improve the essential quality of Canadian life. This is the only way we can answer some of our most pressing problems. It is the only way we can provide equal opportunity for all Canadians from sea to sea, as the minister pointed out in his opening remarks.
March 20, 1969

I suggest that the aid programs and all the skilled assistance should be devoted to encouraging small and middle businesses to establish and prosper in areas where that sort of industrial and commercial endeavour is needed. Let us stop feeding the large corporations and business institutions at the public trough. It is the towns and small cities of Canada which need this aid. They will most richly repay any effort put forward in respect of this type of development.
There is also a national problem of tremendous potential and great urgency facing us today which might be alleviated by application of regional economic development programs. I am speaking now of the problem of bringing our Indian, Metis and Eskimo peoples fully into the social and economic life of this nation. In the Globe and Mail of March 6 there was a story from Regina to the effect that the government of Saskatchewan is setting up a new department of government to deal with this very problem. During the debate it was described by Premier Thatcher as a time bomb with the fuse getting ever shorter, a problem that threatens to become a major social disaster.
The story noted that one of the main aspects of the problem is to find permanent employment for Indian people. Some are reluctant to leave home to obtain work elsewhere, while others take work only to leave it shortly afterward because housing away from their own areas is difficult to procure. In my riding there are a number of Indian Canadians. I speak about the Saddle Lake band'. Just over a year ago the Department of Forestry and Rural Development, working in conjunction with the provincial government and the Saddle Lake band council, undertook to clear and develop 15,000 acres of prime, arable land for the production of crops. To date 3,000 acres are ready for use with an additional 5,000 targeted for next spring. The band members organized1 as a society under the Alberta Societies Act and assumed the responsibility of implementing this most ambitious project aimed at involving a majority of band members. This was the first time a vast field of local employment was made available to the citizens of this area.
The achievement of and the results- from this project were beyond expectation. Besides providing employment for 125 citizens during the clearing operations, it will also provide permanent seasonal employment for 100 citizens who will actually be engaged in the farming operations. This project it
Government Organization demonstrated that these people are willing to accept responsibility and challenge. They are willing to provide for themselves and wish to become self-sustaining citizens. It demonstrated as well that they appreciate receiving a weekly cheque which they have earned. However, this must be done in a manner in which residence can be maintained on the reserve.
What are some of the results of this undertaking? The welfare list diminished to practically nothing when the clearing operation was in progress during the summer months. A saving of 75 per cent in welfare payments was estimated to have been made during the summer. Opportunity was made available for the development of new skills among the residents. Agricultural short courses have followed and there are now 10 young men attending the Vermilion School of Agriculture.
A prefab housing project has been commenced which constructs houses on the reserve. This project is staffed by Indians and the houses are for families on the reserve. The grain produced from the land this year has already been contracted to registered seed houses to be used as seed1 grain. Conceivably, this plan can continue. A livestock enterprise is to follow soon. Discussions are taking place regarding horticulture and poultry operations. Further discussions are taking place regarding the possibility of the shores of Saddle Lake becoming a tourist attraction.
A great step forward has been taken, in an attempt to solve the social economic problems on the reserve. All participants are to be commended, particularly the members of the band, for their imagination, leadership and determination. I repeat, however, that steps must be taken immediately to provide employment for all these people on a permanent basis in order that they may help themselves. I would hope this department and this minister would not overlook the humanistic aspects relating to a group such as this when trying to pacify the masses.
As I said, we have had an encouraging beginning on this reserve. However, living conditions are grossly inadequate. I had an opportunity to conduct my own survey regarding the living conditions in late February. Of some 29 families interviewed, it was discovered all had an inadequate water supply and were either faced with the necessity of hauling drinking water for long distances or utilizing snow or slough water. In this day and age, when many people in Canada enjoy
March 20, 1969

Government Organization one of the highest standards of living in the world, it seems to me it is a grave injustice that there are some who are unable to enjoy even an adequate water supply, one of the basic necessities of life. Similarly, housing is most inadequate. Families of 8 and 10 persons live in one room homes which measure 12 feet by 16 feet. Many of these homes lack any insulation. They are cold in winter and the roofs leak.
I am sure that this department, working in close co-operation with the Indian Affairs branch and the various band councils, together with the many industrial development bodies and chambers of commerce throughout the country, could do much to assist these people in achieving their hopes and aspirations. With the proper leadership and liaison, this department could become the most effective vehicle in Canada, if it considers people to be human beings rather than masses of voters. The native citizens are not desirous of leaving their reservations, homes and families. They are loath to move as a single family unit away from the reservations to a strange environment.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
What could be more simple than to assist in the establishment of light industries, service industries and small commercial enterprises reasonably close to the reservations. In this way, the Indians would not have to leave home, family or reservations and yet would be assured of steady work at reasonable wages. Then, they would be well on the road to full participation in our Canadian national life.
Why must we crowd everything together in a country where fresh air, space and natural beauty are all around us? What excuse is there for the nightmare "megopolis" that is even now being suggested by our planners and experts, an urban monster that will stretch in an unbroken line from Montreal through Toronto to Windsor and Niagara Falls. The amount of money that will be required just to make life in that industrial slum bearable will be a thousand times greater than is required now to make rural Canada prosperous, attractive and a fully producing sector of the national economy.
Unfortunately, the pattern seems to be that when the government offers economic incentives or assistance, the major part of it is gobbled up in fierce competition between our huge metropolitan centres. In my own province of Alberta the competition is so fierce between Edmonton and Calgary in the scramble for even the smallest industry, that the

small city or town is beyond consideration before any opportunity is given to hear its proposals. Big business acts in the same way, crowding out the small operator and forcing him out of business.
It is ironic that there is always lots of money for stone and mortar in the big cities, but never more than a few pennies for building in the small town. It is not enough to say that this is an irreversible economic trend. If we are looking for challenges, surely this is the greatest we can find. This is a way to reverse the trend and make a more natural, more satisfying life possible for our people.
We have recently concluded a debate on the terrible housing crisis in Canada. I listened with interest to the remarks made by members on all sides of the house outlining the lack of accomodation in the cities and the lack of recreational facilities for children to romp and play, as well as the lack of parking facilities. I can only conclude that most of these problems are man-made. Too many of our experts, too many of our planners and too many Ottawa bureaucrats tend to take European and United States experience as gospel. They continually point to the United States for reasons why we in Canada cannot do this or that, to prove that we in Canada are bound by the experience of others and subject to their lead.
Surely, in seeking to fulfil our national destiny we can do better than copy the United States, or anyone else for that matter. There is no reason under the sun why we should be bound by what has happened to others or by what others are doing in seeking to develop our own separate and distinctive national life. Let us innovate, not duplicate. We are different in history, in our economy and, above all, in our geography. Let us use the advantages these differences confer upon us. Let us do our own "thing" regardlessi of others. We have the land, we have the distribution of population, and we have the economic set up to make an ideal mixture of rural and urban life. All we have to do is to make up our minds to undertake the job.
I have serious misgivings about the concept of bigness in this country. I wonder where it may lead us if the trend is not averted. This is the challenge to the minister of this new department. I hope he will give consideration to some of the points which I have raised. I hope also that his department will provide the necessary leadership and incentives to give all Canadians in rural and urban areas the opportunity to share in the wealth of Canada, the results of which will make this
March 20, 19G9	COMMONS
country a healthier and happier nation for all Canadians from sea to sea.


Mr. Forest:: Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt the proceedings to move a motion to extend the sitting of this committee beyond the ordinary hour of adjournment?


James Hugh Faulkner: Pursuant to paragraph (5) (a) of standing order 6 these proceedings are interrupted in order to allow the parliamentary secretary to move the extension of this day's sitting.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Yves Forest: I move, pursuant to paragraph (5) (a) of standing order 6:
That this sitting be continued until midnight this day for the purpose of continuing consideration of Bill C-173.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Bell:: You are trying to kill our staff.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will those members who object to the motion please rise.
And more than ten having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The house will now resume, in committee, the business which was interrupted.



GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-173, respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters relating	thereto-Mr.	Trudeau-Mr. Faulkner in the chair.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Mr. Lalulippe:: It is with pleasure, Mr. Chairman, that I participate in this debate. In fact Bill C-173 is made up of several clauses and it is intended to establish a Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
DEBATES	6933
Government Organization
Mr. Chairman, it is the government's responsibility to exercise its powers in the best interests of the people.
This bill includes several good points, but the Minister will not be able to realize some of them because the Canadian sources of capital supplies will not be adequate and this will be the case for capital investments by foreign countries. This bill does not provide for the creation, by the government, of adequate capital resources to effect what is physically possible and to realize what is possible and feasible from the physical but not from the financial viewpoint. This is what the Minister will come up against.
The Minister is given a spring with only a trickle of water. He is granted a certain amount of money and when that amount is spent, the spring will have dried up.
The underdeveloped regions will remain underdeveloped because the means of development will be missing and because the spring will have been diverted from its course. Whatever little capital is left will be taken away for other purposes, as well as the few drops from the stream; this will greatly reduce the activity in the economic field.
The field of activities devolved to the Minister is the development of economically weak regions in Canada and goodness knows there is quite a bit of them.
I would like to tell him about my region, one of the first regions to be settled in Canada. At one time, it was prosperous; today, it is going bankrupt, and people are leaving in droves. What is the cause of such a situation? The present system.
It is a fact that the old political parties, the key administrators, the key economists who know it all, who have all the answers but who solve nothing, who drive us deeper into debt, are the ones to blame. The minister will not be able to achieve any economic regional development without getting us deeper into debt.
Some 410 million dollars worth of bonds have matured. That is an old debt, and we are not told when it was incurred nor whether those bonds were sold. We are told that they are payable and redeemable now and that we do not have the money for this purpose. More money must be borrowed at the new interest rate and this leads to new taxes and to new problems for the population and for the regions that are already overburdened, overtaxed and that will continue to be taxed in order to protect capital and bonds which we will have to pay for until Doomsday. We pay
March 20, 1969

Government Organization the interest, so those bonds could already have been reimbursed three or four times.
This bill does not make any provision whatever to deal with this problem. That is where the minister will find himself in hot water. That will hinder his efforts and his work. Apparently, he is in good health and his intentions are of the best. We have confidence in him, we know that he can do his job and this pleases us. We admire his ability but we know that he will find himself in conflict with financial interests. However, no member of the other parties wishes to solve the financial problem.
It seems all members favour this kind of debenture redemption. Some of them mature every two or three months. The increase of capital and of interests contribute to widen the gap between the wealthy and the poor. The minister wants to correct this situation. If this situation is to be corrected the other situation must also be corrected. However, the government does not intend to do so.
Those great economists of ours are not in favour of this. Since they have invested capital in debentures, they think it is a splendid idea to increase the interest rate and to create everlasting debts, while they may lead the life of Riley. Once those debentures have been issued by those institutions, interest has to be paid for 30, 40, 50 years, practically forever. Those debentures bring high profits and are renewed periodically at a higher and higher interest rate, and this brings about our economic stagnation. I do not think there are two members on the government side who could prove me wrong. Not one of them has ever stood up and denounced this system.


Albert Béchard: Order. I shall ask the hon. member to address himself to the Bill before us. Part IV of Bill C-173 deals with the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and I shall ask the hon. member to save his remarks for another bill which will be brought forward later by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson).


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Chairman, before trying to speak about economy, one must be able to finance the economy. And if we cannot speak about finance, let us not speak about economy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Chairman, I shall draw your attention to the fact that I have not been elected here out of charity. It is not out of charity that I am here. I have been elected

by the people, I am discharging the responsibilities they entrusted to me and you will not prevent me from doing so. I hope I made it clear to you.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mind my word. If I never told you before, I am telling you now.
Mr. Chairman, to come back to the bill under study, I say to the minister that we will vote for the bill although we are sure that in spite of his good intentions he will not achieve his goal.
That is the point I should like to develop. We are not against the bill. It is better for us to get that than nothing at all, but we know this will not solve the problem.
We know that the industries in my area which are supplying other manufacturers are now closing down, that 70 per cent of the farmers have left their farms in the last ten years.
I ask the minister to tell us what will he be able to do to coax them back to the farm? How will he settle the problem?
Plants with 250 employees, and others with 50 or 60 employees, are closing down. For ininstance, the town of Scotstown, formerly had a population of 5,000 people of which 350 worked for a local industry which went out of business about ten years ago. Today the population has dwindled to 1,500; they have been left with debts of all kinds: municipal, school, vestry-board, etc. The people are head over heels in debt because the town at one time was prosperous but has now become rundown, a dead town, a ghost-town where properties that used to be worth $25,000 are now up for sale for $2,000 and $3,000. The situation is sad indeed now. That is why I ask the minister to include our area amongst the designated areas. Ours is one of the oldest areas and also one of the less prosperous, and the most affected in the whole of Canada. It is located in the eastern townships, and yet I know other areas in Canada which are like mine.
The minister therefore has a lot to do. He knows full well that although the engineers, the scientists, the material and equipment are available for carrying out his plans materially, for lack of capital they are financially impossible.
Some hon Members: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Henry P. Latulippe: To operate the economy of a country, Mr. Chairman, you need resources.
March 20, 1969	COMMONS
If we lack money at all times, how can we expect the economy to operate properly? If you drive out in your car and then going up the hill you run out of gas, you have to get out and walk perhaps ten miles to get gas, which is hardly advantageous.
This is what happens in our present economic system. The economic, financial machine lacks the necessary fuel to make the engine run.
The purpose of the bill under consideration is to establish various industries. The purpose of the industry is to produce as much as possible with the least possible effort and not to create manpower. Today the industry wants to use to a maximum scientific, technical and mechanical means but this is not a way to create jobs. The needs of the people remain unfulfilled. It is not necessary to administer in terms of machinery and science but rather in terms of the human person who has needs within the family.
Therefore, this bill should provide a plan which would guarantee an income to every citizen who has the right to live. Canada produces enough to feed five times as many people as we have now. What every citizen needs then is a guaranteed income and an adequate purchasing power to keep industry going. They want to create industries but the purpose of this bill is to get our products to markets abroad. We are going to sell the best of what we have and we Canadians, who are not very wise, will content ourselves with what remains. Such is the purpose of the bill under consideration now.
Let the government promote the investment of foreign capital in our country, yes. We want some of that capital, but it will never contribute to the development of Canada, it will never make it possible for Canadians to own their own land, homes, industries, natural resources, in brief, they will always be nothing but tenants.
But Mr. Chairman, I should like to tell the minister that if foreign capital is to establish itself in Canada, I would like to know why our national agency should not issue the same credits on the same guarantees.
Such is, Mr. Chairman, one of the solutions we could offer. If the minister had opened his eyes a little more, he could have offered a solution similar to that provided in the bill. We could then find sources of supply and say one of these days that Canadians can own something, that they will not always be only drawers of water.
DEBATES	6935
Government Organization
Mr. Chairman, I would have much to say on this bill but I would rather ask the minister what he intends to do to develop that tremendous economic activity. Where will he get the money to so? Will it take fifty, a hundred or two hundred years to materialize? It has been said that about $130 million were made available to the minister to get that agency going. But it is merely a drop in the ocean. We will not go far with $130 million far all Canada. The minister said that everything has to be done, and that there were lots of fields where development could take place.
We hear about the development of the tourist industry, and of all kinds of things but the tourist industry is not a solution to all our ills, to all our problems.
It may be an answer though I cannot see why, in order to attract tourists, one should borrow money at a 10 per cent rate of interest then pay it back practically every eight years in the form of interests, thus remaining indefinitely in debt and paying higher taxes.
If the tourist industry were run that way, we would get the same results as in all the other sectors of our economy.
We have to finance regional disparities. If we prove unable to appropriately combine public and private investments, we are doomed to failure. In fact, we go on borrowing capital at extravagant rates and we strangle the taxpayers for the sake of development.
A moment ago, the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Gendron) told us that the Creditistes suggest all kinds of answers and go on repeating over and over again that once war is declared everything becomes possible. He added that we forget to say that you then have to get indebted, to borrow money at frightful rates of interests1 which strangle the people.
As for those bonds, worth $410 million, they are war bonds, I believe. They are always renewable at current rates.
Mr. Chairman, we are not advocating war; we just say that war should not be waged for the sake of profit. Wars should be waged with capital hearing interest according to management costs only. The same should apply to the development of the public sector and the Canadian economy.
The new department should not be concerned with making money. Then, Mr. Chairman, we could get out of the ditch and do
March 20, 1969

Government Organization something to improve and balance our economy. The more we play with the present systems, and the more we set up bodies such as this one, the more we upset our economy. We shall never be able to balance it with the means available to us now. Those means are old-fashioned, obsolete; they are applied in every country and always lead to the same results, that is bankruptcy, new increases in taxes. They lead to disaster because the people become discouraged, because the workers no longer wants to work, their tax burden being too heavy.
We can increase the production of the country, by using Canadian capital with Canadian guarantees, the same that we give abroad. That is how we can again become the owners of our heritage, of our industries. At the present time, we can hardly operate our industries, especially the small ones. There are awful problems. Two or three accountants are needed just to keep books for the government. And the government does not pay for that.
In our economic system, the citizens are unable to pay because their taxes are too high.


Albert Béchard: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time is up. Will the committee agree to allow him to continue his speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Henry P. Latulippe: 
Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Chairman, I am still under the shock of my hon. friend's speech. I do not know whether to rejoice at his eloquence or shudder at the gloomy picture he has conjured up for us.
March 20, 1969

In any case, I feel I represent a "have-not" area in many ways, but rich nevertheless in the burning desire of my fellow-citizens to co-operate with the government in finding permanent solutions to their problems.
I am happy to see that the hon. minister has been given the responsibility of the new Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
I believe he is highly qualified for the job and I want to tell him at this point that he can count on my full support and co-operation. As ill-luck would have it, I did not get to hear the minister's speech this afternoon, but I will make it a point to read his remarks in tomorrow's Hansard.
Mr. Chairman, I am not an expert in matters of regional economic expansion, yet I would like to make some comments on the subject.
I am not pessimistic by nature either, and moreover I am very patient when long term solutions have to be found in order to settle, if not for ever, at least for some time, our problems of regional disparities.
When one speaks of the plans of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, one thinks at once of the confrontation of ideologies that might occur between the federal government, on the one hand, and regional governments or a provincial government, on the other hand.
I submit that a conflict may arise in some cases between the priority needs of a given province and the solutions proposed by the federal government in order to help a province put its economy back on its feet.
I do not know who will have a right of priority in both cases but I am convinced that we must co-operate with the utmost common sense. As for me, I am satisfied with the co-operation from the Atlantic provinces in connection with the proposals made by the federal government so far.
However, one point worries me. To work out those plans, federal officials will be used and at times I doubt that some of them understand our regional problems. As a matter of principle, I find it hard to admit that someone who has always lived in the central provinces, who has studied there, who has found his theories there, may find possible solutions to problems of regional disparities and bring a valuable contribution to the solution of regional problems. However, I give them the benefit of the doubt.
But, in my opinion, what is essential is that governments make allowances for ideas and proposals from the people we want to help.

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion For some time we have been hearing about participatory democracy.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it ten o'clock?


Albert Béchard: Order, please. It being ten o'clock, it is my duty to rise and report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Drury:: I think as a consequence, Mr. Speaker, of the progress or lack of progress we have made on this bill the order of business tomorrow will be altered. We will continue with this bill, followed by the Superannuation Act and the Financial Administration Act.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)

Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago on orders of the day I sought to raise the following question:
Is consideration being given to the suggestion of a national body, the Canadian Catholic Conference, that 10 per cent of Canada's armaments expenditures be spent instead on such peace efforts as the provision of food for under-developed countries?
At that time Mr. Speaker ruled the question out of order and I have taken the opportunity tonight to try to raise it again. In the few moments at my disposal, I wish to put some statistics on the record in support of the basis for the question.
As we know, Mr. Speaker, the great producing powers of the world are teetering on a balance of terror with regard to defence expenditures, without very much hope that present vast expenditures on mutual destruction can be reduced. According to the United
March 20, 1969

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Nations Arms Control and Disarmament Agency the current cost to the world of armaments is $182 billion a year. The United States alone spends $80 billion every 12 months. Between NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries 90 per cent of the world's armament expenditures is incurred.
The total arms bill of the world is equal to three times the world's spending on public health, and is 40 per cent more than the world's spending on education. It represents $53 for every man, woman and child in the world and, as hon. members well realize, in some countries $53 is often the difference between life and death.
As pointed out in the letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) from the Canadian Catholic Conference:
Some members oi your government have begun to compare Canada's high level oi defence expenditures to the relatively low level of foreign assistance. This ratio is now nearly six to one ... One interesting suggestion, for example, proposed that for a start Canada might transfer 10 per cent from her defence budget to development projects.
In my opinion, no country in the world from the point of view of history, geography and economics is more favourably situated than Canada to give leadership to the world on this serious issue of armaments as against peace expenditures. A 10 per cent reduction would mean very little difference in Canada's defence strength in this nuclear age, but it would mean a great deal of difference in the respect of the world for Canada 'and the defence of the world itself, because this would be constructive spending for peace, spending on food and medicine for other countries1. I urge that the government give serious consideration to this 10 per cent proposal, 10 per cent less for defence in the armements sense, and 10 per cent more for peace in the sense of spending to help the hungry and the sick people of other countries.


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, there is no way, of course, that I can undertake to the house that this government intends to transfer any specific part of its revenues from one task to another. Nor, I should say, is there necessarily anything meaningful about statistical comparisons. There are any number of methods of computing defence budgets just as there are a number of ways of calculating sums spent on economic assistance programs. Even the technique employed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development offers suitable scope for variation among reporting countries.

I welcome the opportunity, however, to reaffirm to the house the conviction of the government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that one of the foremost problems in the world today is that of the spread of economic standards as between the rich nations and the poor nations. One of the priorities of this government, and the governments of all of the industrial nations of the earth, must be the raising of the standard of living of the two thirds of the human race who live in conditions of abject poverty. Should the expectations of the persons of the so-called "third world" not be fulfilled, then the latter part of this century is likely to be a most unsettled one.
The government is continuing and indeed increasing its participation in the Colombo Plan, and in a variety of other assistance programs of which the house is aware. The Government is as well taking a serious interest in the affairs of U.N.C.T.A.D., United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, in the belief that the long range solution to the economic difficulties of all nations, both developed and developing, is a world in which international trade plays a major role. Only when the developing countries are able to sell their goods abroad will their economies attain the self-generating stage.
In conclusion, may I say that the aim of Canada's economic assistance programs is to assist the developing countries to achieve a high degree of economic independence. They are not intended as a mere palliative or food give-away program. We help in these ways in emergencies, but much prefer to assist the countries to grow their own food, manufacture their own goods and harness their own resources. This is our aim and is one which I am sure all Canadians support.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS-LUMBER

Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I opened the can of worms with regard to lumber prices. Regrettably, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) was the only appropriate minister in the house at the time to which to pop the question. I had actually intended to direct the question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) in his capacity as minister primarily concerned with housing. I see that, unfortunately, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has taken the ball back in this regard. I am sorry to have imposed' on either him or his minister in this regard because I do not really believe there is any
March 20, 19G9

reason to speculate that activities in this market area should be subjected to scrutiny by the combines investigation branch.
The fact remains, however, that price changes in the lumber industry over the past year or over the past few months have been little short of monumental. The figures which I shall quote here have been taken from actual invoices which I have obtained from contractors in Calgary whom I believe to be in a position of driving the best bargain that is available in this particular market. I shall not cite all these prices by any means. I believe a few will illustrate my point. Fir lumber in the dimensions of 2 inches by 4 inches by 16 feet was invoiced on February 20, 1968 at $124.75 a thousand board feet. On March 12, 1969 it was invoiced at $177. This is an increase of 41.8 per cent. Then, 2 inch by 6 inch by 14 foot fir was invoiced on March 27, 1968 at $118 a thousand board feet. On February 24 it was selling at $175 a thousand. This is an increase of 48.4 per cent. Fir sheathing, which is used on the sides of a house, increased in price over 20 per cent between August 1968 and March 1969. Some specific items have increased in amounts over 100 per cent. For example, grade 2 shingles have increased 135 per cent over what they were a year ago. There are many other examples.
These examples are typical of what seems to have occurred in the industry. I might quote directly from a letter from a building supply company in Calgary to its customers. Usually, they send out price lists but recently they have been sending out the following notice:
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
Due to present shortages and the price fluctuation of lumber and plywood, which may continue for some time, we are unable to furnish you with our normal price list.
However, we will be pleased to quote prices for immediate delivery from our stocks on hand.
The situation in the industry is little short of disastrous from the housing point of view, and certainly it is undermining the entire construction industry. The price changes in the last year have been such that there has been an increase of about $800 to $1,000 on the cost of a $20,000 house.
The feelings of the home buyer and of the contractor are not particularly alleviated by the following information published in the Financial Times issue of March 10, 1969:
The forest products companies, particularly the west coast operators, had a bountiful fourth quarter
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
with profit increases averaging 61 per cent following a decline of 32 per cent in the previous nine months.
The whole problem is one that is really continental or world wide. I think it is attributable to the pressures of the export market. The fact is that 75 per cent of our lumber is exported from Vancouver market and 25 per cent is used domestically. Supplies have been far outstripped by demand. It is a very serious matter. As a matter of fact, yesterday the housing subcommittee of the senate committee on banking and finance in the United States, under Senator Sparkman of Alabama, commenced sittings on the lumber situation as a result of requests made by the National Association of Homebuilders.
We are in a steadily worsening crisis with regard to the prices and supply of forest products. This is having a disastrous inflationary effect on the stability of the construction industry generally. The pain is not assuaged by the knowledge that profits in the manufacturing segment of this industry have increased greatly, as did those in wholesale distribution.
We have a problem here that is of immediate concern to the nation. We want our export trade,-it is important to us-but there is a recognized crisis in housing. Somehow or other we have to achieve a balance between our export prices on the one hand and the legitimate needs and requirements of the construction industry generally and housing in particular. I respectfully submit that some very top level governmental action is indicated to investigate the current situation.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer), I welcome this opportunity to reply to the question of the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney). I appreciate the concern of the hon. member about the recent increased cost of lumber in Canada which apparently is also a problem and a matter of concern in the United States. The report of the task force on housing and urban development evidently contained a statement of the problem of the cost of building materials but it did not comment specifically on the recent increase in the cost of lumber. It appears the increase in lumber prices has occurred especially in the last few months and is evident in more than one province. It should be noted that in the last year or two we have experienced in Canada, as has the United States recently, a
March 20, 1969

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion great upsurge in house construction. There has, therefore, been an exceptional demand for all building materials, including lumber.
It should also be borne in mind that in the last decade lumber prices have been depressed in relation to the upward or inflationary trends in the price of labour, land, financing and other building costs. I assure the hon. member that the Minister of Transport in charge of housing is most concerned about
this problem. It is anticipated that whatever action can be taken by all the sectors involved to deal with the rising prices of building materials, including lumber, will be taken. I also assure the hon. member that I shall bring his remarks to the attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) who is in charge of federal housing policies.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.18 p.m.

Friday, March 21, 1969