1969-06-26

Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before we proceed further I call on hon. members to have in mind what I said to the house a while ago about the type of demonstration which we have just experienced. I suggest that hon. members should co-operate with the Chair and with the house generally in this regard.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I notice, as you have also noted, that the members of the New Democratic party have put flowers on a desk because they won the election in Manitoba.
I should like to draw the attention of the house to the fact that we hold the balance of power in Manitoba.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the flowers ought to be kept on the hon. member's desk. I suggest that they should be removed from the house.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Ninth report of Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence-Mr. Wahn.
Fifth report of Standing Committee on Public Accounts-Mr. Hales.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Philip G. Givens (York West) presented the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Ovide Laflamme (Montmorency) presented the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, in French and in English, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
[Editor's Note: Text of joregoing reports appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as you and hon. members will note, the royal commissioners have expressed dissatisfaction with several security methods and procedures, and have recommended certain organizational changes and improvements. The most significant of these is for the establishment of a new civilian non-police agency to perform the functions of a security service in Canada. The commissioners suggest that this agency would eventually be quite separate from the R.C.M.P., and would not have law enforcement powers, although it would operate in close liaison with the R.C.M.P. and other police forces.
They base their proposal in large part on their conclusion that there are wide differences between police and security duties, and that these differences "should be reflected in recruiting methods, in training and career patterns, and in organizational structures." They also concluded that, although it was almost impossible to measure the effectiveness of a security service, particularly in the important fields of counter-espionage and counter-subversion, the effectiveness of procedures for the security investigation of persons appeared to be capable of improvement.
Further, the commissioners considered that the association of the security function with the police role tended to make the work of the security authorities more difficult, and that "inquiries by civilians in connection with the security clearance of personnel would be regarded with more understanding than are inquiries by policemen."
After careful study of the considerations put forward by the commissioners in support of their recommendation, we have come to the conclusion that current and foreseeable security problems in Canada can be better dealt with within the R.C.M.P. through appropriate modifications in their existing structure than by attempting to create a wholly new and separate service.
We are keenly aware that the R.C.M.P. are one of the most honoured and respected of Canadian institutions. The force has come to be recognized as one of the finest national police forces in the world, whose members, as the commissioners rightly state, are "carefully selected, highly motivated, and of great
June 26, 1969	COMMONS
integrity." The government also recognizes that no organization is perfect, and that there is some validity in the view of the royal commissioners that some basic differences do exist between police and security duties, by their very nature.
It is therefore the government's intention, with the full understanding of the R.C.M.P., to ensure that the Directorate of Security and Intelligence will grow and develop as a distinct and identifiable element within the basic structure of the force, and will be more responsive, in its composition and character, to the national security requirements described by the commissioners. The basic aim will be to develop the security service so as to draw on the police services for personnel of suitable qualifications and character, and to retain administrative, research, documentation and other services in common with them. The security service, under the Commissioner of the R.C.M.P., will be increasingly separate in structure and civilian in nature.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
New and more flexible policies in relation to recruiting, training, career planning and operations will be calculated to ensure that Canada's security service will be capable of dealing fairly and effectively with the new and complex security problems which we will undoubtedly face in the future, and also to ensure that it clearly reflects the nature of our cultural heritage. Under the new arrangements it will be possible, for example, for an increasing number of university graduates from all parts of Canada to join the Directorate in a civilian capacity and to aspire to positions at the top of that organization, thereby making the kind of contribution referred to by the commissioners. Nothing in the proposed changes will unfairly prejudice the career expectations of people already in the service.
Some of the comments in the report which refer to the R.C.M.P. are more properly directed at aspects of government policy. We intend to keep under review our basic policies and procedures in relation to security, as the commissioners have recommended. The establishment of the Department of the Solicitor General in 1966 was a major step in this direction. Further advances have been made since that time in improving the efficiency of the R.C.M.P., even though they have not been overly publicized. I do not propose to describe these advances in detail, except to say
Statement by Prime Minister on Security that they represent a careful and methodical build-up of modern technical facilities directed toward the detection and prevention of large scale organized crime, as well as the provision of information which the government requires in order to ensure the security and integrity of the state. This latter is one of the major and most difficult duties of any democratic government. It is one which, perhaps more than any other, requires public reassurance that the measures taken in its discharge are not of a character which could infringe the basic rights of individuals or be damaging to their careers and reputations.
For this reason, Mr. Speaker, the government, after careful consideration, has decided to accept the commissioners' recommendation for the establishment of a Security Review Board. Full details of the scope, character and operation of the board are still under consideration and these may differ in some respects from the commission's recommendations. Hon. members wifi recall that in 1967 provision was made, by amendments to the Financial Administration Act, for public employees subject to dismissal on security grounds to be given an opportunity to be heard by an independent person at a formal inquiry. The commissioners suggest a broader system of review of the decisions of departments, which would-
-preserve the requirement for governmental responsibility and decision, give adequate protection to sensitive information and sources, yet provide a reasonably effective safeguard against arbitrary, hasty or ill-considered judgments, and perhaps also avoid the necessity of ad hoc inquiries into individual cases.
It is their opinion that such a system of review might be required in the three areas of employment, immigration and citizenship. The three basic principles which they would apply are: first, that the individuals concerned be given as many details as possible of the factors which have entered into the decisions; second, that the decisions of the Review Board could only be advisory; and third, that the importance of expertise and understanding in security matters is such that the same board should review contentious decisions in all of the three areas.
With these basic principles the government agrees. They were, in fact, the guiding principles in the establishment of review procedures for dismissals on security grounds devised by the government under Prime Minister Pearson, and announced in this house on October 25, 1963. I must say that those procedures appear to have worked well
10638	COMMONS DEBATES	June 26, 1969
Statement by Prime Minister on Security in the intervening years, not because they have been often called upon, but because their very existence has caused departments and agencies of government to examine with much greater care those cases in which dismissal on security grounds might have seemed desirable, to have taken the subject into their confidence to a much greater degree than in the past, and on the whole to have been able to resolve such cases to the satisfaction of both employer and employee.
Nevertheless, the members of the Royal Commission on Security have recommended a broader, and somewhat more formal, system of review of cases involving not only possible dismissal on security grounds, but also transfers, denial of promotion, apparent inhibition of career prospects, refusal to admit sponsored or nominated immigrants to Canada, or the refusal of applicants for Canadian citizenship, all on security grounds. The advice of the board in any given case together with its recommendations or comments, would be given to the Governor in Council and the minister concerned. By implication, the final decision would remain with the Governor in Council or the minister concerned. A brief record of the board's "decision" would also be communicated to the individual concerned.
As I have said, the government is carefully considering the details of this proposal, not only in relation to the further safeguarding of the rights of individual Canadians, but also in the context of existing legislation which was intended to provide similar safeguards. It is also being considered in relation to one of the concepts most basic to our form of government, that of ministerial responsibility. When these studies have been completed, it is my intention to make quite clear to parliament and to the public the form of review procedures which will be adopted in line with the three principles set out by the commissioners, and taking into account the legislation which has been passed by this parliament to provide assurances of fair treatment for the individual members of our society.
The commissioners also proposed that the Security Review Board receive and consider annual or semi-annual reports from the head of the security service, and have authority to draw to the direct attention of the Prime Minister any matters it considers appropriate. The government does not find itself in agreement with this proposal.
On the subject of industrial security, the government has noted the suggestion of the commissioners that the function might be

allocated to the Department of National Defence or, if that were considered impracticable, the Department of Defence Production-now the Department of Supply and Services-should continue to take steps to improve the performance of this important function. Many such steps have been taken in recent months, and it is the considered view of both departments concerned, and that of the government generally, that this task should continue to be the responsibility of the organization most directly affected, the Department of Supply and Services.

Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to indicate at this time what the government's response to the many other recommendations of the royal commission will be, except to say that they will all be closely and positively studied with a view to continuous improvement of our security methods and procedures. The views of hon. members and of the public generally on the report of the royal commission will be of great interest and assistance to us in arriving at sound and acceptable decisions in this difficult field. It is our intention to consult with the leaders of the opposition parties to determine how the report might best be made the subject of parliamentary debate during the next session.
In conclusion I should like to say that the royal commissioners have pointed up, and have helpfully recommended upon, a number of apparent inadequacies in our past and present security methods and procedures. I am reassured, as I am sure most Canadians will be, that they have not found any evidence that, since the revelations of 1945, Canada has been responsible for any serious loss of her own or allied security information.
I trust that this report, and the fact of its publication in such detail, will be regarded as an earnest of our continued determination to grow as a strong and free country committed to democratic principles.


Hon. Roberi L. Sianfield (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in case you are nervous, I assure you I will not be as long as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) but I do want to thank him for a very full statement in connection with this report, for which we have all waited quite a long time. I want to thank him also for his courtesy in letting me have a copy of his statement and an abridged report in advance.
June 26, 1969	COMMONS
I look forward with the Prime Minister to an opportunity at the next session for a more full discussion of the recommendations of the royal commission. I join him in expressing our appreciation to the commissioners for working so conscientiously and so well in such a difficult area as this area of security.
The Prime Minister has not indicated what the attitude of the government will be towards all the recommendations of the royal commission, and on several important recommendations he has indicated the government has substantial reservations. For example, it is clear that the government does not accept the proposal that there is to be established a new non-police agency to perform the functions of a security service in Canada. The Prime Minister hopes to realize the advantages the royal commission sees in this proposal by making appropriate modifications to the structure of the R.C.M.P. I might have some doubts as to whether the mounted police, as it is presently constituted and organized, lends itself very readily to the sort of modifications to which the Prime Minister refers.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
My initial reaction might be that we are more interested in considering the proposal for a special agency, though I can see certain difficulties in this regard. But I look forward to hearing a further explanation in the house by the government when we have our discussion, presumably in the fall. In the meantime, there will be an opportunity for further consideration and discussion throughout the country.
Another recommendation is that the Security Review Board receive and consider periodic reports from the head of the security service and have authority to draw to the direct attention of the Prime Minister any matters it considers appropriate. The government in effect seems to reject this proposal. Personally, I would be inclined to favour the recommendation that would require the head of the security service to report periodically to the review board. However, this is also something that can be discussed further.
I gather that the government has also withheld judgment on the proposal that a quite wide variety of decisions, including transfers, denial of promotion, and citizenship and immigration decisions made for security reasons, be made subject to review by the proposed review board. I think this is a quite important recommendation. I can appreciate
Statement by Prime Minister on Security that it requires extensive study to work out a practical method to give effect to it. I should have liked to hear the Prime Minister endorse it, at least in principle, today. I hope he will deal with it more fully when we next have an opportunity to discuss it.
It is interesting to recall that what gave rise to the appointment of the Royal Commission several years ago was not any evidence that our security apparatus as such was inadequate or ineffective, but it was an incident which raised questions as to how surely the rights of Canadians are safeguarded in the process. At one point in his statement the Prime Minister mentioned "one of the concepts most basic to our form of government, that of ministerial responsibility". The fact is that on matters relating to our national security, parliament has always accepted some considerable limit on its right to demand information and full disclosure by the government. So far as any of us know, the security apparatus and procedures of our country over the years-at least since 1945-have been effective. The Prime Minister referred to this today. The Royal Commission has not found any evidence to the contrary.
We all have an interest in maintaining the effectiveness of the security operation at a high level. At the same time, parliament will want to insist on assurances that the security operation, much of which must be carried on outside the purview of parliament, is conducted with extreme care for fairness and common sense. We would therefore, at this stage at least, welcome the Security Review Board, the clarification of security regulations and other initiatives that would strengthen the security of the state and reinforce the protection of the individual.
I am sure that members of parliament accept the necessity that much of the security operation is conducted outside our purview. What would be cause for grave concern would be any thought that much of the operation is beyond the ken of the ministry or the Prime Minister; that there are not ministers, elective and responsible members of government, to whom the entire security operation is an open book, who have continuing access to everything that is going on in that area, and who give proper, responsible, political, civilian direction to the operation on a continuing basis. None of us would want to see a security operation in this country running under its own steam and answerable only to itself-a government, so to speak, within the government. The very decision as to what affects security and what does not, what must
10640	COMMONS
Statement by Prime Minister on Security be secret and what public, is finally a matter of political decision and judgment. The effective supremacy of the civilian authority must never be compromised in this matter.
I welcome the spirit as expressed in the statement of the Prime Minister. I assure him and the house that we share the sense of importance that he attaches to all questions of national security and individual rights raised by the presentation of this report. I look forward to giving fuller and further consideration to the report, and to a more detailed consideration of it when we next have an opportunity to do so, presumably in the fall.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to express my thanks to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for his courtesy in making a copy of his statement and a copy of the abridged report of the Royal Commission on Security available to me. I have not had a chance to study it in great detail,, because some interesting events have intervened which have taken my mind off the report.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But I have had an opportunity to examine the recommendations contained in the report. I commend the government for deciding to make the report public, even in its abridged form. I think there would have been a good deal of misunderstanding and even some suspicion had the government not made the report public. I believe they made a wise decision in the action they have taken.
We all recognize that dealing with the matter of security is a very difficult one indeed because there are two basic principles which must be reconciled. The task of parliament, and certainly the task of the government, is to find a balance between these two principles. The first principle, of course, is that the government is charged with the responsibility of maintaining the security and integrity of the state against subversion, and any efforts on the part of those who seek to change our society by resorting to force. We all recognize that if the democratic process is to survive we must take steps to prevent any person or group of persons in our country, or any who are sent from outside the country, trying to bring about changes in our society by resorting to violence. But against that lies another fundamental principle, that we must guarantee the rights of the individual so that under the guise of security no person can receive 
DEBATES	June 26. 1969
unfair treatment, can be tried by Star Chamber methods or be labelled as a security risk without an adequate opportunity to defend himself or herself. They must know the charges against them and have the due process of law applied to their particular case.
Certainly no one in this parliament wants to see any individual adversely affected on the basis of idle gossip or malicious reports that are completely unfounded, and have all of this done under the mask of national security. Of course, it was because instances like this did arise that the government agreed to set up the commission. I think the report has dealt very adequately with the situation.
There are a number of recommendations in the report. I am certainly not going to deal with them all and shall mention only two of them. First of all I refer to the recommendation of the royal commission that there be a civilian, non-police agency because, as they point out, there is a wide difference between police and security duties. Without any reflection whatsoever on the very excellent service the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have performed, there is a great difference between law enforcement and the carrying out of the duties of a security service. There is a difference in the type of training required, the form of recruitment and the structure of a police force, on the one hand, and a security agency on the other.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
I submit that it takes a certain degree of training and sophistication to recognize the difference between honest dissent and a desire to subvert our democratic form of society. Therefore, I think that the recommendation of the royal commission for the setting up of a civilian non-police agency has a great deal of merit, and I am extremely disappointed that the government has rejected this proposal out of hand. I hope that when discussions take place later the Prime Minister will give the reasons why this recommendation has been rejected. I would even venture to hope that the government might reconsider this decision because I think there is much to be said for having the kind of non-police agency which was recommended by the commission.
The second major recommendation is the setting up of a Security Review Board, and I cannot agree with the Prime Minister when he says that the present procedure has worked satisfactorily. I do not think it has
June 26, 1969	COMMONS
worked satisfactorily, because we know nothing about it. Persons who have appealed
Statement by Prime Minister on Security we shall be able to establish in Canada procedures whereby, while retaining the security and integrity of the state, we fully safeguard the rights of every Canadian citizen.
to it have not been able to have any access, other than to a committee of civil servants who are dealing with problems that have to do with other civil servants. Certainly the idea of having a Security Review Board outside the civil service and completely unbiased is, in my opinion, almost the only way that we can guarantee that those who are affected by these security measures will have adequate protection. Much will depend upon the personnel appointed, and much will depend upon the procedures which are set up by the government. It seems to me that those procedures have to include the right to counsel, and the right to know all the facts that have been gathered in condemnation of the person affected. They have the right to face their accusers and hear the accusations against them, and I submit that such a board of review should have what the commission recommended, namely the right to receive the annual reports of the intelligence and security branch of the R.C.M.P. and, above all, the right to draw any matter which disturbs them to the attention of the Prime Minister.
I am totally at a loss to understand why the Prime Minister rejected this proposal. It seems to me that if a Security Review Board is to have any value at all, it must have the right, when it comes across a circumstance which in the opinion of its members contravenes the right of an individual, to take that matter directly to the highest officer, the first minister of the Crown. I hope that the government will reconsider this matter.
In conclusion I should like to say that I hope the government will give particular consideration to the recommendations that are made with respect to immigration. There has been too much of an aura of secrecy cast around the whole question of immigration, and the reasons why some applicants have been rejected. The only reasons we have been given were that they are refused admission to Canada on security grounds. In many cases this has not been substantiated, and in some cases the grounds advanced seemed to be very weak indeed. I think that the recommendations of the royal commission in this regard are worthy of implementation, and I hope the government will see fit to do so.
We have looked forward to the discussion on this whole question which will take place in the next session, and we hope that as a result of the report of the royal commission


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for his courtesy in letting us have a copy of the report of the Royal Commission on Security, so that we could look into it. We have not had a chance to study this abridged version thoroughly, but it is fitting, I think, to congratulate the commissioners, Messrs. Mackenzie, Pratte and Cold-well, for the magnificent job they did in inquiring into the security of the state.
The Prime Minister indicated that "not all of the recommendations will be accepted, and that not all of these accepted will be implemented immediately, in whole or in part." That means that even if we discussed the Prime Minister's statement all afternoon, that would change nothing to the present situation. However, I deem it advisable to recall these remarks of the commissioners quoted by the Prime Minister:
"Canada remains the target of subversive or potentially subversive activities, attempts at infiltration and penetration, and espionage operations", and they emphasize that
"the duty of the state to protect its secrets from espionage, its information from unauthorized disclosure, its institutions from subversion and its policies from clandestine influence is indisputable; what are matters for dispute are the organizations and procedures established by the state to meet this responsibility in an area which can touch closely upon the fundamental freedoms of the individual."
Mr. Speaker, this report is quite useful to the people in general and to parliament in particular, since it leads to a better understanding of the security problems which come up both in the public service and in Canadian industry which have classified information. However, I was particularly struck by the lines I have just quoted:
-from clandestine influence . . what are matters for dispute are the organizations and procedures established-
Mr. Speaker, we must look at the situation as it is today. Having seen on TV what happened in the province of Quebec on St. Jean Baptiste Day, we wonder whether or not these people who more or less caused the St. Jean Baptiste Day celebrations to be a complete failure-and St. Jean Baptiste is the patron saint of all the French-Canadians-and those who were responsible for the cancellation of the invitations and for the unfortunate
10642	COMMONS
Statement by Prime Minister on Security incidents, respect the right of others. I wonder whether or not these people have been fair to those who were entitled to celebrate St. Jean Baptiste Day, in the province of Quebec in particular. Why is there such a climate in the Province of Quebec? It is because neither the federal nor the provincial government has taken any steps to prevent this situation.
When, supposedly to protect freedom of expression, everybody must listen to everybody else, when we open our doors to guys like Carmichael who came from the United States to foster revolution, or others from Europe with the same things in mind, we should not be surprised to see events take such a turn.
I believe it is time the government realized how important it is to stop those trouble makers and those who go to Cuba to get trained as revolutionaries, for instance Michel Char-trand, of Montreal, from entering Canada.
Mr. Speaker, according to the report, it is the duty of the government to ensure law and order. There is law, yes, but there is also order. The government must take its responsibilities so that order will prevail. We do not know what amendments to the report the government will make. We must wait. As soon as they are proposed, or a part of the report is submitted, we will examine them, not from a partisan point of view or for only a part of Canada, but keeping in mind the welfare of the entire Canadian population.
Mr. Speaker, order and security are threatened, as stated in the report, by a system which perhaps denies freedom and security to the citizens. We are living in a certain context where this year only 10 per cent of our young students will get a job, while 90 per cent will have no security of employment. Young people of 22 will have to ask their father, who is not too well off already, for 50 cents to buy cigarettes or tobacco.
In my opinion, those economic conditions must be improved if we want to improve the economic climate and the security of the Canadian people throughout Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by saying to the Prime Minister and to the government that reforms must be made to protect Canada against the intrusion of subersive ideologies. There is a way to fight efficiently against the partisans of such ideologies. Even if we were to use every police force in Canada-the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the Quebec Provincial Police-if we have an economic climate in which people are uneasy or cannot survive, that will not change anything.

DEBATES	June 26, 1969
Mr. Speaker, we are convinced that we have to bring forward basic economic reforms if we sincerely wish to establish in this country a climate of mutual confidence, in which young and old will be able to trust each other and to prevent subversion as we know it today in Canada.
Then, Mr. Speaker, we as parliamentarians will have saved the unity of Canada, and we will have given the world the example of a country which stands up and can generate understanding and agreement.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)



WAYS AND MEANS


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Presideni of ihe Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 60, subsection (2), I should like to ask that an order of the day be designated for the consideration tomorrow of the ways and means motions tabled by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) on June 3, 1969.


TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, further to the discussions which have taken place between the activists on the transport committee, and following yesterday's inquiries, I wonder whether the following might be made an order of the house:
That for the purpose of completing its inquiries into the problems of transportation in the Atlantic provinces, the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications be empowered to adjourn from place to place within eastern Canada, and the clerks and the necessary supporting staff be authorized to accompany the standing committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald). Is it so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether we could again have to try at No. 93
June 26, 1969



under government orders, which is the resolution that the report of the committee appointed September 8, 1965, to survey the organization and work of the Canadian Pension Commission, tabled on March 26, 1968, be referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. If there is unanimous agreement in the house I wonder if this could be made an order of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


COMMUNICATIONS
Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41, section (2),
I wish to table the nineteenth annual report of the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation, including its accounts and financial statements certified by the Auditor General, for the year ended March 31, 1969, pursuant to sections 22 and 23 (1) of the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Act, chapter 42, and sections 85 (3) and 87 (3) of the Financial Administration Act, chapter 116, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, may I make a correction in Hansard. It concerns the motion for concurrence in the main estimates for 1969-70. Throughout the brief report of the proceedings one member is reported as saying "On division", and that member is named. I think the house and the country should know that there were a great number of us who said "on division", at all stages of that proceeding.



MR. DIEFENBAKER-ALLEGED FAILURE TO SUPPLY COMPLETE INFORMATION IN ANSWER TO WRITTEN QUESTION

Mr. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising out of an answer given yesterday, as reported at page 10592, to question 2,379. The question asked for information on the expenditures that were made for storage
Inquiries of the Ministry of wheat in all the facilities for storage, month by month, since January 1, 1967. The answer given was that in the year 1966-67 the total amount was $29,583,000; the storage in 1967-68 cost $44,389,000. No answers was supplied in regard to the year 1968-69, although ten months of the year had passed.
I suggest that this question should be put back on the order paper, for the answer given by the Wheat Board is most evasive, to say the least. Indeed, one wonders whether the answer was given in that way in order to conceal the fabulous increase in storage during the last year owing to the loss of markets and other reasons.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege, could I draw attention to the final sentence of the answer, which reads:
The amount of storage costs incurred by the board on wheat in the 1968/69 crop year is not yet available.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I answer that immediately. The question was asked on May 27. I did not ask about the entire crop; I asked for the amount for this year, as of that date. The hon. gentleman's attempt to cover up the answer which was given does not help us to arrive at accurate figures.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development concerning the statement issued yesterday. Were the provinces or the Indian people asked in advance for their views on the specific proposal to transfer constitutional responsibility for Indian programs and services to the provinces? I am asking the minister about that specific proposal and about the degree to which agreement was sought before the proposal was made.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, our consultations with the Indian people

June 26, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry lasted for a whole year. We presented these proposals as part of a framework within which we believe that in the future the Indian people will be able to solve their problems with the assistance of the whole Canadian people.
This is a working document which was tabled so that it may be considered by the Indians and the federal as well as provincial governments.
We intend to undertake long discussions with the people concerned so as to find the procedure most appropriate under the circumstances.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I take it then that this is just a working proposal made for the purpose of discussion?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this is the direction the government wants to give the new policy concerning our first citizens.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the government a deadline with regard to the proposal to move out of the field of the provision of services to the Indian people? Has the minister been in official communication with the provincial governments about the proposed transfer, or has a date been set for a conference at which it might be possible to discuss the proposed transfer? Also, can the minister advise the house as to the date of such conference and whether representatives of the Indian people will be invited to attend?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I said yesterday it was our intention to discuss those proposals with the Indian people and with the provinces.
We intend, during the coming weeks, to meet with the provincial governments' representatives and with the Indian organizations' leaders in every province. I have already met some Indian people here and I will meet some others this afternoon.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since great concern has been expressed by the National Indian Brotherhood and since members of the brotherhood 
may wish to have their minds put at ease on the question, may I ask the minister what his intended timetable is? Is it the intention of the government to settle, first, treaty rights and land claims before abrogating its responsibility for Indians and turning those matters over to the provincial governments? It seems to me that this matter has been of concern to the Indian people. If the minister could give some assurance that the entire question of land claims and treaty rights will be dealt with first, and settled, I think the minds of the Indian people would be greatly set at ease.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we intend to appoint at an early date, a commissioner who will work in co-operation with the Indians in order to analyze the various claims, classify them and recommend to the government appropriate means of solving them. At the same time, we shall continue our consultations with the Indian people as well as with the provincial governments' representatives, so as to find an appropriate formula to extend provincial services to the Indians as well as to the other citizens.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the government intend to consult the Indians about the appointment of this commissioner and commission, so that they may have a commission which is working for their interests and not merely seeking their approval? May I also ask the minister-[DOT]


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The first part of the hon. member's question was in order and I think the hon. member should not be allowed to launch into a consecutive question until the minister has had a chance to reply to the first question.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, of course it is obvious that I shall broach the subject with the leaders of the Indian associations of Canada, but the appointment of a commissioner rests solely with the government which alone is authorized to appoint one.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the leaders of the National Indian Brotherhood have expressed the fear that this legislation, if implemented, will lead to Indian cultural
June 26, 1369

genocide, is the minister prepared to adopt a flexible approach to treaty rights and other controversial aspects of this matter?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, in the document we tabled yesterday in the house, it is clearly established that we want to allow the Indians to integrate socially and economically in our society, that we want to help them preserve their cultural heritage, which is part of the Canadian heritage.


Paul Yewchuk: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister undertake to meet immediately the executive of the Indian Association of Alberta which claims that this proposal was written in isolation from the Indian people?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I said that I intended to meet in coming weeks the various provincial authorities to discuss those proposals, and the province of Alberta is included in my itinerary.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In those cases where Indian people prefer not to change the present system, will they be allowed to continue living under present conditions, pending further consultation?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think there is no doubt that the Indians want to be first class citizens in our society, and we are going to discuss the most appropriate means to make that possible.


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary or related question to direct to the minister. Does the statement which terms aboriginal claims to land as being unrealistic and not capable of being dealt with specifically represent a fixed government policy, or is this merely an idea which has been put forward for discussion and negotiation with the Indian people?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this proposal has become part of the government's policy. The government acknowledges the legal rights of the Indians and the rights' derived
Inquiries of the Ministry from legal documents. As for the other rights, they are the same as those of the Canadian citizens.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister.
Would he tell the house why or for what purpose the government decided to send such important Canadian officials and members of the government, to the twelfth Canada-U.S. meeting? What is the purpose of that numerous delegation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, when I met President Nixon, a few months ago, we agreed to hold these meetings where several matters under the jurisdiction of several ministers and departments would be discussed. This is why there are, I understand, three ministers as well as the officials who assist them.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister assure the house that either the minister leading the delegation in Washington or one of the ministers with him will report to the house on the conversations now taking place when they return tomorrow?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs is leading the delegation. I will consult him to see whether he has anything to report which will have the approval of the opposition.


David Lewis: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Prime Minister inform the house now about the agenda of items being discussed? What subjects are our Canadian ministers talking about with members of the United States cabinet?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the general subjects were indicated by me to the house at the time I saw President Nixon a few months ago. They cover such general areas as trade, economic relations, certain specific commodities and so on. It will be up to the minister to decide how much of the discussions it is in the interests of the house to hear in his report. It will be up to the opposition to indicate once again if the trip was worth while.
1064S

June 26. 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has indicated he will ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to consider whether he has anything to report which will meet with the approval of the opposition. Will the Prime Minister also ask the minister to consider whether he has anything to report which will not meet with the approval of the opposition, which is more important?


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasl-ings):: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Were the following subjects on the agenda: the withdrawal of our forces from NATO, acceptance of deserters by Canada and the recognition of communist China?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We did not propose any of those subjects, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member's friends in the United States demand that they be put on the agenda, of course we will be willing to discuss them.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. As these meetings have always been held to smooth out possible rough spots between the two countries, would it not have been an excellent opportunity to explain our rather weak position on these matters to our confreres in the United States?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


NATIONAL CAPITAL
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion as the minister responsible for affairs in the national capital area. Having in mind the reported closure of certain waterways in the national capital area as the result of water pollution, will the minister try to expedite the correction of this condition as he outlined in his plans for the national capital area a week or two ago?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: This is something we are looking into, Mr. Speaker.


WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO ACCEPTANCE BY CANADA OF LOWER INTERNATIONAL PRICE
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the continuing absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture, is it convenient for the Prime Minister to inform

the house whether Canada is considering agreeing to lower the international price of wheat?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Responding for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Mr. Speaker, let me say that today is not a convenient day. However, I shall take note of this question, which will be answered at the earliest possible opportunity.


NATIONAL HOLIDAYS
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, following the enunciation of the program for the house for today and tomorrow, which would indicate we are going into next week, what is the government's attitude on whether the house will sit on Dominion Day?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, Dominion Day is not only a holiday for all Canadians but a holiday under the rules of the house. We intend to abide by the rules of the house.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that prices for finished steers have dropped 5 cents a pound or $5 a hundredweight on the live cattle market in western Canada, can the minister tell the house whether this reduction in price to the farmer has been reflected in prices to the consumer?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member the question as asked is argumentative.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to direct my question to the Postmaster General. Has he had time to study the very much criticized curtailment of Saturday wicket service in post offices across Canada? Is the minister now in a position to inform the house whether complete service will be restored?


Eric William Kierans: No, Mr. June 26, 1969	COMMONS
Speaker. As soon as a decision is made, I will be glad to inform the house.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the alarming statement by the minister that 72 per cent of the people of Canada needing medical care do not see a doctor, what provisions has he in mind to deal with this situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that the question is too wide in scope to be asked in this way during the question period. It might be placed on the order paper.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


MEDICARE-CHANGE IN POLICY RESPECTING INSURANCE COMPANIES PARTICIPATION
Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whii-by):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the importance of the recent decision of the government of Ontario to enter the national medicare plan, can the minister indicate whether there has been a change in federal government policy regarding the participation of insurance companies as carriers in the medicare plan?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking for a statement of policy which in my view is normally made on motions.


OLD AGE SECURITY
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister planning to introduce a supplementary estimate or whatever procedure is necessary to provide free drugs to those receiving the old age security supplement?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No, Mr. Speaker. There is provision under the Canada Assistance Plan for such assistance to those who need it.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: How many provinces have come under the Canada Assistance Plan?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Inquiries of the Ministry INDIAN AFFAIRS


TRANSFER TO COMMISSION OF MATTERS UNDER JURISDICTION OF EXCHEQUER COURT
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Certain cases are now being started in the Exchequer Court which have been pending for years because the Indians had neither the money nor counsel to prove their claims in relation to treaties and other land rights. Will those cases now be transferred to the commission which the minister is setting up and will the Indians have counsel to enable them to set out their rights properly?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing I can do about the Indians' own decisions. We will set up a commission to which they can, if they so desire, submit their representations. There will also be the sub-committee the Indians established in April which we trust will assist them in preparing the essential document to be presented on behalf of the Indians of Canada.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will there be provision giving Indians the right to transfer those cases from the Exchequer Court, where they cannot afford to litigate, so that their rights will be protected?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the commission will not be a court. It will be an investigating body, working jointly with the Indian National Committee on the rights and treaties of the Indians.


Mr. Paul Si. Pierre (Coast Chilcotin):: Can
the minister assure the house that a check will be made on the amount of fees charged when the government is paying them on behalf of the Indians?


PENSIONS
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs or the acting minister. In view of the appeal received from

June 26, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry the Naval Officers Association of Canada, what immediate steps can the government take to update to an adequate level the pension benefits of long service pensioners in Canada's fighting forces, and their wives and children?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: As acting minister, I will take note of the question and have an answer at the earliest possible opportunity.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Has the minister under formulation a statement of government policy or intention with respect to modification of the operation of unemployment insurance, which he might be able to give to the house prior to the recess? Also, would it assist the minister in such formulation if I were to send him two documents with 40 pages of signatures from the people of Campbell River expressing their dissatisfaction?


HOUSING
Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. It arises from his statement to a committee of the other place that he will announce by mid-July whether certain urban renewal projects are to be approved. Does the minister intend to follow the selective anti-inflationary policy of the budget involving 22 cities in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario in making his decisions?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that the question as asked is argumentative. If he is seeking information, the question might be asked in other terms.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, may I
rephrase my question to the minister in charge of housing. Will the urban renewal programs now being examined by him be affected by the recent budget proposals?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I will not specifically exclude or include them, but I will want to look at all relevant factors in making my decision.


FISHERIES
Mr. Rod Thomson (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) from Saskatoon I direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries. What action is the government considering, in view of the lower prices being paid for fish in Alberta under the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, my information is that the prices are higher this year, rather than lower.


WHEAT-EFFORTS TO SELL TO ARGENTINA
Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce I direct this question to the Prime Minister. Is he aware that Argentina has oversold its available wheat and is now in the market to purchase over seven million bushels? Further, is Canada making an effort to sell this amount of wheat to Argentina?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to take notice of this question on behalf of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


FINANCE
Mr. J. M. Forresfall (Darlmoulh-Halifax Easf):: Mr. Speaker, I direct this question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare or the Secretary of State. Is either gentleman in a position to advise the house what decision the government has arrived at respecting a grant to the Black United Front in Nova Scotia?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. member that the matter is under consideration by the government at the present time.


J. Michael Forrestall: Can the minister say whether a decision will be reached before the summer is over?


John Carr Munro: Hopefully before the summer is over, Mr. Speaker.
June 26, 1969


NATIONAL HOLIDAYS
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Will he give serious consideration to bringing in legislation changing Dominion Day to Canada Day and celebrating that day on the first Monday prior to July 1?


Some hon. Members:: Never.



[Stage Direction]
DIPLOMATIC RECOGNITION OF THE VATICAN Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):	Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister.
From now until the end of the session can we hope that the Prime Minister will make a statement showing the progress made by the government in establishing diplomatic relations with the Vatican?
['I am glad they have this power because certainly one member of the committee which has been set up by the minister is a specialist in drug addiction.']
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.



Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, arising out of the question asked earlier by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar I wish to direct this question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Will his department investigate the drop in the price being paid for feeder cattle and determine why this reduction has not been passed on to the consumers?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, as I made clear to the house previously, the Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act watches all significant price movements, and naturally he will take note of this question.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, may I direct another question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the drop that has taken place in beef prices will the minister withdraw his support for a boycott on the purchasing of beef?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is to try to have aware and alert consumers through the provision of information and educational programs. I have urged consumers to exercise care in their purchases. If there are any items they think are too expensive, such as expensive cuts of steak, automobiles, clothing or furniture, my advice is that they should desist from buying them.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
John Edward Broadbent: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether you misheard my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I was not asking for a statement of policy. I was asking the minister whether there has been a change in policy.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, there has been no change in policy. I believe that the carriers to whom the hon. member is referring have to report directly to and are under the supervision of the public authority in the province.


John Edward Broadbent: As a supplementary question, would the minister consider tabling all the correspondence that took place between the government of Canada and the government of Ontario on the introduction of the Ontario medicare scheme?


John Carr Munro: I will be glad to look into the matter but so far as I am aware there has been no correspondence. The Ontario government is well aware of the terms of the federal medicare legislation, and through discussions that our officials have had with Ontario officials we are fully satisfied that the Ontario act comes within the terms of the federal legislation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether any different interpretation of the section of the act regarding carriers from that accorded to Alberta and the other provinces has been accorded to Ontario?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker, no different interpretation.

June 26, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


MINAS BASIN-DISPOSITION OF FEASIBILITY STUDY
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Will the house be advised before the summer recess on the feasibility study of Minas Basin tidal power, or will this not be done until the fall?


Mr. R. J. Orange (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I will take this question as notice and bring it to the attention of the minister on his return.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Is he aware of the illegal use to which Devco is putting the U.I.C. fund?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any illegality.


Donald MacInnis: As a supplementary question, would the minister take a good close look at what is being done by Devco so he may realize that what Devco is doing is denied the individual, and therefore it is illegal for them to use the fund in this way?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is making a representation to the minister-


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: I had not quite finished my sentence. Perhaps the hon. member would allow me to add-which the hon. member must assume has been noted by the Minister.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am trying to obtain information in this house in some way, shape or form in order that the miners in Cape Breton who have been forcibly retired by a Crown company will get justice from a fund into which they have been paying, some of them for as many as 29 years. That Crown company is illegally using the fund. If the fund is not being illegally used, why is it that individuals are being denied the same use of the fund?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, if the miners are of such an opinion and if what is being done is illegal, they certainly have a right of appeal before the courts.


Donald MacInnis: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, does the minister consider it part of the just society that a miner who is forced out of work cannot afford to go to the courts, especially with the way things are under the government? Big deal-go to the courts!


HOUSING
John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the minister in charge of housing. In view of housing statistics indicating a drop of 31.7 per cent in housing investment by non-banking lenders, what steps does the minister intend to take to ensure a steady flow of mortgage moneys?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, we are encouraged by the reaction of the lenders in putting more money into residential mortgages. In the same light I am glad to direct the attention of the house to the fact that housing starts are very much up over the same period last year.


PROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL ON COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY INTO NON-MEDICAL USE
Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It is based on the type of distinguished men who will make up the committee which is to be established to obtain accurate information on the drug problem. Only one of these gentlemen is an experienced specialist in drug addiction. Has the minister given any consideration to adding specialists in drug addiction to this committee?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had been listening when the announcement was made he would have realized it was made quite clear that the people on this committee would represent the various disciplines such as psychiatry, sociology, psychology, the legal profession and so on. This is not only a medical problem. It was with that in mind that the committee was set
June 26. 1969	COMMONS
up to obtain ideas in respect of the whole problem. Also, if the hon. member had looked at the terms of reference he would know that the inquiry has been empowered to go outside in order to obtain special research in all these areas.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I am glad they have this power because certainly one member of the committee which has been set up by the minister is a specialist in drug addiction.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to ask the President of the Privy Council, who seems all prepared to answer, what he is going to do tomorrow and, in view of the solicitations of his friends on the government back benches, what are his plans for next week?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As hon. members know, today we will be starting with Bill C-202, the area development incentives bill. If we complete the report stage of that bill we will continue with Bill C-207 which deals with Atlantic transportation assistance. Tomorrow, as was indicated by my request for a designation on the Order Paper, it would be our proposal to call first the two ways and means motions. As hon. members know, they are not subject to debate at that time. This will be for the purpose of giving first reading to the two bills to follow those motions.
We will then call as the next item of business Bill C-202, in respect of area development incentives. This will be followed by Bill C-120 respecting the official languages. As I indicated to the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), Tuesday of next week will be a holiday. The house will sit on Monday and Wednesday and the remaining days for the purpose of finishing those legislative items and then for giving attention to a motion to deal with the question of time allocation.
I might indicate that I plan to give notice later today of a motion dealing with the question of time allocation in conformity with the decision of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. I should like to be able to explain the purpose of the proposed motion in more detail, but it will be out of order for me to do so at this time. I mention
Regional Development Incentives Act this notice of motion at this time because the present plan is1 that this motion will be the item of business to be called as soon as the several legislative items I already have mentioned have been dealt with by the house.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasler):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask why we went on staggered hours when the house leader knew all the time he was going to bring in this last minute business about the rules?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member seems to be suffering from a staggered memory because I made it clear at all times that these four items had to be dealt with before the summer adjournment.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-202, to provide incentives for the development of productive employment opportunities in regions of Canada determined to require special measures to facilitate economic expansion and social adjustment, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Regional Development.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As hon. members will have noted, there are a number of motions relating to Bill C-202 which is now before us. As has been done on similar occasions in the past the Chair,, with the assistance of its learned advisers, has looked at these amendments. Before they are put to the house I should like to suggest to hon. members it might be convenient, when we open discussion on the first motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whit-by, to debate and consider at the same time the proposed motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Egmont.
The motion proposed by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby is perhaps more general than the motion proposed by the hon. member for Egmont. It would be extremely difficult to limit the discussion to the motion proposed by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby without allowing hon. members to discuss the motion which stands as No. 2 on
10652	COMMON
Regional Development Incentives Act the list of motions before us. Therefore I would suggest that both motions be discussed at the same time. My suggestion would be that all motions be withheld until the last and if we are to have votes on them that all the votes be taken together on all the motions.
I might add that I have serious reservations about the last motion, No. 8. If hon. members are prepared at this time to indicate to the Chair their views about this proposed motion I would be pleased to hear from them in this regard. My view is that perhaps this proposed motion introduces a financial provision into the bill which is not covered by the recommendation of the Crown. I would have a tendency not to put that motion to the house after we have concluded debate on the first seven motions.
Is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre rising to speak to the point of order in respect of motion No. 8?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I was hesitating for a moment to see whether the hon. member for Regina East might return to his place. Speaking for those of us in this party who have looked at these motions, I think I can say that our general view is that your approach to these eight motions is a very proper one. If it is the judgment of the Chair that motion No. 1 and motion No. 2 should be combined for debate and that No. 8 should not be considered because of the expenditure question we would be inclined to agree with that ruling. Rather than take the time of the house to argue the matter we would accept the decision of the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the hon. member's comments we will proceed to the consideration of the first motion, it being understood that motions Nos. 1 and 2 will be considered at the same time for purposes of debate.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, may I ask for clarification? When it comes to putting the motions in respect of these amendments will it be the plan to take the motion on amendment No. 1 first and then, depending on what happens to the first motion, the motion in respect of the second amendment would be put?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes. We would put the motions consecutively before the house starting with the one standing in the name of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.

DEBATES	June 26, 1969


John Edward Broadbent: That Bill C-202, An Act to provide incentives for the development of productive employment opportunities in regions in Canada determined to require special measures to facilitate economic expansion and social adjustment, be amended, by deleting in clause 2, section (f), all the words after the word "of" in line 13 of page 2, and by substituting therefor the words:	"all forms of
industrial activity."
He said: In speaking on this motion, Mr. Speaker, I should first of all point out that if one reads at the outset the purpose of this bill he will see that it is described as an act to provide incentives for the development of productive employment opportunities in regions of Canada determined to require special measures to facilitate economic expansion and social adjustment. This is a very broad conceptual description of the purpose of this bill. Members of this party are in full agreement with this broad description.
If one turns to clause 2(f), however, which I shall not read at this point, it will be found that what the government has in mind in effect is not really to provide funds for industrial expansion in the sense that term is now used by most modern economists and most people concerned with regional development, but in fact is concerned with manufacturing centres. So the central concept of the government in designating a certain area as being a growth centre, for example, really means a manufacturing centre. Therefore we in this party think there is a very important restriction right at the outset in this bill. We believe it is the kind of restriction which should be removed because, as I pointed out, we are in sympathy with the broader purpose of the bill as stated in its title.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Therefore my amendment to the bill restores what has already been stated to be its purpose at the outset, namely, to deal with regional economic disparity by providing incentives for industrial expansion, not just manufacturing expansion. That kind of thinking, as I tried to point out when the bill was at the committee stage, is really outmoded in my judgment and certainly in the judgment of many professional people concerned with the question of regional development.
Let me quote one source in this regard. In an article written recently by two economists on the subject of regional development they
June 26, 1969	COMMONS
referred to a number of misconceptions on this question and said:
-many misconceptions are still very popular. The propensity to search for a development base only in secondary manufacturing is maybe the most popular and the most pernicious of these misconceptions.
The very point I make, and the point made by authorities in North America and Europe, is that industrial activity should not be seen to be simply manufacturing activity. This concept should also include the tourist industry, for example, and the service industry. These are two very important sectors of a modern economy. My amendment would remove the restriction and provide the legal possibility of making funds available to many sections of this large and expanding economic base through the development of either tourist or service industries.
The minister indicated very clearly at the committee stage of the bill that it would relate entirely to the manufacturing industry in a given area. But it could be made to help expand the tourist potential in Prince Edward Island, certain parts of Quebec and Ontario, or in fact in certain parts of any province in this country. We have a tourist potential. In certain areas we have a capacity for serious academic research centres to be developed if we want to provide the funds. I refer to such centres as revealed in the recent history of the eastern part of the United States. If money is poured in at the outset and the intellectual and technical capacity of a region is developed, secondary industry in fact can grow out of that potential rather than the other way round.
One further bit of professional feeling about the notion of expanding the concept of industrial development to include other industries than manufacturing comes from the report of the economic development committee, which was released recently. I should like to read from that report to show once again that professional opinion is by no means in accord with the minister's view on this subject. Let me read from pages 78 and 79 of that report:
The availability of services locally is very important for industry. Not only are services increasingly forming a larger share of industry outputs but it is probably more important for industry to have services on the spot than other inputs like material and semi-finished products, in as far as many service inputs cannot be stored and have a high frequency of purchase.
I could read a number of paragraphs from this report, but the point made there is that
Regional Development Incentives Act even if you are concerned with the development of secondary industry in a particular part of the country, it is very important to provide funds for the development of related service industries in the same area.
In short, this bill, especially the clause I wish to amend, is unnecessarily restrictive. We have an excellent opportunity through this bill, which is otherwise very good, to provide for meaningful growth in many parts of Canada which badly need that growth. There is no point in the late 1960's in going back to the essentially primitive economic notion of relying exclusively on the development of the manufacturing sector of the economy.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl) moved:: That Bill C-202, An Act to provide incentives for the development of productive employment opportunities in regions of Canada determined to require special measures to facilitate economic expansion and social adjustment, be amended, by deleting paragraph (f) of clause 2 and substituting therefor:
(f) "facility" means the structures, machinery and equipment that constitute the necessary components of
(i)	a manufacturing operation;
(ii)	a tourist operation;
(iii)	a service operation;
(iv)	a processing operation other than an initial processing operation in a resource-based industry.
He said: Mr. Speaker, after your ruling perhaps it would be appropriate at this point to deal not only with my own amendment but the amendment of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). As you correctly advised the house, these amendments are similar in many ways. The reason both amendments are here, as I am sure the minister is well aware, is that there could be a real distinction drawn in the implementation of this legislation in that if either of these measures were to carry there might be a different effect in that implementation.
Let me say first of all that this bill is an important piece of legislation. I believe the minister feels it is important inasmuch as it outlines certain steps to be taken to improve and alter substantially in some places the previous industrial incentives legislation. It attempts in the same way to attract new industry to areas of unemployment or underutilization and, hopefully, to create in those areas greater employment opportunities.
When we discussed this bill in the committee we discovered that the former provisions have been expanded in almost every part.
10654	COMMONS DEBATES	June 26, 1969
Regional Development Incentives Act The amount of money available has been doubled. It is clearly spelled out that the regions are to be greatly expanded, and even the minimums are not what we would think of as normal minimums, whether we think of the
10,000	square miles first advanced by the department or the amended version, 5,000 square miles. In various ways this legislation has been extended to cover a great deal more by way of implementation and by way of dealing with realistic opportunities that will arise. Therefore it is most surprising that we should find that the minister and his officials took a very restrictive attitude in respect of the heart of the bill.
The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby has already referred to the fact that the preamble to the legislation spells out very clearly that social as well as economic aspects are to be taken into account in an attempt to really get at unemployment problems. This measure is not just some kind of gratuity available to industry, or something to make it attractive for industry to move into somewhat unattractive areas and thus benefit the more or less marginal areas of economic disparity without really dealing with the areas of greatest economic disparity. I refer particularly to those areas in the eastern part of this country, in the west and in the northern region. Therefore I have the feeling that those of us who have moved these amendments and will support them have very strong grounds for arguing that the very narrow interpretation of industry by the minister is not easily acceptable to hon. members.
It was not entirely clear in the minister's speech on second reading when he introduced the legislation whether or not he was in fact taking a very restricted view of industry. When the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) spoke on second reading he spoke hopefully about the inclusion under this legislation of service and tourist industries, because these obviously are very much a part of our concern when we think of areas of economic disparity. It was only during the hearings of the standing committee that it became very clear-it seemed to me that the minister's position hardened as we dealt with these two amendments

that there was to be no inclusion for the purposes of this bill of either the tourist or service industries.
The important question to be raised at this point is, what are the regions and what are the regions like which are going to be basically in need of the kind of assistance the minister is proposing under this legislation? I think they would be the areas about which 
the minister himself has spoken. Perhaps I may mention, as an example the one I know best, eastern Canada or Atlantic Canada. This is an area with regard to which the minister presumably has some priorities. It is the area in which he is hopeful that much of the money allocated under the legislation will be spent in the development of new industries, thus providing new employment opportunities.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
In regard to this area what are the industries that have the greatest potential, to put it another way, in spite of the difficulties these provinces have had economically, what are the areas of the economy that have grown most quickly? I answer: the tourist industry, particularly in my own province. It has one of the most exciting potentials for the people of Prince Edward Island. I am sure the minister would agree with me because he has visited the province and knows its potential for the tourist industry. I suppose that in rebuttal the minister would say: This is what we have taken into account in introducing our comprehensive development plan. The minister may not have used those words, but I have used them for him.
Whatever arguments he uses in relation to Prince Edward Island or any other part of the Atlantic region, he cannot escape the fact that the provincial premiers of the five eastern provinces will be thinking very seriously of what they can do to increase the tourist potential in order to increase employment opportunities in their provinces. The fact that industry has been willingly ignored in the legislation now before us will not go down very well with the provincial administrations in that region.
^ 1 seems to me-in fact, this became increasingly clear in the committee hearings-that the interpretation of "industry" in this bill is very narrow. I was going to say that it is an economist's view of the situation, but I shall not say that because if you have 12 economists together in a room you will obtain at least 12 different points of view. I think we have in the bill one economist's view of what constitutes an industrial base for a community or area. If this is the attitude that has been adopted, we are putting ourselves very much behind the 8-ball in hoping to develop a successful program for regions of potential development. This approach says something, too, for the rigid adherence that the minister, up to now at
June 26. 1969	COMMONS
least, has adopted in this regard. We are getting an unhealthy dose of the old medicine, "Ottawa knows best". I do not believe this has worked in the past. I do not believe it is possible for the minister or his officials, no matter how competent they may be as individuals, to sit down and on each and every occasion say: We know that industrial development programs, whether they be for eastern Canada, northern Ontario or the northern part of the prairie provinces, must automatically exclude tourism and service industries. Up to this point I have not dealt with service industries, but it seems to me this is an almost theoretical approach to the question of industrial development.
I am neither an industrialist nor an economist, but I have enough practical experience in regard to the attraction of new industry to difficult or underdeveloped regions to know that you cannot talk about one segment of the economy in isolation from every other. It seems to me that the minister is attempting to talk specifically about a manufacturing base, resource or industry, and is automatically ignoring what must, in my opinion, go hand in glove with it-the service industries.
You can argue what must come first, whether you must have primary or secondary industry, or whether without sufficient services in existence it will not be attractive for new industry to be set up in an area. I think this is a philosopher's argument that has nothing to do with the facts. We are faced with a real situation which says to me, and obviously to other parties in the house, that when you are seeking to attract industry to an area you must consider the question from the broadest possible viewpoint which takes into account manufacturing, tourism and service industries. You should not attempt to exclude in any way the possibilities that may be resident in an area.
I shall now comment specifically on the amendment advanced by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. I do not wish to appear contentious in this regard, but there are two problems which I believe place my amendment above that of the hon. member. He knows one of them because I mentioned it in committee. I believe that all forms of industrial activity could, without too much difficulty, encompass tourism. There may be considerable problems in this regard, and I have spoken to lawyers who agree with me. When you talk about service industries it is not entirely clear what is meant, and we might become involved in all kinds of legal actions that could arise in this respect. I refer to
Regional Development Incentives Act whether or not service industries could be included under the term "all forms of industrial activity". This fear would haunt me if we were to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, but it could be easily dispelled if the amendment we have advanced were adopted.
The second problem in connection with the hon. member's amendment I was advised of at a later date. It concerns the implementation of the amendment. The amendment of the hon. member does not include any provision for clause 4 of the bill covering the authorization of incentives which would make the program more workable. There is no provision, particularly in respect of subclause (b), which would in fact make service industries eligible for special grants. In view of the fact that this is a very important part of the new program, I think we would be going only half way in our efforts in this regard. If subclause (b) were adopted without the addition of the words I have proposed in the consequent amendment, we would greatly weaken the important and useful attempts being made by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whit-by with regard to the bill.
I therefore suggest that in these aspects the amendment does not fully satisfy the concerns we have about two of the basic industrial activities that we feel very strongly should be encompassed in the scope and command of the legislation.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) is to be commended for moving this amendment because it provides a very important approach to the legislation and brings to the attention of the house a point with regard to which a decision should be rendered by the house. It seems to me that when considering the motion moved by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby we should keep in mind the basic purpose of the bill. I believe I can set out the basic purpose of the bill, as it is understood by those in this part of the house, no better than by reciting its full title, which is:
An act to provide incentives for the development of productive employment opportunities in regions of Canada determined to require special measures to facilitate economic expansion and social adjustment.
There was in committee a good deal of discussion on this matter. I must say I was not fully satisfied with the answers provided by the minister at that time. The minister came forward with the concept that manufacturing activity within designated regions
10656	COMMONS DEBATES	June 26. 1969
Regional Development Incentives Act should be of the type that could be promoted, encouraged and assisted by the government. I have no objection to the principle involved in assisting manufacturing activity and the development of manufacturing activity in these regions. However, it seems to me that if the bill is to accomplish the purposes set out for it, it will be necessary to give it somewhat broader scope than that provided at the present time.
I believe that when dealing with the development of a region we must consider not only secondary manufacturing activity but all forms of economic and industrial activity. The fact is that prior to secondary manufacturing processes and activity it is necessary to have primary economic production. This, of course, can take many forms-agriculture, fishing, mining, and so on. During the committee stage the minister made a valid point, namely, that some forms of primary economic and industrial activity would not qualify for a grant under this legislation because they would not be established unless they were already capable of standing completely on their own feet in economic terms.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
It seems to me that it is possible to visualize a number of areas of primary economic activity for which it would be very desirable and necessary to provide financial assistance under the terms of this bill. For instance, I can think of some aspects of the forestry industry that might not be developed if they are left solely to the type of rationale that might be brought to them by a commercial firm. However, with some financial assistance which may be made possible under this bill I think we could find regions in this country where it would and could be determined that it would be a worth-while expenditure of public money to encourage this type of activity.
I believe it is important that assistance rendered in connection with the development of the designated regions specified in the bill should be brought within the scope of the bill. It is fine for the minister to say that other assistance could be given through the establishment of the department itself. However, it seems to me it would be a much more rational, logical and desirable form of organization to provide for this financial assistance under the terms of the bill.
The same comments may be applied to service industries which I think are essential in terms of the over-all economic development of a region. There have been many sad

examples where either primary or secondary industrial activities have been developed in a particular region of the country, following which it has been found that the service industries associated with the development of a community and with its economic life are very much lacking. I can give some examples which have taken place in recent years in my own province where a number of communities have had mushroom growth as a result of the development of the potash industry. In some cases the potash mines were located near relatively small centres in the province and the only form of development that made sense in terms of the community was for people to live relatively near to the mine.
There are a number of such examples in Saskatchewan where service facilities and community development have not taken place on a scale adequate for the needs of the people who have moved into the area and who have found a new form of making a living as a result of the development of the potash industry, which is basically a primary form of economic activity. Thus it seems to me that if we are going to obtain balanced economic development which will serve the full needs of communities in designated regions within this country it would be desirable to adopt the motion proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broad-bent), which provides that financial assistance be made available for all forms of industrial activity.
Mention has also been made of the tourist industry. I believe it would be very useful and important to provide assistance to the tourist industry under this bill. It has been noted by some people, of course, that the tourist industry is seasonal for the most part, that it is not a year-round economic activity. However, the very fact that it is seasonal in nature in most parts of the country makes it that much more important that assistance be provided to the industry within the framework of the economic plan developed for the entire region under the bill before us.
I hope that the government will give serious consideration to the proposal that has been placed before the house. I hope we will find some responsiveness on the part of the government, and that the bill as it is finally passed by the house will be fully comprehensive in nature and capable of carrying out what in fact are very laudable objectives and purposes as set out in the title and as described by the minister and the government
June 26, 1969	COMMONS
on a number of occasions. Therefore, I commend this motion to the house and I hope it receive support from all parties.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, first I want to express my gratitude to the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) for moving an amendment on behalf of the Progressive Conservative party to include tourist and service operations under the Regional Development Incentives Act. No matter how hard we try, we cannot seem to get the government to recognize the importance of the tourist and service industries to the Canadian economy. The Small Businesses Loans Act has been allowed to wither away, partly, I believe, because it was Progressive Conservative legislation, partly because of the rapid increase in interest rates which makes the banks unwilling to lend under that act, and partly as a result of apparent indifference. The effort of a few years ago to give assistance to the tourist industry has not been continued.
The other source of assistance to which the tourist and service industries were looking was from the Industrial Development Bank. Here again the former Progressive Conservative government extended loans under the Industrial Development Bank to the tourist and service industries. The I.D.B. is still giving loans to tourist operators under this act, for which I am sure we are all grateful.
May I point out to the Minister that under the Industrial Development Bank Act the tourist industry is recognized as an industry, as are service industries, and it is very difficult to understand why, when it is recognized under that act, a different interpretation is put on the word "industry" in the present bill, in which the minister is ostensibly trying to increase the economic viability of different parts of the country. Many of the regions that particularly need help are best suited to the tourist and service industries. Many of them are in more remote areas where in some cases industry hesitates to go because of the distances for transportation, a shortage of trained manpower, and so forth. But in these areas the tourist industry could very well act as a real boon to the local economy. It seems that the tourist and service industries would carry out the real intent of the act if they were included. However, although the Industrial Development Bank makes loans it does not give any grants to those people who are involved in the service industry. Also, we find that the I.D.B. is so concerned about getting its money back and about making
Regional Development Incentives Act money that it even demands a prepayment premium on funds which are repaid earlier than the mortgage calls for. I think this is a terrible travesty on the intent of government assistance.
I have recently had to draw the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) to a case where the I.D.B. forced a company to sell a major part of its capital assets in order to make a payment on its loan, and after the capital assets had been sold, the I.D.B. required a payment of over $1,000 as a penalty. This again seems to be a terrible travesty on any government intention to assist an industry. They are certainly not assisting when they are demanding a premium on repayment of their money.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I have wandered a little far afield simply to point out to the minister that the tourist industry has not had sufficient government assistance over the years despite it being an essential part of the Canadian economy. I am not going to repeat today the many speeches I have made on the importance of the tourist industry and allied service industries to the Canadian economy. In the first place, the tourist industry is a major producer of foreign funds: it brings money into Canada and that money stays. The tourist industry provides a vast source of employment for Canadians and has a major economic influence on any community where two or three major tourist establishments are located. It is as much of a boon to the area as would be the establishment of another kind of industry.
So far as employment is concerned, I should like to point out to the minister that with advancing technology and automation manpower requirements for the operation of large industrial plants are diminishing. I was present when an announcement was made not long ago of a large industrial plant which was to be constructed at a cost of $23 million to specifications that met the latest technological advances. Yet the plant was going to employ only 90 people. This number might well be employed by tourist operators in a community on a financial base of half a million dollars. Such an operation has not only direct payroll benefits but also indirectly benefits the local community by increasing economic activity in the area and requiring the support of many local services. The tourist industry is also largely Canadian owned and operated, in contrast to many industrial enterprises.
I could go on and on on this subject but I will not do so. I do not want in any way to
10658	COMMONS DEBATES	June 26, 1969
Regional Development Incentives Act suggest that we should not promote industrial expansion and build new factories in this country. I am merely pointing out that these are but one part of the economic picture. If the minister really wants to broaden this bill and benefit a lot of industries that really require assistance by expanding and providing employment opportunities, and consequently improving living conditions, then the tourist industry would be the best example of need that I can think of.
I do not want to speak at any length. Suffice it to say that the bill as introduced appears to provide for the type of business to which I have referred. The title has already been referred to in full. I shall not refer to it again, except to say that its intent is to provide incentives for the development of productive employment opportunities in regions of Canada determined to require special measures. This objective does not exclude the tourist and service industries; in fact, they appear to be included. I would say the bill describes perfectly the impact that improved and expanded tourist facilities would make in any part of Canada. I hope the government sees fit to accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald), and recognizes the problems of the tourist and service industries as well as the importance of these industries to the Canadian economy.
I have often stood in this house and made speeches in this vein and wondered whether I was wasting my time. Today I wonder who is listening and what the government is going to do. I have the feeling that the government is going to do nothing, that the decision has already been made. I wonder what purpose is served by my standing up in the house and making a speech. All I can hope for is that if the minister has already hardened his heart against the tourist and service industries and is going to reject this amendment, he will urge his colleagues to do something else for those industries because they badly need help.
If the minister is going to reject this amendment, then I hope he will speak to his colleague the Minister of Finance about trying to get the Industrial Development Bank to loosen up a little and assist the tourist and service industries in times of difficulty instead of merely making loans to them, the first priority of which is to get their money back with interest. This is not the type of benefit that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) is trying to bestow 
on other industries under the terms of this biU.
Therefore I plead with the minister to keep in mind that this type of industry can certainly be of benefit to many regions. It may be that, having considered this amendment, the minister will accept it. I certainly hope this is the case. However, if this is not the case we can only hope that without delay he will consult his colleagues to see whether something else can be done for the tourist and service industries to enable them to compete with the new and enlarged facilities that are being established on the other side of the border in an effort to keep United States tourists at home. The tourist and service industries need this assistance, and they need it now.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the minister for introducing this legislation which, in my view, will bring about some improvements specially in areas such as the one I am representing here in the house.
The people of Bellechasse and I welcome this opportunity to benefit finally from legislation designed to bring about industrial development in our area.
The prime purpose of this measure is to establish industries in order to provide productive employment opportunities in regions of Canada determined to require special measures.
In my area, special measures are necessary. Many of the workers now unemployed are on welfare; that does not contribute much to the development of the country. I do not blame those people because special circumstances prevent them from bringing their contribution.
Now legislation will promote the development of an existing industry and the establishment of new ones which will enable these healthy people to contribute by their work to the development which is necessary.
Through that legislation, some solution could be applied to another exceedingly serious problem. In fact, many farmers and small contractors have to reduce or give up their operations on account of difficult economic conditions and the government policy.
In that case, as the government decides whether the operations are profitable or not, it happens that a large number of farmers' and small contractors become unemployed and I feel that the government, in co-operation with the Department of Agriculture,
June 26, 1969	COMMONS
should act as quickly as possible in that respect.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Each week one sees farmers quitting the farming industry. It would be imperative to proceed as quickly as possible with industrial development, in order that those farmers be diverted to other industries.
Bill C-202 will indeed be of interest to a good many contractors who were wishing to expand their industry in order to solve at least in part the unemployment problem, and make possible that change which relates to both the farming and the manufacturing industries.
An amendment has been moved to this bill so that it would apply to all kinds of industrial activity.
The previous speaker dwelt at lenght on the tourist industry. The minister will probably tell us whether the bill in its original form contains provisions designed to stimulate the development of tourism, which would make the amendment useless. But at any rate, if this is not provided for, it would be desirable, and even necessary to pass the amendment, in order to allow this development in the areas where it is possible.
I was thinking in particular of the area of lle-aux-Grues, where tourist resources are many, but their normal development is seriously hindered. I have already called the minister's attention to the problem of the ferry service which links fle-aux-Grues to the mainland, and which delays the agricultural and tourist development of that area.
I thank the minister for having given serious consideration to the request I made on behalf of my constituents. I am confident that such a study will go on and that this bill will permit practical and concrete realizations in this field so that the tourist industry may improve in that area.
Numerous requests are regularly made to us. Intermediate organization are interested and, as I have already said in the house, it is impossible for the federal government to do everything, unless the provincial and municipal authorities as well as the public become interested in a serious and positive way in the matter.
The people are sufficiently aware of the problem and have considered the matter thoroughly enough to be in a position to assure their co-operation to the government, in order to attain the objective sought by all hon.
Regional Development Incentives Act members, that is the possibility of finding adequate solutions, because the Canadian workers are dissatisfied since they are unable to work to the full extent of their powers.
I can assure the government I will fully co-operate to help the officials of the department in their work to promote industry and tourism, so that Bill C-202 may be really effective, provided however-and there is always the same problem-the minister can get the necessary credits. I would not like if, at some point, the minister were obliged to answer too often: The program is good, the project satisfactory, but we lack the necessary funds, we have no money.
Considering the nature and the importance of this department and of the projects of the minister, I hope the cabinet members will make funds available to achieve this goal but also to bring about the solution we have been awaiting so long.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on the motion moved by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). I feel that the bill should include in its coverage several key industries which are now omitted. I do not see why the minister and the government cannot accept this very modest amendment. The direction of the department in question is in the minister's hands and exclusions can be made later when the area incentives program comes before the department to be scrutinized.
The consequences of accepting the amendment before the house could be vital not only to my riding of Kootenay West but to many other proposed incentive areas of Canada. For all these areas the amendment has important implications. For instance, the amendment, if accepted, will make certain that the service industries, the tourist industry and certain research projects come under the legislation. They will therefore be eligible for grants.
I point out to hon. members that the title of Bill C-202 is, "An Act to provide incentives for the development of productive employment opportunities in regions of Canada determined to require special measures to facilitate economic expansion and social adjustment." That is the full title of the bill we are now debating. I submit that anyone looking at the title would come to the conclusion that assistance in the incentive areas to be set up will be rather broadly based. But when we look at clause 2 and at subclause (f) in particular we find that the definitions in
10860	COMMONS
Regional Development Incentives Act the bill are far more restrictive than one would imagine them to be from reading the title. Clause 2(f) defines the facilities for which grants may be made:
"facility" means the structures, machinery and equipment that constitute the necessary components of a manufacturing or processing operation, other than an initial processing operation in a resource-based industry;
The amendment offered by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby would amend the clause so that it would read:
"facility" means the structures, machinery and equipment that constitute the necessary components of all forms of industrial activity.
The words of the amendment are, "all forms of industrial activity". Such activity would include the service, tourist and research industries, which in my opinion are vital to the success of this program in many incentive areas. I feel that the term "growth potential" should be used in a much broader sense than that outlined in the definition. The bill now before us would restrict the areas that could benefit those with a potential manufacturing growth and would exclude other very important potential growth factors to be found in the service, tourist and research industries.
I note in the minutes of the committee that the minister indicated that under the act establishing his department assistance could be granted to the tourist industry, provided that industry was the sole activity that could be developed in the region being considered. He also indicated that at certain times and in certain areas it might be a sensible economic move to develop the service industry. In view of the minister's statements before the committee, I see no reason why they should not be included in the bill. It will still be up to the department to decide whether grants will be made available to the various facilities wishing to establish in the incentive areas set up. For this reason I see no logical explanation why this all-inclusive amendment should not be accepted by the government.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
This legislation sets out the guidelines for development in the incentive areas. The various committees working in these areas to bring in secondary industry and other facilities to build up their growth potential must be given clear-cut directives as to who will be eligible for grants in their areas. This is necessary if proper planning is to be done. It is not good enough to let a committee know that tourism may come under the department 
DEBATES	June 28, 1969
but is not included in the act. I see no reason why this important amendment should not be written into the statute.
I certainly agree that secondary manufacturing or processing industries are vital to the regional development envisioned by the bill. This type of industry, however, tends to concentrate in the more industrial parts of these regions for obvious reasons. I feel it is desirable that every section of these incentive areas should be entitled to the economic stimulant which we hope will come from this bill, and in many sections of these areas the best possible incentive would be assistance to the tourist and service industries.
There is one point that must be crystal clear to everyone. In the tourist industry we are not providing facilities which will be based on an expendable resource. We can sell scenery and other tourist attractions ten thousand times without depleting their potential, and this is something we certainly should not forget when dealing with this problem. I feel that the government is restricting itself much too narrowly in a modern economy by merely accepting the concept of manufacturing growth. There could well be other types of industrial activity much more suitable to an area than manufacturing. I hope the minister will see the matter in this light and accept the amendment now before the house.
The whole of the Kootenay West region could be classed as a slow growth area. It has tremendous potential. Some of it is in the manufacturing field, but certainly one of the greatest undeveloped potentials where assistance is needed is in the field of tourism and in the service industries. I trust that this great potential, which is to be found in many other areas of Canada where natural resources are not too abundant, will not be ignored by the minister and the department through failure to include it in this legislation. The minister, after all, is the servant of the house, and those interested in regional development should press for this important economic aspect to be included in the present legislation.
I urge the minister to take a second look at the legislation. I read the committee reports. I have gone over the arguments very carefully which the minister raised against the inclusion of such amendments. The minister should not be alarmed at something like this being included in the legislation because it is his department which will make the final decision in allocating funds for projects in
June 26, 1969	COMMONS
incentive areas all over Canada. I urge the minister, the government and all hon. members to make certain that we do not exclude one of the most vital industries in Canada, one that is prevalent in many of the underdeveloped areas, and we will be excluding it if we do not include it in the legislation. This bill is an attempt to do away with regional disparity; yet one of the major industries, tourism, is ostensibly being excluded. I urge the minister to include it and make certain that people all over Canada can plan on it as one of the industries that can be developed within the incentive areas.


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Sl. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I will spend only a couple of moments on this amendment. In supporting it I wish to mention one example where the tourist industry would be very beneficial.
The minister admits there are vital problems in Newfoundland with regard to regional development. I feel it would be helpful, in an area recognized by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), to create a second national park. This would be very beneficial to Newfoundland and would have far-reaching effects. Development of a national park would create ancillary employment which is so vital in an area which has the highest unemployment rate in Canada. The ancillary tourist industry of a national park would be very beneficial. The secondary industry and commercial enterprises that would flow from a national park would do much to uplift the economy by the creation of additional employment. I ask the minister to take this into consideration when considering the particular problems in the province of Newfoundland to which he himself has referred.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to discuss several times the amendment proposed to the house. I do not think the government is showing bad faith by not satisfying that request.
We should not consider this industrial incentives act as a wholesale development legislation, since it does not include every instrument the government intends to use to insure economic and even regional development.
As had been mentioned, the general legislation establishing the department contains the necessary provisions to assist provinces and
Regional Development Incentives Act municipalities to develop the internal structures required for industrial development.
Under the act establishing the department, we can grant subsidies, lend money and guarantee loans, and do practically everything that can be done for industrial development after consultation with the provinces as to the needs to be met.
The bill now before us is only a part of a whole. Mr. Speaker, it certainly does not replace the Industrial Development Bank, nor the Department of Agriculture, nor the Department of Fisheries and Forestry but it has very specific objectives: an attempt to foster industrial development in slow-growth areas.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
If we succeed in this field-which is rather limited, I admit-if we manage to induce industries to settle in the above-mentioned areas, it will mean that other activities will move in on their own.
For instance, in the field of service industries, one can be sure that where there is industrial development, service industries will develop naturally because there will be a local market. When people have work, and money, they want services; that means that service industries will develop as subsidiaries of secondary industry; service industries do not develop on their own they always result from another economic activity.
We feel that primary industry does not settle in a given area because of the extent of its economic activity. A primary industry is developed in a given area because of its natural resources. The idea of providing incentives to primary industry may prove successful in some particular cases, but it is not a determining factor in the location of an industry.
It may be suggested that this legislation probably has certain limitations but this has to be, in order to prevent any misuse of public funds or the provision of incentives to an industry which would settle in those areas just the same. The only justification for providing incentives to private undertaking is that without such incentives, they would not go and settle where we think they should for the common good.
We have no moral authority to give millions of dollars to a business which in any case would settle in a given area. By what right do we do so? Our only moral justification for spending public funds is to tell businessmen who can choose to settle in Mont-
10662	COMMONS
Regional Development Incentives Act real, Quebec, Gaspe or elsewhere: If we give you a certain amount of money, are you ready to move into a region which is not developing and needs to be developed?
As for the service industry, it does not need, in general, to stimulate primary industry since, as I mentioned earlier, if there is a mine somewhere, it is not the provision of an incentive that will induce this business to settle there, but the mere fact that the mine is located at that place.
Forestry resources are also to be found in very definite places, as well as water resources. So there is no need to provide incentives in order to induce those businessmen to settle in a particular area, because other factors prompt them to do so.
But the secondary industries themselves- [English]


John Edward Broadbent: Would the minister permit a question?

Pardon me. Do you allow me a question? [English]


Jean Marchand: O.K. I will try to answer.


John Edward Broadbent: I did not get the latter part of the minister's remarks because I was trying to get his attention, but he has just claimed that primary industry would normally need subsidization in order to be attracted into an area, and with this I am in complete agreement. But as the bill now stands the minister has broad discretionary powers in any case, and so it is not a matter of granting money to all mining firms that come to him wanting money. He has the discretionary power to decide whether or not in a given situation a grant should be provided. Would he not be agreeable to broadening the terms of the bill to provide for such grants in isolated cases?


Jean Marchand: I mentioned before the standing committee that it is possible to do that under the law establishing the department. On an ad hoc basis we can do so if in one particular region this is the only activity that can be developed, but the purpose of this particular piece of legislation is to encourage secondary industry to move into slow growth regions in order to create employment, and if that is done service industries will develop anyway. Service industry does not need our help if there is economic activity in secondary industry.
[Mr. Marchand (Langelier) .1
DEBATES	june 26, 1969

Mr. Speaker, I think that we can do all the things which have been suggested by the hon. members who spoke before me. We can do it, not necessarily under this legislation but under the bill establishing the department. There is no reason why this legislation, whose main purpose is to create employment through development of the manufacturing industries, should deal with other activities.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker>
1 should like to ask a few questions from the minister, mainly with regard to the previous legislation.
Will the new legislation supersede the previous one? For instance, under the old legislation, the Canadian government paid a third of the cost of industrial development, a third of the cost of the construction of buildings and machinery. Will this new legislation take away these advantages provided under the former legislation?
Furthermore, I should like to get some explanation concerning the security for the loans. Will the new legislation back up the loans in the case of a non exporting industry? If a Canadian industry disposes of its products only on the Canadian market, will it be entitled to the same benefits or will they be only the privilege of an exporting industry?
I put those two questions to the minister because they are related to something that does not seem too clear to me. I should like the minister to throw light on the matter.
With regard to the amendment and the development of tourism, I think it would be a good thing if it were possible to include this amendment in the act. It strikes me as fairly logical. It, seems to me the minister could incorporate it in the bill. If the bill says otherwise that the tourist industry is entitled to certain advantages, I fail to see why this could not be spelled out very clearly, so as to specify what benefits the industry could derive from the new act.
I am quite pleased with the bill and all the happier because the minister is introducing a new incentive for industry. The industry is in dire need of it because we are now in an industrialized country which must be developed from that point of view. We therefore need every possible government assistance, not merely to create new industries but also to sell what industry produces.
The main problem in industry today is that of marketing products. Several industries have a high rate of production and have
June 26, 1969	COMMONS
accumulated their products; they are now finding it difficult to sell them. Industry operates, progresses and forges ahead economically provided it sells its goods.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
The department will have to intervene, if possible, to oil in some way the industrial mechanism for the disposal of the production. It should be rather easy to dispose in this country of every thing possible if purchasing power were available. After that, we can start thinking about exports.
There are many products we could export.
I am sure the government has already taken the necessary steps in that direction and that all will work well.
If we create industries without finding ways and means of disposing of the products, dreadful problems would ensue, causing serious problems that will become so complicated that it will be necessary to close several of those new industries which will have been created in our country.
Therefore, I ask the minister to clarify that. Would he be kind enough to explain the difference between the old legislation and the new one in connection with the grants made by the government, when it was paying one third of the cost for machinery and buildings.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. If the minister wishes to speak again he can do so only with unanimous consent. If there is to be questioning of the minister after his remarks, it should be brief and to the point. I think the hon. member for Compton made a contribution to the debate. If the minister is to answer the questions posed by the hon. member for Compton, I suggest there should be unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief.
As for the destination of the products manufactured by plants or industries which will receive government grants, there is no set limitation. Whether they be export industries or industries serving a local market, it does not matter.
As for explaining to the house, Mr. Speaker, all the differences between the present legislation and the measure before the house, I think this would take some time. There are
Regional Development Incentives Act indications in the bill about the amounts of money to be granted.
Regulations for the distribution of industrial incentives will be approved only after the legislation itself has been passed, and at that time I might be able to give the hon. member all the explanations he may require.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: 
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions (papers), private bills, public bills.



MESSAGES FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Prior to proceeding with private members' business I might be allowed to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate have passed Bill C-184, to establish a Canadian corporation for telecommunication by satellite, without amendment.
A message has also been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate have passed Bill S-17, respecting investment companies, to which the concurrence of this house is desired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before proceeding with private members' business, perhaps I might also inform the house that the questions to be raised at the hour of adjournment tonight are as follows: the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose)-Old Age Security-reduction of guaranteed income supplement upon receipt of pension by spouse; the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldi-mand (Mr. Knowles)-National Revenue-Port Dover, Ontario-failure of U.S. pleasure craft to report to customs officer; the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Chappell)- Harbours-Toronto-federal participation in construction of port.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, January 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do Issue for a copy of a document entitled "Local Government on
June 26, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Division
Indian Reserves" prepared by the policy and planning directorate of the Indian Affairs Branch, dated August 4, 1967.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: No,


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Notices of motions (papers).
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of the agreement (lease agreement) between the Mountaineer Motel Company Limited and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development which said agreement was disclosed in and referred to in answer to question No. 1,271.
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of hon. members may I withdraw this motion because I am sure the government wants to keep its word that we will adjourn on June 27 or 30. I do not want to take the time of the house, so I will withdraw the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT]	(5:30 p.m.)



JUDGMENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, April 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fortin: That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a return showing, since the Supreme Court of Canada was instituted (a) the number of judgments rendered by judges whose mother tongue was French and, of those, the number of judgments rendered (i) in French (ii) in English; (b) of the judgments rendered in English by judges whose mother tongue is French, the number of judgments respecting Quebec; (e) the number of judgments rendered in French by judges whose mother tongue is English.
Mr. Andre Forlin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, we have 50 minutes left for debate and I should like to follow the example of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). But the matter has such importance at a time when we are discussing national unity and the languages bill that I think it is my duty to pursue the debate on this notice of motion for production of papers.
Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court question, as we said then, was an Anglo-Saxon ivory tower on which-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must draw the attention of the hon. member for Lotbiniere as well as of the others on the fact that the 
member has already participated to this debate and that if he talks now he will close it.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I was then saying that the Supreme Court, since its establishment, was an Anglo-Saxon ivory tower discriminating against French-speaking people. Then, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) had risen and replied that the publication of a certain document on the national capital and its institutions would provide the explanations asked in my motion for papers and consequently that the motion was useless, since the information would appear in that document.
I am pleased to see that the document is published and that the discussion follows its publication. When one reads that document published and ordered by the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Bilingualism and Bicul-turalism, one is aware that the Supreme Court has been forgotten and that the information requested is not included. This is a very good report, but it does not tell us how to make of the Supreme Court an agency in the real image of Canada, nor to what extent it is guilty of injustice and discrimination.
I used to believe the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, but not anymore, because I have read this report.
Thus, we are right back where we were at the beginning of the discussion, that is to say we have never determined with certainty whether the Supreme Court which is a fundamental institution and in a way the cornerstone of the present Canadian Confederation, from the constitutional viewpoint, was a body that discriminates against French Canadians.
The speech I made at that time contained several references to substantiate that claim. In view of those references, the government was unable to give any proof to the contrary and the minister could only beat around the bush as he does more often than not.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take uselessly the time of the house, but I should like to remind hon. members that if we truly want a bilingual Canada, if we truly want the official languages bill to become law, if we truly want to give French-Canadians their own place in Canada, and not somebody else's, if we want them to be an integral part of the Canadian Confederation, the Supreme Court, one of the most important bodies, must be an image of Canada. Only then would we be able to hold on to national unity.
June 26, 1969

Once more, Mr. Speaker, I want to call upon the hon. members and solicit their support. The government must approve the motion I have humbly submitted, in order to throw some light on an obscure matter which has always not only been left aside but seems to be taboo with hon. members. It seems essential to me that every one of us should take an interest in this matter of administrative tribunals and the Supreme Court to make them worthy of the Canada we dream of bringing about.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we wish to repeat again, because I really believe some of our ministers still do not understand it, that we are asking for a vote.


Mr. Speaker:: Order! I must interrupt the hon. member as his allotted time has expired.
Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen: Mr. Speaker: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
10668	COMMONS DEBATES	June 26, 1969
Canadian Territorial and Inland Waters


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might rise on a point of order. Under notices of motions for papers there are still on the order paper three notices of motion in the name of Mr. Schreyer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: Who's he?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does someone ask, who is he? He is the premier designate of Manitoba; that's who.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: ask leave of the house to have transferred to my name motions Nos. 121, 122 and 123 that appear on the order paper under his name.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CANADIAN TERRITORIAL AND INLAND WATERS


Randolph Harding: That an order of the house do issue for a copy of a map of Canada showing both territorial waters and inland waters claimed by Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on April 30 when this motion was first before the house, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) indicated that a map showing the territorial waters of Canada would not be issued by the government. I wish to read the minister's reply to the house and speak: very briefly on the motion. I quote from page 8164 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, the government intends in the near future to issue maps illustrating additional straight base lines which will be drawn along Canada's coasts. It is also intended to amend the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act to permit the establishment of fisheries lines in certain areas without affecting the limits of Canada's internal waters and territorial sea. It would not be in the Canadian interest for the government to issue further maps of Canada's possible maritime claims at this time. On this basis I ask the hon. member if he will agree to withdrawing his motion.
I am wondering, Mr. Speaker, why it is not in Canada's interest to show the territorial waters we feel should be under Canada's jurisdiction. This was not explained by the minister in his reply. Frankly, in 1969 we should be in a position to indicate very clear-
[Mr. Speaker.!
ly what claims Canada makes on the east, west and north as far as territorial waters are concerned.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I feel the motion is extremely important in this sense, that I am referring to all the territorial waters and more specifically to the Arctic. We have had some extremely interesting developments within the Arctic-area within the past few years. There is no doubt about it, we have here potential oil reserves of immense wealth. I, personally, feel it would be in the interests of Canada and Canadians to set out what we consider to be the jurisdictional area so far as our nation is concerned. I was rather interested in the remarks that it would not be in Canada's interests. Surely, some minister of the government should be able to give us clearcut, definite reasons for not wanting to put Canada's claims on a map.
I wish to make one or two references to other nations. Last fall I had an opportunity to go to the United Nations for a couple of weeks where they were discussing the seabed. There were discussions respecting territorial claims of various nations. I understand the little nation of Chile on the southern tip of South America has staked a claim 200 miles out from the shore. I do not think there is too much conflict with other nations in this regard. I do not know whether a claim of this nature could be upheld under international jurisprudence, but Chile has staked it out.
Other nations are in the same category. I am not going to enumerate them. I wish to point out very clearly that recently there was a huge oil find in the Arctic in the Prudhoe Bay area. An estimate from one of the government's departments is that the area likely contains somewhere between 5 billion and 10 billion barrels of oil. Another estimate, given by representatives of oil companies who appeared before the Standing Committee on National Resources, indicated that the reserve was somewhere between 10 billion and 50 billion barrels of oil. Our position is that Canada should have her claims staked out. We should know if we will be in a position to move in and develop any oil resources there may be in this area. Personally, I feel it is of vital interest to all Canadians to make certain that claims are made. There might be a dispute as to the drawing of lines, but our department should have these claims staked out in a manner which will enable all Canadians to know exactly what we claim as Canada's inland waters and territorial waters. Our
June 26, 1969
COMMONS DEBATES	10669
Regional Development Incentives Act
claim could be of vital concern, even in terms of the oil find which I have just mentioned, because it could affect, billions of dollars in revenue.
This is no time for the Secretary of State for External Affair to tell us it is not in the interests of Canada to stake out these claims. I am not suggesting for one second that we should get something which could not rightfully be classed as Canadian territory. There is no doubt that explorations are going on in the east, west and north, and it is time a map was issued to show the area in which we consider Canadians have the right to carry out explorations, fishing and so on.
It is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of Bill C-202, to provide incentives for the development of productive employment opportunities in regions of Canada determined to require special measures to facilitate economic expansion and social adjustment, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Regional Development, and motion no. 1, Mr. Broadbent.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, before we adjourned at five o'clock to consider other business I was suggesting to the minister that there are really two kinds of areas to which the bill is directed. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), in my view, seems to apply to a large segment of the area that will be industrially oriented, based on resources. The assistance here will be considerably different from that provided to the Maritimes and areas near Montreal, Quebec City, Toronto, Hamilton and Windsor where local industry fits into a different category.
I believe the minister is correct in saying that we should not put money directly into
the development of the basic resource but rather into the industrial complex that can and should be built around it. We have had little success in providing employment through most resource based industries. I give the example of one iron ore mine in my own area that years ago would have employed several thousand people but now, because of modern technology, employs only about 400 workers. The same is true with respect to sawmills. A sawmill that used to employ 200 people now employs only 20 or 30 when it is highly automated.
However, this employment ratio does not apply to ancillary industry. The flake board industry, based on a by-product of sawmills, provides a large amount of employment. Mining and lumbering are the two basic resources upon which most industrial development will be built, and as the years go by industrial complexes built on these resources will move further north from present industrialized areas. I suggest that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby could lead to the provision of the greatest amount of employment.
In a 200 mile wide stretch, reaching from coast to coast, we are training industrial personnel capable of handling the normal industrial growth that will take place. We are also, however, exporting highly trained and skilled people from this area because the better trained and more highly skilled they are the less job opportunities they have. No growth centre concept will work unless we are able to provide jobs for the skilled people we are training.
In Canada we also have a problem with foreign owned industries. In many cases they enjoy major advantages when operating in this country. Our laws which apply to domestic companies do not necessarily apply to American owned industries. Again, I cite the example of a mine in my area. The price for the ore pellets which it produces is established by the parent company in the United States and does not necessarily bear a close relationship to the cost of production or to the normal selling price of the product. We, ourselves, do not have the ability to make a proper assessment of what the end product should cost, yet we assist this company through provincial transportation grants and other incentives. The type of production that must be encouraged by the federal government is that which has the largest employment factor.
Regional Development Incentives Act
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
I suggest that the things which have been said concerning the second motion in respect of the tourist and service operations will flow from the establishment of a viable growth centre, if it is based on a viable economy in that area.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Is the
house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: In
accordance with the procedure established earlier today, Mr. MacDonald (Egmont) seconded by Mr. Hales moves that Bill C-202, an act to provide incentives-


William Arnold Peters: That is the wrong amendment, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: The two
amendments are to be combined and voted on at a later date.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, did the Chair not advise that the two amendments would be discussed collectively, but would be voted on separately? This was my understanding.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: It was
the understanding of the Chair they would be voted on together, but since hon. members have a different understanding the Chair will put each amendment in order that a separate vote may be taken.
The question is on motion No. (1) (Mr. Broadbent). Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: No.
The	Acting	Speaker	(Mr.	Richard):	All
those in favour please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.
The	Acting	Speaker	(Mr.	Richard):	All
those opposed please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: In my
opinion the nays have it.
And	more than five members having risen.
The	Acting	Speaker	(Mr.	Richard):	In
accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 75 this vote will be deferred.

June 26/ 1969
The question now is on motion No. (2) (Mr. MacDonald, Egmont). Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: those in favour of the proposed motion please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: those opposed please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: In my
opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: According to the Standing Order, this vote is deferred.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: That Bill C-202, An Act to provide incentives for the development of productive employment opportunities in regions of Canada determined to require special measures to facilitate economic expansion and social adjustment, be amended, by deleting paragraph (b) of clause 4 and substituting therefor:
(b) In the case of a proposal to establish, a new facility or to expand an existing facility to enable the manufacturing or processing of a product not previously manufactured or processed in the operation or to expand an existing tourist or service operation, a secondary development incentive by way of additional financial assistance to the applicant for the establishment of the new facility or the expansion of the existing facility for that purpose.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my purpose to speak only briefly on this motion because it is a consequential amendment having to do with the other amendment which we have not yet determined. I would certainly be within my rights, if for no other reason, in speaking briefly on this amendment. As I remarked in dealing with the second motion on the order paper today, if we are to give full weight to the important matter of including under the scope of this legislation the tourist and service industries it seems to me we must take into account how we deal with clause 4, the authorization of incentives. We should pay particular attention to the subclause which defines the availability of assistance to industries that are applying for the secondary grant for the enlargement into a new operation of an existing industry or the establish-

June 26. 1969	COMMONS
ment of a brand new industry. These grants are related to the number of people to be employed in the industry.
Here again, if only to emphasize the fact, I wish to say it is important to realize that in the areas into which we will be injecting a good deal of this fresh capital to assist new industry, we will have the option, depending on the attitude of the government, of assisting the various service and tourist industries. I recall that the argument was advanced by the minister, in considering the advisability of making this kind of assistance available to the tourist industry, that in many cases this industry offers only part time employment. I would reply simply that part time employment is certainly better than no employment at all. This summer we are faced with the problem of many thousands of university students and others who cannot find employment. They would certainly be most anxious to obtain the kind of employment that would be provided through any enlargement of tourist facilities that might exist in any of the underdeveloped parts of the country. Employment obtained in this area would greatly aid the economy and, ease the burden of the government in respect of its manpower department which, unfortunately I think, has not had any great success.
It seems to me it is important if we are to give full weight to this legislation-and it is certainly my intent and that of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) to give such weight to it in respect of the tourist and service industries-that there must be not only available the primary grant but also secondary grants as set out under this bill. The amendment provides for assistance to existing tourist or service operations or the establishment of new such centres where the opportunity exists. This is really a consequent amendment following upon the earlier one in respect of the redefinition of "facility".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Is the
house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: those in favour please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.
Regional Development Incentives Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: those opposed please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: In my
opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Pursuant to section 1 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


John Stratford Burton: That Bill C-202, An Act to provide incentives for the development of productive employment opportunities in regions of Canada determined to require special measures to facilitate economic expansion and social adjustment, be amended, by including in clause 7, subclause 1, the following new paragraph:
(c) the establishment of a Crown corporation in consultation with provincial authorities would make a more significant contribution to economic expansion and social adjustment within the designated region.
He said: Mr. Speaker, clause 7 of the bill as it reads now imposes certain limitations on the powers granted to the minister. This clause reads:
No development incentive may be authorized under this act for the establishment, expansion or modernization of any facility if, in the opinion of the minister,
(a)	it is probable that the facility would be established, expanded or modernized without the provision of such an incentive; or
(b)	the establishment, expansion or modernization of the facility would not make a significant contribution to economic expansion and social adjustment within the designated region.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
It is desirable that some limitations be placed on the powers of the minister granted under this act. He has admitted himself that he has been granted some rather far reaching powers, and he seems to be quite willing to accept the responsibilities and the problems that go with the powers being granted to him. Nevertheless, I think this clause, as it is worded now, does impose two limitations on the powers of the minister which apparently meet with the approval of the government.
The amendment I have proposed on behalf of the New Democratic Party would provide a new subclause (c). Subclause (c), read in conjunction with the preamble, would then read as follows:
Regional Development Incentives Act
No development incentive may be authorized under this act for the establishment, expansion or modernization of any facility if, in the opinion of the minister,
(c)	the establishment of a Crown corporation in consultation with provincial authorities would make a more significant contribution to economic expansion and social adjustment within the designated region.
I think this would be a very desirable and useful addition to the bill. It should be noted that most of the assistance which will be provided by the government under this act will be given to private industry. The minister has noted in the committee during discussion on this bill that it will be possible to provide assistance to Crown corporations. In other words, they would qualify for a grant just the same as a private industry.
I can see that this may be a very useful device if it were decided that such assistance should be provided to a totally provincial Crown corporation. However, it seems to me that this clause works against Crown corporations in terms of possible federal involvement in action dealing with some of our economic problems which we face in the areas of the country to which this measure shall apply. It seems to me that the concept and role of a Crown corporation really does not get a fair shake. It seems to me there are political and structural factors that work against a Crown corporation, and this amendment would give a federal or joint federal-provincial Crown corporation a fair opportunity to show what it might be able to do in dealing with some of the problems that will arise.
It is recognized that public investment is required in dealing with some of our regional economic problems and for providing for regional economic development. The chief means by which the government proposes to make this public investment under the terms of this bill is through financial assistance, and most of this financial assistance will, of course, go to private industry.
It seems to me this, then, leaves the question of what happens to Crown corporations, or what proposals a Crown corporation might make of a particular type at a particular time. As I suggested, it seems to me that Crown corporations are really placed at a disadvantage under the terms of the bill, and that we do need to give a full opportunity for a rational decision on the point of whether or not a particular development or a particular project should be a public project in the form of a Crown corporation, or a private project.
[Mr. Burton.l
June 26, 1969
When I make these statements I am not taking a dogmatic stand in respect of public versus private ownership. I am simply suggesting that what we do require is an objective assessment of the relative merits of public versus private ownership and operation in a given situation. It seems to me if it is decided that a Crown corporations involving the federal government either as the sole owner, or as a joint owner with a provincial government is the best possible and most efficient means of carrying out a particular development, then there are other means of financing open to the government. These means would not involve the use of the grant structure provided in this measure because the corporation would not need a grant in that sense.
What happens then, is that this amendment forces the minister to make a judgment and an assessment prior to making a decision as to the relative merits of public versus private operation. The fact is that the minister could not make a grant for a particular purpose if he had an assessment before him stating that a publicly owned project or development would be preferable and would serve the public interest better than a private operation. Of course, the government has various tools of analysis available to it. According to some of the discussions that took place before the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, some departments do not seem to be too familiar with such techniques as cost benefit analysis and other more refined techniques, but it seems to me these are available and an objective assessment could be made to determine whether in fact a project should be carried out as a public or privately owned operation.
Making use of cost benefit analysis really enables the government to take into account all the factors affecting the public interest rather than using just a profit and loss basis for judging an operation. It seems to me what is required in dealing with this situation is that the minister be given powers to make such a decision. He, in fact, would be forced into the position of making a meaningful decision on this particular point. I give the minister credit for his ability, his intelligence and his motivation, and it seems to me he certainly would not make a judgment unless he had adequate information before him. What we do want to see is decisions taken that are purposeful and meaningful and that are not accidental or circumstantial. Thus, I commend this motion to the house and sug-

June 26, 1969	COMMONS
gest that in effect a fair shake be given for once to the possibilities that do exist for Crown corporations, to carry out particular aspects of our economic development.
As I stated before, this in no way prejudges the relative merits of one or more types of operation in any given situation. It really leaves the situation open so that an objective assessment can be made and the government might be enabled to take a decision in the best interests of the Canadian nation and the Canadian people. Thus, I hope the government and all members of this house will support this motion in order that we can better enable the government to carry out the purpose and intent of this legislation.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I should like to support this proposal very strongly. We are all aware of the few times the move toward Crown Corporations has been successful in the past. Some on the other side might want to point out that such Crown corporations have been unsuccessful in the past on a number of occasions. Anyone who has any knowledge of the Polymer corporation, which was established in an area where industry would not normally be interested, will realize that it has become a very large employer and a very valuable tool in the substitute rubber industry. We must realize that the amount of money the federal government spent on this particular Crown corporation has been well repaid and that the rewards which have been reaped have been tremendous.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
I am sure the minister is aware that a great deal of assistance will have to be provided in the far north in relation to the oil development program in that area. It seems to me that a crown corporation owning and operating a pipe line might be the most effective way of using money and directing the economic development of the whole Mackenzie River delta, considering the number of oil outlets that are likely to be available in the near future. I believe this developement would be along the lines of the government's thinking. The money spent in this manner would eventually be available for further redistribution, whereas if it were given to industry it would not be as readily available or identifiable at a later time.
I am thinking of a project that for many years has been considered in my area of northern Ontario, namely, the development of
Regional Development Incentives Act a lignite industry. This would involve considerable expenditure and private industry has not been particularly interested in it. For this reason, efforts to develop the industry have not been very successful. If the government established a crown corporation to develop the lignite, it is likely that the industries surrounding such a development would be almost certain of success. The difference would be that the industry would be developed when the government saw fit to establish a crown corporation for that purpose. If the development is left to private industry, it may not take place for many years and may be spasmodic and limited, as it has been for the past 20 or 30 years.
I am sure there are many areas in which a crown corporation would be advantageous. I can mention one that has been referred to over the last few years by many members of the house. I refer to our transportation problem. Because Canada is serviced mainly by air lines which fly from east to west rather than from north to south, there is an inability on the part of air lines to provide the type of service that is necessary. If money were available for amalgamating existing feeder lines through a crown corporation, using the facilities o f the crown corporation of Air Canada-without necessarily amalgamating these lines into strictly one unit-there could be a reduction in cost and a betterment of the service. It seems to me that the benefits which would accrue to the general public through the establishment of a crown corporation which would bring together the hundreds of existing feeder lines would be well worth investigation by the Minister. In this way the feeder lines would be able to operate closely with our major east-west carriers and could provide an adequate service.
I hope the minister will consider this suggestion. I know that over the years many people in the house have been opposed to Crown corporations on the basis that some other body could better handle these matters. There has been the suggestion that some of our Crown corporations will be sold to private enterprise. Even if this proves to be so and it is advantageous, I am sure few people would say that most of the Crown corporations established by the federal government have not served a useful purpose or, that the reasons for which they were established would, not be applicable in a number of other fields with some anticipation of success.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief in
10674	COMMONS
Regional Development Incentives Act speaking to this amendment. I rise at this point because I think the minister might come around somewhat to our way of thinking. As he knows, we considered these arguments at some length in committee. In connection with the discussion of another amendment which we shall reach shortly, the minister and I exchanged comments in the committee on the question of public ownership. At one point I expressed the view that I thought it was a very fine thing. The minister replied in these words, and I quote from the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Regional Development, Volume No. 16, page 389:
Yes, I would agree with you if we were discussing general legislation applying to the whole Canadian economy.
There was a discussion of the principle of foreign ownership, the problems connected with it, and more particularly the means of dealing with it, and the establishment of crown corporations. I was very pleased that the minister lent his support to the principle of public ownership. I wonder if between the time of that committee meeting and today's sitting he has come around to our view. I look forward to the minister's comments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Is
house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Is it
pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: In my
opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Chairman, if we were discussing a piece of legislation applying to the whole Canadian economy, I would be in agreement with most of what you are saying.
The point is that the minister does seem to realize the very serious political consequences for Canadians of the very extensive ownership of our economy by foreigners, and this means in particular by Americans. He has supported the notion that some meaningful restrictions should be established in our country, particularly with regard to the ownership of equity in our Canadian economy. However, he refused to support the amendment in the committee on rather serious grounds. The
June 26, 1969	COMMONS
argument put forward by the minister was that he would be in favour of setting up meaningful controls of foreign ownership-I certainly wish he went across the country talking about this general situation since there are not many people in the cabinet willing to say this-and that he was personally committed to some kind of action which would regain Canadian control of our economy. However, he pointed out that if we applied such action through this piece of legislation only, the effects would be discriminatory. It would mean, in effect, that a foreign owned company would be encouraged to invest in those parts of Canada which are already prosperous and the very areas that need the least help would be aided greatly. If we prohibited the kind of subsidization that this bill provides from applying to foreign owned corporations, instead of locating in certain parts of the maritime provinces, certain parts of Quebec or indeed in certain parts of Ontario, these firms would locate in the Toronto-Hamilton area, for example, or some analogous parts of Canada that need no assistance.
This argument is a serious one, and I do not deny it at all. But if we, as Canadians, are seriously concerned about dealing with foreign ownership and the resulting political and social consequences-and I have no intention of boring the house with repeated arguments that have been made many times before in the house and elsewhere on that question-this would have been a good starting place to establish the principle that we will not use public funds to subsidize a foreign take-over of the Canadian economy. The implicit assumption made by the minister is that the major part of the industry which we will encourage to locate in those areas of Canada where we think it should be located will be foreign owned. This may or may not be the case; it seems to me to be an open question. It might turn out to be the case, especially if meaningful and persuasive political action dealing with Canadian owned companies were taken and some appeal to Canadian capitalists were explicitly made, along with financial incentives provided in this bill, to locate industry in Canadian areas which need development.
We might not have to rely on foreign ownership if leadership were given by this government to the business investing community. It might well turn out that we could entice a sufficient amount of capital generated in Canada to locate in the areas that need it and
Regional Development Incentives Act therefore not have to rely on foreign capital for this growth. It seems to me to be a remarkable failure of leadership in advance for the minister to suggest, as he does in effect in this bill and as he did in the committee, that there would be no hope for the meaningful implementation of this bill if we did not rely on the clause as it exists which maintains the principle of foreign ownership in this country. If this is the case, it is an extremely serious situation and it recalls to my mind the statement made in the Watkins report that we have only 10 or 15 years left in which to save Canada. If we do not do something soon, it will be too late. This may be the case. I suggest that it will not hurt the government one bit to try for a few years to develop this country on classical capitalist principles using Canadian capital, providing financial incentives for that capital but restricting anything over 51 per cent of foreign control. This is what we should do, instead of providing public funds to further subsidize the acquisition of very important economic resources in Canada. If it turned out after a few years that this amendment, if adopted, led to a substantial failure of the program, then perhaps it would have to be reassessed. I am suggesting that the minister's acknowledged failure in advance seems to reflect, not a deliberate indifference to Canadian needs, but an unconscious thinking that has prevailed in Liberal governments in this country for many years that somehow we just cannot get by without allowing capital to enter in the form of ownership. I am not arguing against any form of foreign investment-that would be ludicrous-but, as the minister knows, many countries including so-called socialist countries, Yugoslavia being an example, have allowed foreign capital up to the 49 per cent level and yet retained control of their own countries.
What I am urging the government to do by this amendment is to show a little leadership to the Canadian people and to try, at least in this small way in this bill, to preserve Canada for Canadians.
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the
Opposition): I would just like to say a few words in support of what is described as being the position of the minister with regard to this matter. I do not wish to use language that is too strong, but I do not see how anybody can possibly put forward an amendment of this sort if he has any interest in doing something to develop the under-developed
10676	COMMONS DEBATES	June 26, 1969
Regional Development Incentives Act regions of Canada. I say this sincerely and without in any way trying to be offensive. Anybody with any experience at all in connection with the task that the minister has would not try to tie at least one hand behind his back before starting. If someone wants to advocate a measure in the house with regard to the control of Canadian industry by Canadians, this is the last place to start. If someone wants to start in Oshawa, that is all right, but he should not start in northern Ontario or in some other section of the country such as the Atlantic provinces where it has been proven that Canadian industry is not particularly interested in trying out something new and where, in fact, much of the development that has taken place has been as a result of foreign enterprise.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Secondly, I think this amendment is misconceived. I assume that the approach of the minister will be not to assist industry as such by providing a hand-out that will benefit the owners but to provide assistance to equalize the advantage of industry locating in one region as compared with another region that is more highly developed. The purpose of the minister's program is not to give a benefit to the owners of a particular industry but rather to make it sufficiently worth while, and no more than sufficiently worth while, for industry to go into an underdeveloped area. The minister also has to satisfy himself that the benefit derived from taking such a step is in some way commensurate with the assistance offered.
I hope there is no misunderstanding that the assistance granted by the minister is designed to fatten the profits of foreign or Canadian capitalists. I hope the program will be administered in such a way as to assist development of certain areas and help equalize to some extent the attractiveness of underdeveloped areas with other regions.
I would oppose, and I hope that every member in the house would oppose, any attempt to restrict this program or-and here I agree with the minister-effectively to kill the program by tying into it some concept of countering foreign ownership. Surely, the minister can administer the program in such a way that it does not assist takeovers or provide unnecessary windfalls to industry.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are
you sure of that?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: No, I am not sure. I assume that is the purpose of the program of the minister. Sometimes the minister may mistakenly be a little more generous, in which case his colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) will get a good deal of the money back before long in any event.
I want to make two points. Firstly, that in my view this amendment is based on a misconception, namely that the act will provide assistance to the owners of industry, whereas in fact it is designed to provide assistance to industry to locate in underdeveloped areas of Canada. Secondly, regardless of what one may think about foreign ownership and so on, I think this amendment would very seriously handicap the minister's efforts to assist the establishment of industry in underdeveloped areas. If the government wants to initiate a program to bring Canadian industry home or to ensure that new industry is controlled by Canadians, then the last place to try to achieve this would be in underdeveloped areas of Canada. If the minister started in Oshawa or some place, it might be more appropriate. Without particularizing in this regard, suffice it to say I could not oppose too vigorously this amendment, which I think would really frustrate to a very significant extent the whole purpose of this legislation.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this amendment. I completely disagree with the last speaker's interpretation of the use to which the funds should be put, and I endorse the amendment moved by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). It seems to me that we have to start somewhere in Canada to control foreign ownership.
I have gone through the minutes of the committee proceedings, and on June 16, as reported at page 393, I noticed that the minister indicated to the committee he was very much in favour of our doing something to aid the development of Canada by Canadians. I should just like to place his remarks on Hansard. Incidentally, may I say I completely agree with what the minister said. However, he did qualify his statement and said, as did the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), that he felt we should not make a start in this connection under this particular program. The minister said:
I believe that we should promote industrial development by Canadian capital in Canada. I am not ready to support the thesis which wants us to buy Canada back overnight or in five or ten years.
June 26, 1969	COMMONS
but I think that we should. The only way to become more independent economically is to develop Canadian industry owned and controlled by Canadians. There is no doubt.
However, there will be no discrimination in the implementation of this law. This is a matter of general policy and this we are ready to follow.
The minister is indicating there would be no discrimination under this act.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order; I have no objection to having my remarks read, but the hon. member has read only part of what I said. I said that this amendment would involve the worst kind of discrimination against slow growth regions in Canada.


Randolph Harding: I do not mind the minister adding that. I indicated that the minister had said he did not wish to include this amendment in the act, and I will frankly admit that was his statement.
This is the position which we are in today. We had the Watkins report presented some time ago. This report informed the government and all Canadians what was happening to Canadian industry and urged that some steps be taken to correct the situation. What I should like to know is when this government is going to start to take action to solve the problem of controlling Canadian ownership of industry, and where the government is going to make this move. Let no one in this house kid himself. Once we lose control of our economy, then along with it also goes political control. This we are seeing today in Canada. We have asked the government, as well as the other parties in this house, to give a great deal of thought as to what has been happening in this country in so far as control and ownership of Canadian industries and companies is concerned.
We would be very unwise to use the Canadian taxpayers' money to further such control. I am suggesting, as my hon. friend has suggested, that there are other types of control that can be built into legislation of this type. The government may not have to accept this particular amendment now before the house, but surely top priority should be given to assisting Canadian companies to establish industry in these so-called designated areas. I should like to point out that foreign capital in Canada is usually invested in areas where there is a real chance it will yield a profit. Many of the areas that we are talking about at the moment are marginal
Regional Development Incentives Act areas, which is one of the reasons they have not been developed to date.
I do not want to spend too long discussing this amendment but I should just like to say something else about foreign ownership in Canada. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) has very clearly pointed out that other countries in the world have taken measures to ensure that control of industry has not passed from their hands into others. We could establish controls of that nature relating to moneys which would be used for the establishment of industries in those areas. Should outside interests decide to move in, they would also be affected. This is what we are asking the minister to do. We want him to look at legislation of this type and we hope he will give some thought to it. Even though the minister may be unhappy with our proposal and unwilling to implement it, I hope he will give us the assurance that top priority will be given to any Canadian company or group of companies that may wish to enter these areas and establish industries as a result of the subsidies which are to be paid with respect to these incentive areas. I do not think that is asking too much.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
You know, Mr. Speaker, we have talked for years about a Canada development corporation. We should be setting up such a corporation. We have plenty of money in this nation for that purpose and we should have set up a Canada development corporation years ago. It could have been at work in the incentive areas mentioned in this bill. The various regions suffering from disparities could have been built up. Industry could have been built in those areas and the standard of living of all Canadians could have been raised.
I hope the minister will take my brief remarks into consideration. At some appropriate time I hope he brings in the necessary amendments to this legislation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question? The hon. member for Regina East.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to hon. members. I was about to recognize the Minister of Transport, but since he seemed uncertain and did not give the appearance of wanting to speak I recognized the hon. member for Regina East. I recognize the Minister of Transport.
10878	COMMONS DEBATES	June 26. 1969
Atlantic Regional Freight Assistance Act


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I believe there was unanimous agreement that at this point the house would suspend what was before it and deal with Bill No. C-207 for the remaining time today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think the proper procedure is for the Minister of Transport to move a motion to adjourn debate. If that is agreeable to the house we could, after the motion has been agreed to, proceed to the next item of business. Do hon. members agree that we proceed in that manner?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I so move.
On motion of Mr. Jamieson the debate was adjourned.



ATLANTIC REGIONAL FREIGHT ASSISTANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, June 19, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-207, to authorize assistance to transportation in the Atlantic region-Mr. Jamieson- Mr. Faulkner in the chair.
James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. When the committee rose on Thursday, June 19, clause 5 was under consideration.
On clause 5-Power to vary or remove rates.


Mr. Thomas (Moncfon):: Mr. Chairman,
when debate on this bill was suspended on Thursday I indicated that we, on this side of the house, were prepared to accept this legislation on the strict understanding that it is an interim measure and on the firm guarantee given to us by the minister that he would be introducing much more comprehensive legislation in the coining session. I also said that although we agreed with most provisions of the bill, we were unhappy about clause 5(1), the clause we were discussing when debate on the bill was adjourned. We feel that this is an undesirable provision to include in the bill. I think the minister more or less agreed that this was not the most desirable way to handle what is intended, and I had the impression after listening to him that he might bring in some changes in this area. I 
will, therefore, ask the minister if he has anything to announce in this regard which may allay the fears and suspicions some of us harbour with respect to this piece of legislation.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Chairman, in reply to my hon. friend, may I say that I have read with a good deal of care the transcript of the proceedings that took place in the house on the occasion when this bill was discussed initially. I have tried to take into account the representations of hon. members opposite and to bear in mind what I think was their general theme. They intimated that they wanted this bill to be passed and to be passed quickly, so that its benefits could be extended to the Atlantic region. At the same time, they expressed reservations about certain of its clauses.
I said when introducing the bill that it was not a complete measure and that I would be quite prepared to see how it might be amended in some way in order to accommodate the views of representatives of the parties opposite. It seemed to me, on re-reading the proceedings, that the key point of hon. members' remarks revolved around clause 5 which has to do with the power of the governor in council relating to intra subsidies. That is the subsidy which is recommended now at the rate of 20 per cent within the specified region and which it is proposed will be subject to a review by a federal-provincial committee. It is hoped that the committee will apply this subsidy in a more beneficial way to the transport problems of the Atlantic region.
I am sure that hon. members understand that clause 5 was included in this bill because it was necessary for us to move on a progressive basis in order to implement this change. I think hon. members were unanimous in agreeing that they did not want to await the completion of the report. The completion of the report of the committee might take some considerable time and they did not want to wait for that before some of the provisions of the bill could be introduced. What I suggested at that time was that we wanted to be in a position from which, if the committee made a specific recommendation having to do with a particular commodity or group of commodities, we could move in order to implement that committee recommendation. Hence, we included clause 5 in the bill.
I understand the concern of hon. members opposite about clause 5 and about the fact that it gives authority to the governor in
June 26, 1969	COMMONS
council to make certain changes. While I assured the house then, and I assure the house again now, that it was not our intention nor is it our intention to emasculate the Maritime Freight Rates Act, yet there is good reason, and as a representative of an Atlantic province I understand this reason, for protecting the general charter of transportation of that region. May I therefore say to hon. members that I would be prepared to move an amendment which would eliminate what I believe is the legitimate concern of hon. members opposite.
The basis of this amendment is that when a recommendation is made by the federal-provincial committee to which I have referred, and when that recommendation is accepted and acted upon, it will become a matter of public record. If this hon. house happens to be sitting at that time or will sit within 15 days of the day of the order, any ten hon. members of this house or of the other place may require that the subject matter of the order be debated within this chamber. If, as a result of that debate, the order in question is annulled, the order shall stand annulled and have no effect. The effect of this amendment will be to return to parliament the right to pass judgment on any change in the intra subsidy under the Maritime Freight Rates Act. I hope hon. members will agree that this amendment meets the objections they have raised during the previous discussions on this matter. I may say that we have considered the proposal to simply introduce clause 5 on a one year, limited basis. While this proposal had a good deal to recommend it and could have solved the problem in the interim, it is conceivable the work of this committee may well extend beyond the 12-month period in which case it would be necessary for us to extend its activities at an important point and reintroduce legislation. I hope through this amendment, copies of which I believe have now been circulated to all hon. members, we have met the objections raised with regard to clause 5.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
There were two other matters raised by hon. members opposite to which I gave attention. One had to do with the wish for an assurance that the current level of subsidies paid on an intra basis, that is the total sum of money now applied to maritime freight rate subsidies in the Atlantic provinces, would not be lessened in any way by the decisions of the federal-provincial committee. In other 29180-6751
Atlantic Regional Freight Assistance Act words, we would be obliged and obligated to ensure that the moneys transferred to other purposes on the recommendation of the committee would equal the sum that was being paid under the 20 per cent subsidy arrangement.
I told hon. members that was our intention, but to ensure that this met with their approval, I had the draftsmen prepare an amendment which is also in the hands of hon. members opposite. It reads.
That Bill C-207 be amended by striking out clause 6(2) at page 4 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"(2) The total amount of assistance paid under this section shall at no time exceed the total of the amounts certified to the minister under subsection (2) of section 5 as the estimated savings to the Consolidated Revenue Fund in respect of those calendar years, including any part of such a year, for which amounts have been so certified to the minister."
The intent of this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is to ensure, in an orderly fashion, that the exact sum of dollars will be in the aggregate transfer to programs. I am sure hon. members will agree it is not practical to transfer the precise sum of dollars removed from any one portion of the program to some alternative program. Through this amendment we will see that the total sum is provided so that it can be moved, not necessarily program for program, but over the whole spectrum of projects as the federal-provincial committee may suggest.
The third and final point with regard to amendments was that there was nothing in the bill of a definitive nature to indicate the precise time at which we would introduce the subsidy for truckers. I have now proposed an amendment at page 6, line 66 of the bill indicating that it will come into force on the 15th day of July, 1969. That is in the current year.


David Lewis: That 1st day of July.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am sorry, that is a typographical error. If hon. members will be good enough to change it, it ought to be the 15th and I will move at the appropriate moment that it be the 15th. I thank the hon. member for calling it to my attention.
The fourth objection raised to this measure with which I would like to deal briefly has to do with the possible inclusion of Labrador in the benefits or application of the Maritime Freight Rates Act. I have given a good deal of study to this since the previous day of the
10680	COMMONS DEBATES	June 26. 1969
Atlantic Regional Freight Assistance Act debate. Of course, the reasons Labrador was not included in the first instance are fairly obvious. In 1949 they were negotiating the terms of the union and the application of the Maritime Freight Rates Act to Newfoundland. It was considered at that time more appropriate to confine it to the Island of Newfoundland. Conditions in Labrador have changed very dramatically since that time. There is no question in my mind, nor is there the slightest reservation, that we should move in this direction. Labrador must be the beneficiary of some form of transportation assistance. I feel that the form of transportation assistance to be provided to Labrador deserves study and consideration by the federal-provincial committee.
One hon. member suggested it would be appropriate to simply substitute the word "Labrador" or the words "the province of Newfoundland" for the words "the island of Newfoundland". I suggest that under this piece of legislation no real benefit would accrue under that particular arrangement. Indeed, the problem would be that the Maritime Freight Rates Act would then of necessity have to apply to a very large amount of iron ore being moved by the companies from Labrador out of the select region.
I suggest that is not the intent of this legislation, nor do I believe the hon. member is in the least interested in providing some sort of gratuitous benefit of this kind to the iron ore companies of Labrador which would do nothing for the people of Labrador and which would in many respects be an unreasonable burden on the Maritime Freight Rates Act which was not intended and, I emphasize, which we do not intend in this legislation. Therefore, to accept a proposal that would include Labrador within this particular bill would, I suggest, do nothing for the Labrador region or for the people of Labrador. It would impose an unreasonable burden on the Maritime Freight Rates Act which it was not and is not now intended it should bear.
As an alternative I suggest to the hon. members that the wisest course is to give as a priority recommendation to this federal-provincial committee, on which the province of Newfoundland will be represented, that they examine practical means whereby operation of the so-called intra subsidy can be applied to Labrador. It seems, Mr. Chairman, that is the appropriate way in which to proceed. In other words, the committee can examine whether a portion of the intra subsidy should be assigned to rail routes into Labrador or

within Labrador. It can examine, and this I suggest is a key point with regard to Labrador, whether the subsidy ought to be applied. I believe it should be applied in some form or assistance ought to be given with regard to air shipments and also in some respects to shipments by sea.
I am prepared to defend the proposition that the mere inclusion of Labrador in this bill would have no significant benefits to the people of the Labrador region but would require us, unless the entire Maritime Freight Rates Act structure was changed, to apply a 30 per cent subsidy on the entire outgoing shipments of iron ore from Labrador, and particularly and most assuredly, on those destined for use in other parts of Canada.
In the days which have intervened since the first discussion of this bill, I believe I have made sincere efforts to accommodate the representations of members opposite. I believe their representations have been reasonable and fair, and I have answered them in the amendments which I am proposing to make at the appropriate time tonight. I simply say the result of any delay in this measure is going to be that the trucking industry in the Atlantic provinces, which has been operating under a most severe and unreasonable penalty for a very long time, will have to continue to do so. I say it will have a double penalty because we will of necessity have to maintain the so-called freeze which results in the trucking industry being inhibited on two different counts.
Hon. members have stated emphatically throughout this debate that they are most anxious to see this legislation passed. I am prepared to concede this is only part of the package. It does not do the whole job. I say we can move in this direction now. We can, in fact, help significantly through this measure to improve the transportation problems of the Atlantic provinces and I commend the measure to hon. members.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the minister for his remarks which go part way to answering some of the questions debated when this matter was last before the house. We are anxious to expedite the passage of this bill. We thank the minister not only for listening to the previous debate but also for paying attention to consultation we have had outside the house on the possibility of putting some curb on the wide discretionary power outlined in clause 5 which gives the cabinet virtual authority to emasculate
June 26, 1969	COMMONS
the Maritime Freight Rates Act so far as intra-traffic is concerned.
The minister's proposal, whereby ten members can provoke a debate on an order made under clause 5, will give the house an opportunity to debate any reduction of rates under the Maritime Freight Rates Act, although I would point out that this provision already exists in the law. Now, we will maintain some type of control, and will have a forum in which to discuss this type of change.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
So far as the other two amendments are concerned, with respect to the amount of assistance I still hope that we do not get into a situation where the amount saved is a decreasing amount, so that three or four years from now there may not be any savings made on one section to be used in a supplemental way as suggested by the minister. We suggested a one year time limit, and in fact I submitted a draft to this effect to the minister. It is essential that the minister continue to show the initiative in bringing this matter up to date and preparing comprehensive plans for legislation on Atlantic transportation.
On the basis that this bill must be passed to eliminate the discrimination that now exists against truckers, we on this side are prepared to agree to these amendments. I believe the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador wishes to make some further comment on the question of the island of Newfoundland versus the province of Newfoundland, but so far as this party is concerned we hope that this legislation will be passed tonight.


Mr. Skoberg:: Mr. Chairman, we in this party are now much more ready to accept this particular amendment. It will mean that we in parliament will still have some control. So far as the situation in Labrador is concerned, our position has always been that any assistance given under the Maritime Freight Rates Act should directly assist the user of a facility.


Mr. Peddle:: Mr. Chairman, on the previous occasion that this bill was before committee of the whole I expressed my concern that, while it is entitled an act to authorize assistance to transportation in the Atlantic region, it specifically excludes the Labrador part of the province of Newfoundland. Clause 2(c) provides that any consideration under the act so far as Newfoundland is concerned applies only to the island of Newfoundland. The
Atlantic Regional Freight Assistance Act other three Atlantic provinces, Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and New Brunswick are included in their entirety, and the portion of Quebec which I suppose can be considered as an Atlantic region is also included. I might say I have been given to understand that in the new bill the portion of Quebec stipulated is considerably larger than that taken into consideration in the Maritime Freight Rates Act, as printed in the revised statutes of Canada, 1952.
Approximately 110,000 square miles of my province, incidentally all in my riding, are deliberately excluded from the provisions of this legislation. The minister answered my objection by making reference to the terms of union between Newfoundland and Canada. I cannot see the relevancy of that argument. The terms of union state:
For the purpose of railway rate regulation the Island of Newfoundland will be included in the Maritime region of Canada-
All legislation of the Parliament of Canada providing for special rates on traffic moving within, into, or out of, the Maritime region will, as far as appropriate, be made applicable to the Island of N ewf oundland.
But, Mr. Chairman, the terms of union also clearly define the province of Newfoundland, as follows:
The Province of Newfoundland shall comprise the same territory as at the date of Union, that is to say, the Island of Newfoundland and the Islands adjacent thereto, the coast of Labrador as delimited in the report delivered by the Judicial Committee ... on the first day of March, 1927-
I do not really want to delay the minister's legislation but as the elected representative of the riding of Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador I cannot come into this chamber and see legislation, purporting to assist transportation in the Atlantic region, go through when the area of Labrador I represent is specifically excluded from the terms of that legislation.
The biggest problems in Labrador are transportation and communications. Transportation is the only real problem in the industrialized areas of Labrador. Therefore, I cannot buy a bill such as this which excludes Labrador. Mr. Chairman, I know there are no roads in Labrador right now, but in one of my first speeches in this chamber I supported the idea of the provision of a road system in Labrador. When roads are provided, the subsidy available through this bill could be an incentive to develop Labrador.
I know the minister is trying to be co-operative but I still cannot help but feel that Labrador is being treated as an orphan, to which a few crumbs may be thrown. I cannot
10682	COMMONS
Atlantic Regional Freight Assistance Act accept that. The minister says he feels Labrador must be the beneficiary of some form of assistance. If this bill is for the assistance of transportation in the Atlantic region, let it cover the entire Atlantic region. If trucking facilities are not presently available in Labrador no harm will be done, but the provisions of this bill could be used as an incentive to the introduction of such facilities.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
As I said I do not wish to delay this legislation. I heard the remarks of the minister concerning the subsidies that would have to be paid in respect of iron ore shipments, and that seems to be a rather strange reason for keeping assistance out of an area. That does not ring right to my ear. As a representative of the area, and despite the minister's remarks, I must propose the following amendment to Bill C-207.1 move:
That clause 2(c) be amended by deleting the words "Island of Newfoundland" and substituting therefor the words "the Province of Newfoundland".


James Hugh Faulkner: Clause 2 has been stood. Therefore, we will proceed through the bill and then return to clause 2, at which time the hon. member's amendment may be put.


Mr. Lang:: I move:
That Bill C-207 be amended by adding thereto, immediately after line 17 on page 4 thereof, the following subsections:
Tabling	(3) An order of the Governor in
Council made under subsection (1) to vary or remove any reduction in tariffs shall be laid before Parliament not later that fifteen days after its issue, or, if Parliament is not then sitting, within the first fifteen days next thereafter that Parliament is sitting and, subject to subsection (5), the order shall come into force thirty sitting days after it is so tabled.
Opportunity (4) Where an order has been laid for debate before Parliament pursuant to subsection (3), a notice of Motion in either House signed by ten members thereof and made in accordance with the rules of that House within fifteen days of the day the order was laid before Parliament, praying that the order be annulled, shall be debated in that House at the first convenient opportunity within the ten sitting days next after the day the motion in that House was made.
Annulling (5) If either House of Parliament order	resolves that the order be annulled,
the order shall stand annulled and have no effect.


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Mr. Peddle.!

June 26, 1969
Amendment (Mr. Lang) agreed to.
Clause 5 as amended agreed to.
On clause 6-Assistance authorized


Daniel Aiken Lang: I move:
That Bill C-207 be amended by striking out clause 6(2) at page 4 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
(2) The total amount of assistance paid under this section shall at no time exceed the total of the amounts certified to the Minister under subsection (2) of section 5 as the estimated savings to the Consolidated Revenue Fund in respect of those calendar years, including any part of such a year, for which amounts have been so certified to the Minister.


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Lang) agreed to.
Clause 6 as amended agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 10-Coming into force


Daniel Aiken Lang: I move:
That Bill C-207 be amended by striking out line 33 on page 6 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
10. Section 3 shall come into force on the 1st day of July, 1969, sections 5 and 6 shall come into


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Lang) agreed to.
Clause 10 as amended agreed to.


James Hugh Faulkner: The committee will revert to clause 2 and the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador that clause 2(c) be amended by deleting the words "Island of Newfoundland" and substituting therefor the words "the Province of Newfoundland".


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Chairman, on this
amendment may I say I am in complete sympathy with the intention of the hon. member. There is no argument about the propriety of his plan and we wish to ensure that Labrador is taken care of. I simply say to him and hon. members, through you Mr. Chairman, that the effect of this amendment is to give the large iron mining companies operating in Labrador a very, very significant and unnecessary subsidy which they do not need and which they have not sought. This is the only possible result of this amendment. The solution I have undertaken to bring about,
Limit
on
assistance
June 26, 1969	COMMONS
and which I now say we will do, is to have the committee find an effective means of assisting transportation in the Labrador area of the province of Newfoundland and within the Atlantic provinces. For these reasons I cannot accept this amendment.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Chairman, I believe I put forward our position a short while ago. I believe we find ourselves supporting the minister's position on this proposed amendment. Today in the house it was agreed that the Standing Committee on Transportation would continue its tour, which no doubt will include Labrador. At the same time, the minister has suggested Labrador should receive consideration for assistance and that the federal-provincial committee no doubt will be looking into this. What bothers me is that the committee may go on a junket to Labrador, come back and then make a recommendation for assistance which would be of little value. I am sure all members of my party would like to support this amendment, but unfortunately the large iron ore companies would be the only real beneficiaries. I am very sincere when I say there must be some assistance given to the people of Labrador in respect of transportation in this area, but I do not think this amendment will accomplish that objective.
I suggest we must look for other means. I hope the minister is sincere when he states he will see that action is taken in respect of Labrador as soon as possible, and that some legislation will be brought forward to benefit the people of that area. I do not think the way to do it, however, is by helping the great iron ore works to the detriment of the people who should benefit.


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I quite agree with the minister concerning grants.
This amendment would provide for a grant to be paid to Labrador which would help in the first place the company that serves Schefferville, which is owned by American interests. But the greatest danger involved in passing this amendment is that the province of Quebec has never recognized that Labrador belongs to Newfoundland. That is why we object to this amendment, because we are convinced that even if Mr. Smallwood has decided to take up arms to stop the people of Quebec from going to Labrador, we must keep this bill as it is. There is enough disa-
Atlantic Regional Freight Assistance Act greement in the house without confusing the issues even more.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, if the amendment proposed by my colleague the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador were accepted, would it be possible for the minister by regulation to exclude the companies which produce iron ore from any subsidy? Could it be done in that way?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Chairman; it is the precise opposite. If the bill goes through and the federal-provincial committee is empowered to make recommendations, we can look at those industries which do not need this kind of support with a view to the provincial representatives saying we should exclude a particular industry. At this time, the intention is to benefit those people who need the benefit most, and the reverse would be the case if this amendment were to carry now.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
It would simply mean that we would have to apply the Maritime Freight Rates Act, and the 30 per cent westbound subsidy would have to apply to the very heavy and enormously costly shipments of iron ore out of Labrador. This is why I said the appropriate means of dealing with this is to have the committee look into it. We could exclude this group by designation, and we could do that under the legislation we are being asked to pass tonight. Without this legislation we cannot do it, and we particularly cannot do it if this amendment were to carry in the way my hon. friend has proposed it.


James Hugh Faulkner: The committee has heard the amendment. Shall the amendment to clause 2 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall the amendment to clause-


Some hon. Members:: No.


James Hugh Faulkner: All those in favour of the amendment will please rise.


An hon. Member:: There was no opposition to the amendment; it was passed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. All those in favour of the amendment will please rise. All those opposed will please rise.
10684	COMMONS DEBATES	June 26. 1969
Atlantic Regional Freight Assistance Act


An hon. Member:: That's twice you voted on the one issue.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you wake up?


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: How often are you allowed to vote?


James Hugh Faulkner: Could we have order in the committee, please.


An hon. Member:: Just like Pearson; you lost one vote so you try again.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. I declare the amendment negatived.
Amendment (Mr. Peddle) negatived: Yeas, 24; Nays, 75.


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall clause 2 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Clause 2 agreed to.


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall clause 1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Clause 1 agreed to.


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall the title carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
James Hugh Faulkner: Shall the bill carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Bill reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Leave is not required, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Certainly it is, there have been amendments.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of Bill C-202, to provide incentives for the develop-
[The Chairman.}
ment of productive employment opportunities in regions of Canada determined to require special measures to facilitate economic expansion and social adjustment, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Regional Development, and motion No. 5 Mr. Broadbent.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 5; Mr. Broadbent, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea?


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it, and I declare the motion negatived on division.
Motion No. 5, Mr. Broadbent, negatived on division.


John Stratford Burton: That Bill C-202, to provide incentives for the development of productive employment opportunities in regions of Canada determined to require special measures to facilitate economic expansion and social adjustment, be amended in clause 13, section 2, by adding after the word "made" in line 23 on page 10, the words:
"or the 31st day of December, 1976, whichever is earlier.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Chairman, in dealing with the amendment which has been proposed to this clause of the bill, I believe there has been a slight error in the drafting of it. I should like at this time to read the amendment that we wish to put. It is as follows:
That the motion be amended by deleting therefrom the word "earlier" and substituting therefor the word "later".
I am sure the minister realizes there was some discussion in the Committee as to the application of the amount of loans that industry would be allowed. It was thought that the reason for providing incentives for industries to move into an area was related to a benefit to the people who were unemployed. Good corporate citizenship is expected of any
June 26. 1969	COMMONS
industry that moves into an area to take advantage of incentives. In looking at this particular clause with this in mind, our idea was to have a very close relationshhip between this department and the Department of Manpower and Immigration. We are of the opinion that this particular clause of the bill should indicate that those industries taking advantage of the incentives provisions should keep in contact with the department throughout the entire time this act is in force.
As was pointed out by the minister at the committee hearings, all of the incentive provisions of the act should not have been applied by 1976. We suggest that changing the word "earlier" to "later" would mean that all the provisions of the act not satisfied at that time would be satisfactorily covered.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
It is our position that there must be very close working relationship among departments to ensure that the purpose of the bill is fulfilled to the greatest extent possible. We have experienced too many situations wherein industries have come into am area, taken advantage of concessions granted to them and have then moved out without regard to the unemployment situation created by the removal of their facilities. We hope that under the provisions of the bill, and because of the remarks of the minister, industry will cooperate to the greatest extent and keep itself advised with regard to employment opportunities. As the bill suggests, industry should "discuss with the department the long term plans of the applicant for the recruitment and training of employees in the designated region".
We believe that the amendment we have proposed is in order and should be acceptable to the minister. I see no reason why he should suggest that the amendment would really make two classes of citizens as far as corporations are concerned. I appreciate that this provision concerning employment opportunities should apply to all industry in a growth centre. Industry says it is doing the area a service; at the same time, it is moving in for a specific purpose under the bill and should provide the necessary data to the Department of Manpower and Immigration to ensure that there is available a complete, up-to-date analysis of the employment picture in the area.
I hope the minister will accept the amendment. I do not think it detracts from the bill in any way. It will provide for a much closer working relationship between departments,
Atlantic Regional Freight Assistance Act and the figures made available would enable one to see whether the purpose of the bill is being carried out to the greatest extent possible. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister to accept the amendment.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak for only a minute or two on the amendment and to add my voice to that of the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) in asking the minister to give the suggestion very careful consideration. As I read the clause with which we are dealing, it provides that as a condition of the incentives to be paid the firm receiving them, the firm has a duty to keep in touch with the department with regard to its labour force, manpower vacancies and requirements. The firm will also have a duty to discuss with the department the long term plans of the applicants for the recruitment and training of employees in the designate region, and to participate in and co-operate with the department in respect of any programs of the department related to employment counselling, placement and manpower adjustment, mobility and training.
All the requirements laid down are to end, according to subclause 2 of clause 13, when the final payment is made in connection with the development incentives. I have studied this clause with my colleagues and do not see why the minister should consider that it would be a discrimination for the law to say that any firm which benefits from the program and obtains the payments provided under the bill has a duty to inform the department and keep in touch with it with respect to the firm's manpower requirements and training, so long as the law is in force.
This law is to remain in force until December 31, 1967. All we are saying to the minister is that the payment of large amounts of money from the public treasury to private firms and investors should require their cooperation in terms of personnel requirements and training. We say that this requirement should continue beyond the time the last payment is made, if that payment occurs before the end of the period during which the law is to remain in force. This seems to me not only a reasonable but a most desirable situation.
One thinks of Canadian Vickers, for example. True enough, Canadian Vickers was not assisted under a scheme such as the one contained in this bill. But that firm was the recipient of a great deal of federal funds because of the work it performed. Then, it
Atlantic Regional Freight Assistance Act had an agreement with the government-I am speaking from memory, but I think I am right-that for five years certain things were to obtain. On the very day the five-year period elapsed, boom, Canadian Vickers said: No more; we are closing our doors. This happens frequently with private corporations which are functioning for the purpose for which they are in existence, that is, meeting the demands of their shareholders and the profit demands of those participating in them. As sure as we are in this chamber, when the final payment under this incentive program is made to any corporation in that situation, it will say: We will have no more contact with the department.
If the situation warrants it from the point of view of the profitability of the corporation, all the co-operation will end at that point. I do not see why the minister should feel at all hesitant about this amendment. I appeal to him, not in any partisan way but appreciating the genuine concern he has that this measure is to work for the benefit of people in the disadvantaged areas who need help, to accept the amendment. I really do not see why he should hesitate to do so. The suggestion is that the obligation of the corporation under clause 13 shall continue for the life of this law, not merely for the life of the payment of the incentives to the corporation. There is a minute left before ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and I invite the minister to rise and say he accepts the amendment. I would very much like to hear him use the remaining minute to say this, rather than speak myself until ten o'clock.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the second amendment, but I have some reservation with regard to the amendment proposed by the committee. This amendment, in French, reads:

That the motion be amended by deleting therefrom the word "earlier" and substituting therefor the word "later".

I have no objection to that; it was only a mistake. I regret that I do not have time to deal with the other amendment, because there are only 30 seconds left. It is ten o'clock.
June 26, 1969



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) for asking me to postpone from Monday until this evening my remarks in this regard. The minister is not in the house, but his parliamentary secretary is. I hope he can give what his office described as "a good reply" to my question. I am certain that we are looking forward to this. I apologize if any inconvenience has been caused to the Speaker's office or hon. members because of this postponement. My question of June 4, which I repeat now, was as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the government considering amending the old age security legislation to overcome the injustice whereby the old age security supplement is reduced for a complete year if the spouse of the recipient receives the old age pension for even a single month in that calendar year?
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
The question was prompted by a letter which I received from a constitutent of mine who was docked some $14 from his pension cheque last February because his wife was slated to receive the basic old age security pension this September. It might be well for us to examine the annual income of this family of two elderly citizens from whom $14 was "recovered" last February according to our Canadian laws. Hon. members will suspect that their income was very low or else they would not have been receiving the supplement in the first place. For the benefit of the house and the country I would like to add up the income that this family can expect in 1969. Let us see how very little it really is. Because the basic pension is only $936, the supplement for the 12 months is $17.20 per month, which amounts to $206.40. The basic pension for the wife plus her supplement for four months from September to December amounts to $380.80. The total amounts to $1,523.20. This man is fortunate; he has a small pension which brings him another $694. But the grand total amounts to $2,217.20 on which this family is required to live for one year.


June 26. 1969	COMMONS
Members of the house will agree with me that this is hardly a princely sum. The fifth report of the Economic Council of Canada described the poverty in our country as appalling and involving millions of people. At page 105 the council, in discussing the inability of statistics to adequately describe the destruction of spirit that accompanies poverty, reported as follows:
Much more serious and more widespread is the kind of low-income situation that carries with it a sense of entrapment and hopelessness. Even the best statistics can only hint at this. They cannot capture the sour atmosphere of poor health and bad housing-the accumulated defeat, alienation and despair which often so tragically are inherited by the next and succeeding generations.
Here is an example of real poverty right in my own riding, and there are hundreds of others. The Economic Council of Canada report states that any couple receiving less than $2,500 a year is "existing below the poverty line", not living. I submit that even if our current legislation had not docked my constituent $14 per month for 18 months, this couple would still have an annual income of only $2,329.20. This is hardly a magnificent sum on which to live for a year, and I certainly hope that this kind of stingy treatment that we are according to our senior citizens does not stifle their initiative. They are still well below the poverty line of $2,500 per year. If it were not for the meagre pension which this particular man has, I am sure he would be a good deal worse off.
In reply to my question the minister stated that the issue I raise relates to one of a number of "anomalies" in the pension legislation. I say it is not just an anomaly, it is a tragedy which allows citizens of a country as rich as Canada to exist on this kind of income and to take no part in the increased standard of living that is available to other Canadians who are organized and articulate. People like veterans and pensioners are unorganized; there is no one to speak for them; they are mute and inarticulate, and therefore they get the rough end of the stick. As the minister said in reply to me on June 14, the government is looking into a number of anomalies in the legislation. I hope this is so because I have much faith in the minister, and I hope he can convince his leader and his cabinet colleagues that this is an important issue with which they should deal immediately.
While we are speaking of anomalies, let me say that there are a number of others, and in the time remaining I would like to outline at least two of them. Some of these anomalies solve themselves. These old pensioners die.
29180-676^
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion They cannot wait, and this is why the problem needs urgent consideration. The 2 per cent maximum cost of living adjustment on the pension during a period of inflation is a crime. These people are getting behind about 2 per cent per year. They are losing in terms of real income. The situation in which a pensioner's income ceases part way through the year is another anomaly. There is no adjustment possible unless he remarries, which is unlikely, or perhaps retires during that period.
There are a number of things that need to be corrected and I am certain the minister is working on them. I am sure that all members of the house are aware of many anomalies that require urgent attention. The members of this party, and I am sure the members of other parties, are looking forward with great hope to some words from the minister that indicate the government is really serious about solving this completely unnecessary but tragic problem.


Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member
for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) says, the minister is fully aware of the problems he raises, and he has already stated that there are certain anomalies which have become apparent in the guaranteed income supplement legislation.
One of the areas which the government has under consideration is the situation where the spouse of a recipient receives the old age security pension for only part of a particular year, perhaps for only one month.
A further word of explanation might be in order. If a recipient or his spouse, maybe both of them, has income from other sources, it is correct that he would receive a different rate of supplement in a year in which his spouse was a pensioner from that he received in the previous year when his spouse was not a pensioner at any time.
However, if neither has any income, the rate would not change, since the maximum supplement would be payable in both years. Even where there is outside income, in which case the supplement of a recipient might be lower than in the earlier year, the receipt by the spouse of pension and supplement might mean that their overall income for the year is greater than in the year before. This is not always the case, however, depending on individual circumstances, and it is here that
10688	COMMONS DEBATES	June 26, 1969
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion we have recognized a problem and are attempting to find a satisfactory solution.



NATIONAL REVENUE-PORT DOVER, ONT.- FAILURE OF U.S. PLEASURE CRAFT TO REPORT TO CUSTOMS OFFICER

Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I am rather disappointed to find that the Minister of National Revenue is not in his seat tonight. We had made a mutual arrangement whereby he would be here to listen to my explanation of this problem and would give me an answer. I trust he will still do so having read my representations as recorded in Hansard.
In order to set this problem properly before you, Mr. Speaker, I should like to read the question that I presented to the house on Monday last, as reported at page 10538:
In view of the fact that on Saturday last at Port Dover, Ontario, out of seven United States pleasure boats from Erie, Pennsylvania, bringing United States dollars and good will to Canada two were fined $10 and all were ordered to get out of Canada because they had not reported to the customs officer who was not available, will the minister devise some means of clearing our United States visitors through customs on weekends through the three summer months, which is the only time that most of the United States boats can visit Canada?
To give some indication of the importance of this issue, Mr. Speaker, I should like to tell you that the port of Port Dover is located on the north shore of Lake Erie midway along the shoreline and in the shelter of Long Point Bay. It is directly across Lake Erie from Erie, Pennsylvania, a distance of approximately 45 miles. The town of Port Dover, approximately 3,000 in population, relies for its summer revenue mainly on the tourist industry.
A rapidly expanding hobby which promotes and supplements the tourist industry is that of pleasure boating. The number of pleasure boats that cruise the shores of Lake Erie and cross the lake is increasing annually. Port Dover has a yacht club boasting a registration of about 250 boats, all capable of crossing the lake so their owners can visit their United States brothers across the way. In the past few years the federal government has spent over $750,000 in providing harbour facilities for commercial and pleasure craft. There are two marinas in the town which are capable of servicing any pleasure craft likely to call in. They are capable of giving it a complete overhaul.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
I wish to draw the minister's attention to the brief presented by the town of Port Dover. Time will not permit me to go into very great detail. In order to inform hon. members what was. behind all the hubbub and furore among the residents of Port Dover, it might be well if I referred to a letter sent out from the customs office in Hamilton to the Port Dover Yacht Club. The letter first of all sets out the hours during which the customs office will be open, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. from Monday through Friday and from 9 a.m. to 12 noon on Saturday. The letter ends with this sentence: "There will be no service available to small boat operators at Port Dover beyond the hours indicated above."
One cannot blame customs officials too much for this directive. Surely, Mr. Speaker, we need to give local customs officials new directives and instructions. Our local officer ought to be given sufficient discretion to permit him to carry out his duties at the office wisely. Press reports of this unfortunate mishap at Port Dover indicate that the district customs officer said that visitors made no attempt to register when they came to Port Dover. I respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that this report is entirely at variance with the facts because United States boats endeavoured to clear customs with the assistance of some local yacht owners. Telephone calls were made to the office, but it was closed. Attempts were made to call the official's residence, but I understand that his telephone number is unlisted at the present time. One United States boat owner hired a taxi and was driven to the home of the customs officer, but was given no satisfaction and obtained no clearance. Many reliable witnesses will attest to the accuracy of these facts. If the minister entertains any shadow of doubt about the accuracy of what I have said I invite him to set up an independent inquiry to examine the charges made and ascertain facts. The minister should not rely entirely on the word of supervisors in the immediate area.
The United States boat owners, having failed to obtain clearance, were met at the scene by the R.C.M.P. patrol boat which arrived there a few hours later, as it was its duty to do. Two seizures were made; and not until fines of $10 had been paid were the two boats in question released. One of these boats was, "The Jed," owned by Mr. John Ashby of Erie, Pennsylvania, the other being "Cloud Nine II", owned by Mr. E. H. Sturdevant of
[Mr. Gendron.l
June 26, 1969	COMMONS
Canfield, Ohio. Five other United States boat in the port at that time were ordered to leave. The owner of one was a United States visitor who had this to say. "I have been coming to Port Dover for 40 years. I was born in Canada and this is the first time I have been asked to leave the country." The incident to which I have referred has damaged good will between our countries and brought disrepute to our tourist industry. Our tourist industry is most important, and if this sort of thing is tolerated efforts at tourist promotion become a mockery.
I do not wish to be entirely critical, Mr. Speaker. I wish to suggest some solutions. As has been suggested in other contexts, the customs officials at Port Dover should be paid sufficient overtime to induce them to work at peak periods during the week end, when the majority of people call in at Port Dover. Let it be worth the while of the customs official to work overtime. Also, give him some leeway and discretion. Perhaps customs clearance might be effected by telephone. Another possible solution would be for an extra man to be taken on for the peak period of three months. Still another solution might be to permit marina operators in the town of Port Dover, willing to undertake those duties, to take necessary information from the visitors and turn it over to the customs officer when he opens his office the next day.
Perhaps the R.C.M.P., who are already on patrol there, might be given the authority to clear these boats. Above all, Mr. Speaker, a directive for the guidance of the officer must be forthcoming from the department. Action must be swift. Phone calls are now being received at Port Dover from United States tourists who are planning to visit there from July 1 to July 4. Phone calls are being received from Erie, Ashtabula, Cleveland and Buffalo, inquiring whether clearance will be given to them at the port of Port Dover. This is an urgent problem and demands urgent action.


Mr. H. E. Gray (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked to reply to this question by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cote). The minister's reply is as follows.
In reply to the question raised on June 23 by the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles), two pleasure craft owned by residents of Pennsylvania were penalized $10 each on Saturday, June 21, by the R.C.M.P. for failure to report at customs although one had been in Port Dover for approximately 22
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion hours and the second for a period in excess of four hours. The customs officer in charge at Port Dover was available at his residence to accept such reports, if and when requested, a fact which would have been known to the marina operator at which the boats were docked. The owners of the other five pleasure craft referred to left Port Dover without contacting either the R.C.M.P., or the customs officer in charge at Port Dover, so there was no question of their being ordered out of the country.
In so far as the procedure for clearing United States visitors through customs on week ends is concerned, notification was given, under cover of letter dated June 4, 1969, to all boat clubs and marina operators in the area, as well as to other interested organizations at Port Dover and Simcoe, informing all concerned that as of Saturday, June 28, 1969, the Port Dover marina would be serviced by a customs officer from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday and from 9 a.m. to 12 noon on Saturday, until September 6, 1969. At other times, visitors may report to customs by telephoning the customs officer in charge at Port Dover at his residence, or customs officers at Simcoe, details of which, including telephone numbers, are to be posted on the customs office door and at the Port Dover marina.



HARBOURS-TORONTO-FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN CONSTRUCTION OF PORT

Mr. Hyl Chappell (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak on behalf of the city of Toronto. I thank the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) for being here this evening.
The port authority of the city of Toronto has come up with a most imaginative and realistic plan for the development of the whole waterfront. By an inexpensive method they propose to improve the harbour service by sucking sand from the shallow waters of the old inner-harbour and a new outer-harbour and by combining this dredged material with fill from construction sites to add over
1,000	acres to the waterfront. This new land would: add to the Canadian National Exhibition Grounds; greatly increase the recreation area of the islands; provide a site for a harbour city to house about 75,000 people; make possible the modernization of the inner-harbour; create a new outer-harbour which would provide about 400 acres of dockage and give Toronto a new airport to replace the now obsolete island airport.

June 26, 1969
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
The plans as worked out between the port authority, the planning departments of the city and the province have won the acceptance and praise of all who have seen them. Because of the excellence of the engineering, the acre cost is low and the whole scheme is economically sound. At present ships cannot use the shallow eastern gap but must detour to the western entrance. The harbour and docking services are inadequate for the immediate future. The sand to be dredged from the west end of the harbour would help create land for the new city and fill the western entrance, thus providing land access to the new city and the recreation islands. The sand dredged from the east end of the inner-harbour, the new eastern ship entrance and the outer-harbour would be used to create the airport.
The eastern headland for the outer-harbour-now almost three miles in length-is being built at a fraction of the cost of standard construction through the utilization of fill and new design. But the Authority has now reached the point where it cannot move ahead efficiently, or much longer at all, until the Department of Transport makes a decision in respect of the dredging for the new harbour entrances, and approves the airport. I ask that the decision be made now so that all of this imaginative and energetic planning is not lost.
On December 19 I spoke opposing the proposed enlargement of the Malton airport on the grounds that it would seriously affect housing and was too expensive, and I suggested that it should be located further away from Toronto or in Lake Ontario which would be convenient, would not require extra highway construction and would not add noise pollution over residential areas. The then minister of transport abandoned the plan for the major enlargement, at great savings to the department and with little loss in total potential.
The need to construct a second major airport was recognized. Since then studies have been going on as to the best location, but the approval of the Toronto harbour airport need not wait until that decision is made. The cost is low and it has sufficient merit to warrant immediate approval.
Originally the Toronto Port Authority proposed an airport on the southwest side of Toronto Island at Gibraltar Point. Understandably there were objections that the flight

pattern was too close to the city and to the air approaches to Malton. Since then the authority has changed its plans and it now proposes that the airport be located on the east side of the new outer-harbour, at the east end of Toronto.
They suggest a runway of 7,500 feet with an approach parallel to the shoreline but over the water so as not to interfere with housing, and a second runway of 2,500 feet for STOL aircraft. From my investigation, this site is far enough away to avoid any interference with air space for Malton.
Toronto, or more properly Ontario, does require a second major airport but if the lake port is developed now the second major port could be delayed a little, perhaps until the development of a rapid transit system would make it feasible to locate it further out as part of an over-all complex and on land not required for urbanization. I suggest it is wrong to delay this project for years of research and study, negotiations with provincial and planning authorities, and hearings under the new Expropriation Act. There are compelling reasons for proceeding with this project now. They are:
(1)	It is relatively inexpensive. Four hundred and fifty acres could be assembled from reclaiming sand and the utilization of fill at an estimated cost of $10 million, but in any event for less than $25 million. A regular land based airport would cost many times as much.
(2)	It would service the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal passengers who make up about 40 per cent of the Malton traffic. It would be a rapid transit by air pending the development of land transit.
(3)	It would relieve the traffic at Malton and thus allow that airport to become a transcontinental and inter-continental airport.
(4)	It would relieve severe intensification of flights at Malton which would be as undesirable from a standpoint of living conditions as the original proposed addition of runways.
(5)	If we count the economy of time for the public and the efficiency of those travelling the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal triangle, it would save millions. The travelling time from downtown hotels would be about seven minutes.
(6)	By using computers at various locations in the city, all tied in with a master computer, and the existing rapid transit system or airport buses, people could leave their cars at home and check in at various city locations and step from the bus with their baggage directly to the plane. It is too late to
June 26, 1969	COMMONS
introduce this concept at Malton but there is no reason why it could not work at Toronto.
(7)	By checking in at city locations and taking a bus or a rapid transit we would utilize existing facilities in the city and avoid the cost of substantial airport buildings.
(8)	But most important, if the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, which is now carrying out an intensive study, comes up with a new and relatively inexpensive material for floating airports, another runway could be tied to the existing airport and thus provide substantial enlargement at reasonable cost. Time could demonstrate that it should become the major airport.
(9)	Should we decide to proceed with a second major airport at some other site the Toronto airport would still be required for the new STOL planes.
(10)	The proposed development would provide Toronto with new assessment in excess of $2 billion.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I say that seldom has it been possible for so much to be done for a city at so little cost and with so little risk.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has advanced ten most interesting and imaginative ideas with regard to the so-called sandspit airport at Toronto. Each one of them would require far more time than I have on this occasion to deal with all of them, and what I would simply like to say is that the sequence of events over the past few months has been that we originally announced, as a government, plans for the substantial improvement and expansion of Malton.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
As a result of representations, some of them I may say most effectively from the hon. member who has just spoken, it was decided to change that decision and proceed with the provision of an alternative site in the Toronto or southern Ontario region. Within this framework we must also consider the matter of a downtown airport for the city of Toronto. It is exceedingly difficult to try to measure the comparative benefits or effects of proceeding now with a most limited kind of airport facility for Toronto. There is no doubt many of the advantages the hon. member has outlined are true. I would have some reservations about the total impact being as great, and would have to say there are difficulties in respect of this project which he has somewhat underestimated.
The fact of the matter is that the area to which the hon. member referred has potential. It will be considered and considered quickly, not over a period of many years, as indeed a possible alternative site for the so-called second airport. It may be that the possible development will take place at that location. But even if that is not to be the case, and there is a second development elsewhere I can assure the hon. member and members of the house that I am quite confident some form of downtown development or an intercity airport will be part of the over-all air policy for southern Ontario. I am delighted the hon. member brought this to my attention and I am most sympathetic to his proposals. I shall be pleased to discuss them with him and with any other member in detail.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Friday, June 27, 1969