1970-02-03

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Standing Committee on Transport and Communications-Mr. Turner (London East).
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that one of the basic calculations underlying the white paper on tax reform, namely, the federal government's estimate as to the amount of increased revenues that the white paper proposals would raise, has been challenged by the province of Ontario, the government is reconsidering its estimate, or is the government going to stick to the figure of $630 million as its estimate of the increased revenues which would result from the recommendations in the white paper?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I have not looked into it, Mr. Speaker. It was brought to my attention, but the Minister of Finance is in Quebec meeting with the provincial finance ministers. It appears that the computers are not arriving at the same results, but certainly I will be discussing the matter with the minister when he returns.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that if the studies which the Prime Minister has indicated show that the government has underestimated the revenue yield from the white paper proposals it will
immediately reconsider and alter the tax changes and tax increases proposed in the white paper?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before the Prime Minister says it, I would suggest that the question is hypothetical.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Then I will ask the Prime Minister a question which is by no means hypothetical. In view of the immense confusion and disagreement that exists as to the amount of new federal revenue which would be produced by the white paper proposals-I am not referring only to the estimate prepared by Ontario but also to estimates made by private individuals-will the government now agree to publish the detailed research and background studies underlying the white paper conclusions, and particularly the estimate of increased revenue resulting from the proposals in the white paper?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the departmental officials and the minister will want to handle this, but obviously the computers in both centres are feeding out different results because the programming is different.
We have a model of the Canadian taxpayer who, incidentally, is a model taxpayer, and when we made our decisions on the white paper we made them in view of the results that we received from the computer. We were not using tax reform as a way to increase taxes surreptitiously. If in looking at the Ontario figures, it is established that in some way their model is better than ours it perhaps will be because the Ontario taxpayer is richer than the average Canadian. Perhaps there is some difference in calculation because of this.
I cannot tell the Leader of the Opposition how we will resolve this matter, but obviously if there is an informed estimate by the Ontario officials we will recheck our own figures.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-tings):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. How is the model taxpayer feeling about this whole white paper approach?


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: He feels you are wasting his time.
February 3, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry



POLLUTION


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport regarding the announcement that the Manhattan is likely to make a second trip through the Northwest Passage. Has the minister been notified, either by the Humble Oil Company of Texas or the United States government, of this impending trip, and will his department be providing the pilot services and the icebreaking escort required?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, there has been no official request from either the Humble Oil Company or from any United States government agency. Like the hon. member, I only know what I read in>
the papers. I am assuming that the report is correct and that we will be getting such a request. If so, we will then decide whether we are in a position to comply with it, but at the moment I cannot say.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the minister's intention to impose any regulations upon the Manhattan, or upon any other vessel granted the right of innocent passage through the Northwest Passage, having regard to the possibility of pollution in the event of an accident? Have any such regulations been drafted, and will the Manhattan be subjected to those regulations?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Certainly the Manhattan, were she to make a second trip, would be subject to any regulations now in effect or to any that may be in effect at that time. I say the latter because, as I have indicated to hon. members, it is our intention to make changes in the Canada Shipping Act with regard to pollution. On the other hand, there may have to be some special regulations with regard to the Manhattan, but these would be more of a navigational nature because I understand there is no expectation that it will be carrying any pollutants on an experimental basis at this time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the widespread concern about possible pollution in the north, can the minister assure the House that such regulations will be put into effect prior to the second trip of the Manhattan?
[Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale).J


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, as I said a moment ago, so far as the actual vessel, the Manhattan, is concerned, (a) we are not sure she will be making this second trip and (b), we are quite certain that if she does the trip will be experimental and she will not be carrying any cargo. In so far as legislation is concerned there will be two areas in which we will be moving, I think in a matter of weeks. One is in respect of pollution measures in the North and the other concerns the more general changes in the Canada Shipping Act having to do with shipping and pollution around our entire coastline.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a supplementary question. Would he obtain a copy of the third report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, send it to the Humble Oil Company and advise them that it substantially represents the views of the great majority of the people of Canada?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt the report is already in their hands.


Mr. James E. McGrath (St. John's East):: further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will Canada be obliged to underwrite the costs of icebreaking services for any subsequent trips by the Manhattan?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Lotbiniere.



GLASS-EFFECTS OF IMPORTS ON CANADIAN INDUSTRY

Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Is he aware that imports of sheet glass from Poland, Romania, East Germany, the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia are likely to cause the closing down of two important plants in Montreal and Toronto?


Mr. Speaker:: I think this question could be put on the order paper. The hon. member is asking the minister to tell him if he is aware of certain circumstances. I do not think the question, as worded, is admissible at this time.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of the question, I should like, if I may, to rephrase it.
February 3, 1970

Could the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce tell the House whether or not his department was approached with the problem of the possible closing down of two sheet glass manufacturing plants, one in Montreal and the other in Toronto, because of the importance of sheet glass in certain countries such as Poland, Romania, East Germany and Czechoslovakia?


Hon. Jean Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the minister was not aware of this until now. He is now, and he is going to inquire into this matter.



WHEAT-DETERMINATION OF XCAN PRICES- ASSISTANCE TO NEW AGENCY

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Now that the government has decided to give assistance to the Wheat Board by having available a consortium of grain dealers and elevator companies in order to endeavour to recover the 11 per cent of international trade in the export of wheat that Canada has lost, will the minister state whether the prices at which the sales are to be made by these companies will be determined by the Wheat Board? If not, is the government returning to the policy of 1936 when, so far as prices were concerned, the plug was pulled?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the question is not too clear to me. If the right hon. member is referrring to the creation of the new company called XCAN created yesterday by the four co-operatives, we welcome this announcement. We are very pleased with it. I understand that XCAN is going to become an agent of the Wheat Board. We wish them luck and we wish us luck at the same time.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I join in wishing them luck but with regard to prices can the minister say whether these will be determined by the Wheat Board rather than by grain dealers and grain storage companies to whom the price of wheat is of no special concern?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, as an agent of the Wheat Board they will have the same rights and privileges as other agents, including the services my department will be giving to them.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the announcement that the three western wheat pools and the United Grain Growers are jointly setting up an export agency, can the minister inform the House if they will receive any assistance from the government and what will be their relationship with the Canadian Wheat Board?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I understood this was the meaning of the previous question and I would consider that the same answer applies. I understand that the new group will be an agent of the board like any others and will benefit from the same advantages.


John George Diefenbaker: What advantages?



MOVEMENT BY RAILWAYS

Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a related question for the minister who is answering for the Wheat Board. Are the railways meeting their commitments to move grain at a rate which will fill the terminals at the Lakehead well in advance .of the opening of navigation?
Kon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, this has already been indicated by the minister responsible, again yesterday by the chairman of the Wheat Board and was confirmed to me this morning.
While I am on my feet I might say that I had a telephone call from the Minister of Labour-his smile came through the telephone beautifully-who told me that agreement has been reached between the two parties in Vancouver, subject to ratification by the union members before Thursday.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Mackenzie.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is rising on a point of order?


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I did not receive an answer to the question I directed to the minister in which I asked if this exporting agency was going to receive any assistance from the Canadian government.


Mr. Speaker:: That, of course, is not a point of order, but I shall return to the hon. member in a moment. I understand he has a supplementary. For the moment the Chair recognizes the hon. member for Mackenzie.
3126	COMMONS DEBATES	February 3, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE



POSSIBILITY OF BUYING TRACTORS FROM SOVIET UNION

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Since the several Senators who visited the Soviet Union seem to have been authorized by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to promote trade between Canada and the Soviet Union, can the minister enlighten the House and the country about the possibilities of trade agreements between the Soviet Union and Canada and whether Russian tractors may be sold in this country, especially since United States tractor companies are not being too co-operative in reducing their prices?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, negotiations between Canada and the Soviet Union on the renewal of the trade agreement will begin shortly. In these negotiations it is obvious that all subjects of the type the hon. member has raised will be taken into consideration. We shall be talking about the future of Canadian exports to the Soviet Union and about Soviet Union exports to Canada. As the Minister of Agriculture has already indicated if other countries, if the Soviet Union for one, has some good tractors to sell to Canada, I am quite sure Canadian farmers will be very interested.


Stanley James Korchinski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister say whether in their travels the Senators approached the authorities of the Soviet Union about this specific matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think that question ought to be asked in the Senate instead of in the House.



WHEAT-ASSISTANCE TO XCAN

["Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of whether these reports were received, but I will be glad to take the member's supplementary question as notice."]
Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, may I again ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whether the government is giving any financial assistance to the new exporting agency, XCAN?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I have already said that to my knowledge the new agency would be an agent of the Canadian Wheat Board much like the other 30-odd

agents the Wheat Board has. As such it would be entitled to benefit from the good services of the Wheat Board and of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce as well.


John George Diefenbaker: I hope this agency will be more successful than others have been.


Albert B. Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a further supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. How do grain stocks in Lake-head terminals at the present time compare with levels at this time last year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether this question should be asked during the question period.


Mr. Andras:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I implore hon. members to recognize that the two cities of Port Arthur and Fort William, formerly known as the Lakehead, have now been formally amalgamated and the proper name to describe them is Thunder Bay.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Since there is great uncertainty among scientists regarding the effects of the greatly expanded tests which the United States government is planning to carry out in the near future at Amchitka Island, is the government of Canada planning to ask the United States government to put off these tests until it can satisfy itself that no ill effects will be suffered by the people of the west coast of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to the answer given yesterday to a similar question by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Perhaps the hon. member will look up Hansard.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are we to take it that the government is perfectly willing to have these tests go ahead regardless of their ill effects on the citizens of the west coast of Canada? The Prime Minister nods his head, meaning no doubt that he is perfectly willing that this should be so.
February 3. 1970	COMMONS


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimall-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has his department or any other department of government received from the United States data on the results of the first tests at Amchitka from which we can judge whether or not the second proposed series of tests is desirable or otherwise from the Canadian point of view?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member; I am afraid I was not listening to him. I was listening to the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings trying to smuggle a remark into the blues.


David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, may I repeat my question. It was not directed to the Prime Minister but to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has the minister's department or any other department of government received from the United States data on the results of their first tests at Amchitka so that we can judge whether or not the second series of tests will be desirable or otherwise from Canada's standpoint?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of whether these reports were received, but I will be glad to take the member's supplementary question as notice.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In his absence last Wednesday I asked the Prime Minister a question arising out of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that the deportation of Jerry Mihm, his wife and Canadian-born child should be carried out. Will the Prime Minister and the Minister take into consideration the possibility of letting the family stay in Canada in view of the great hardship that will follow their deportation to the United States?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minisier of Manpower and Immigration):: If I may answer the question, Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. member that following the announcement of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in this case, counsel for Mr. Mihm filed a formal motion with the Immigration Appeal Board for the reopening of the hear-
DEBATES	3127
Inquiries of the Ministry ing and an appeal against the order for the deportation of the family. I understand that is under consideration at the present time. I think the hon. member understands that at this stage the matter is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Immigration Appeal Board.


David Lewis: I appreciate that and I thank the minister for informing the House about the application for reconsideration. Can the minister assure the House that he will watch the progress of this case with great care and do everything possible to prevent Mr. Mihm, his wife and Canadian-born child from having to suffer the hardship of the father being in jail for a lengthy period?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly watch the progress of the case and do anything within my power, but I think it should be made clear that under the law passed by Parliament the minister and the department are powerless at this stage. The outcome depends upon a decision of the board. The matter is now before the board and until a decision as to a rehearing is made I think further comment from me would be inappropriate.


David Lewis: I have a further supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. member has already had two supplementaries on the same question.


David Lewis: One, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we should go on to another subject. The hon. member for York West.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Don't let us down.


George Harris Hees: Let's see if you really mean all those things you have been saying.


Mr. Givens:: I always mean what I say.



HOUSING


Philip Gerald Givens: I wish to direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: That is not the guy you are after.
3128	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Philip Gerald Givens: Is the minister now in a position to reveal the locations of the 12 new urban renewal projects he referred to in his statement last December?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, to quiet the catcalls of the opposition may I say this question was put to me in December by the hon. member for Hamilton West. We offered to the provincial ministers concerned participation in 12 schemes, one in St. John's, Newfoundland, one in Moncton, one in Montreal, two in Quebec city, one in Cornwall, three in Toronto, two in Winnipeg and one in Kamsack. In addition hon. members will recall that there were six schemes under negotiation from August. In some cases the provincial ministers have indicated a desire to reallocate part of these funds to other schemes and we are receptive to such suggestions. These are the 12 schemes to which I referred.



ALLOCATION OF MONEY FOR EXPERIMENTAL PROJECTS AND RENT SUPPLEMENT

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister contemplate the use of any of the $200 million for new or revised techniques to which he referred to establish federal experimental housing projects?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, that sort of approach will be most welcomed.


David Orlikow: A supplementary question. Is the minister prepared to use any of the $200 million for new approaches for the purpose of rent supplement programs for low-income earners?


Robert Knight Andras: The whole question of the rent-to-income scale in public housing is now receiving close examination. We now have the final recommendations of all the provinces-the last was received a few weeks ago-and I hope to be in a position to announce shortly to provincial ministers some ideas for an adjustment of the rent-to-income scale.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Can the minister advise the House when the other areas which were under consideration for urban' renewal will be reconsidered?


Robert Knight Andras: I have nothing to add to the statement I made in December in that regard.

DEBATES	February 3, 1970



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON AVAILABILITY OF MORTGAGE MONEY

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: In light of recent reports that inflation and the government's attempt to curb it through a tight money policy have combined to reduce seriously the amount of mortgage money available in Canada through insurance companies, would the minister be prepared to make a statement on motions as soon as he can regarding this very serious situation, with some reference to pension funds and building societies?


Robert Knight Andras: We are encouraging through a specific program of contact the investment of pension funds in the mortgage field-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret I must interrupt the minister but the question was simply whether a statement would be made. A statement cannot be made at this time.



FUNDS FOR PURCHASE OF OLDER HOMES

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonion West):: Having regard to the unexplained absence of Hansard, or the non-delivery of Hansard-


An hon. Member:: It is here.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -would the minister indicate, in verification of his statement made in the House yesterday, whether any provision has been made for the continuation or addition of funds for the financing of the purchase of older homes, a move which would also be of great assistance in the housing of those in the lower income group?


Robert Knight Andras: I think I answered that question in a reply I gave yesterday. But the answer is yes, we are continuing the program of loans for the purchase and rehabilitation of existing homes.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether hon. members do not feel we should now pass on to another subject. We have had a number of supplementaries on this question. We might return to the subject after other questions have been dealt with.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Will
February 3, 1970

the Prime Minister accept the invitation extended to him by the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy to visit the reservation at Brantford and consult with the Indians in connection with treaty rights and other matters which concern the confederacy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have no exact recollection of such an invitation, Mr. Speaker. I did correspond with the secretary, I believe, of the Six Nations Confederacy, but as I recall it this correspondence had to do with other types of representations and my answer was no.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Would the Prime Minister check with his office to ascertain whether the invitation to which I referred in my question was not extended to him this morning or last evening? An invitation was also extended to His Excellency the Governor General.



FINANCE


Mr. Roland Godin (Porineuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Is the government considering terminating cost-sharing programs and transferring the corresponding tax funds to the provinces, as was suggested yesterday in Quebec City?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know who suggested that in Quebec City yesterday but as early as 1966 Mr. Pearson's government, through the then Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), put forward a similar proposal which, as you know, was accepted by one province and not by the others.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, last week I undertook to provide an answer to a question asked by the Leader of the Opposition about increases in trucking rates. This situation is a complex one because it involves matters of provincial administration which are handled differently in different provinces. The government will be exploring appropriate ways to go into it in light of these differences in provincial prac-
Inquiries of the Ministry tices and laws and in light of what is disclosed in the information it has requested as to the basis upon which the Quebec board authorized the increases in question.
I should like to take this opportunity to inform the House about something in which I am sure the Leader of the Opposition and all other members will be interested. It concerns the action taken by the government with regard to increases in prices proposed by another industry, that of manufacturing glass containers. Discussions have been held with the major manufacturers of glass containers concerning the importance of avoiding major discretionary price increases while the Prices and Incomes Commission is working to secure the support of the business community for a price restraint program.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to interrupt the minister. It seems the statement he is making now is of the type which is normally made on motions.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I wonder if I could have your indulgence, Mr. Speaker; since I have reached the last couple of words and the House may be wondering what I am leading up to.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair was wondering too. Perhaps, with the consent of the House, the minister might be allowed to complete his statement.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: As a consequence of these discussions the two largest manufacturers of glass containers in Canada, Consumer Glass and Dominion Glass, have agreed to suspend until March 1 price increases announced last December.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with the information about glass, but we shall not allow it to distract us from the trucking problem. Am I correct in assuming from the minister's answer that the government does not propose to take any action at all with regard to the increase in trucking rates?


Mr. Speaker:: I have some doubts as to the form of the question. I would think it was somewhat argumentative.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am seeking clarification, Mr. Speaker. In my original formulation of the question I asked whether the government proposed to take any initiative with regard to
February 3. 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry this matter. I am simply asking the minister now whether the government does intend to take any such initiative.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The initiative will depend on the result of our assessment of the information we have sought from the Quebec board as to the basis on which they granted an increase, and on the results of our analysis of the different regulatory practices followed by the provincial governments. These are questions about which we are concerned, and a decision will be reached in the light of the information we receive.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: One further question: is the government fighting inflation in 1970 or in 1980?



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to my favourite minister, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has the hon. gentleman received a complaint within the last few days about the process in dealing with the lease of Indian reserve land at Caughnawaga as a garbage dump and, if so, does he intend to conduct an inquiry?
Would the minister also take the opportunity to deal with a question I posed to him last week about a report from Glendon College?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased to answer the hon. member. I do not know anything about the new land rental agreement at Caughnawaga. I have not received any information. I shall investigate and gladly report to the hon. member if need be.
As to the Glendon College report, it was prepared by the students. It deals with the attitude of white people towards the Indians and we are aware of it. The report clearly indicates that some of the attitudes of white people should be changed. We always do our best to help the Canadian people better understand our Indian brothers.


Frank Howard: I am familiar with what the report contains. The question I posed to the minister through his Parliamentary Secretary a few days ago was whether the minister would be prepared to make a


statement on motions about government action with respect to the findings and recommendations in that report.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is necessary to make a statement on the matter. The government policy as regards the attitude to be adopted by people generally towards Canadian Indians is well known and time and again I have asked people to treat the Indians in a more humane way. It is my intention to continue making such appeals.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Bruce Howard (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence. Was the aircraft that is missing in southern British Columbia and currently the subject of search and rescue operations equipped with a crash position indicator?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some serious doubts as to the form of the question asked by the hon. member. The hon. member is asking for information about a situation which is behind us. Perhaps he might formulate his inquiry in another manner.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could ask a question of the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that approximately 50 aircraft have been missing in a small area in southern British Columbia in the last 10 years, all of which have been the subject of search and rescue operations, what progress is the department making in respect of the proposal to have regulations requiring such aircraft to be equipped with crash position indicators?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: A very good question, Mr. Speaker. I will try to home in on the answer and see whether I can find out for the hon. member in a couple of days.



HARBOURS


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I have given the Min-
February 3, 1970

ister of Transport written notice of this question which is urgent in respect of at least several Canadian ports. Will the minister ask the National Harbours Board to examine the flow of general cargo, apart from containerized cargoes, through ports operated by the board in light of changes in January and cuts in employment at certain ports? Will he cause the findings and any recommendations to be made available to the House, perhaps on motions?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to do that.



COMPOSITION OF DELEGATION TO GREAT BRITAIN

Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board is in London and is reportedly discussing the grading of grain, among other matters, with British importers, will the Minister of Agriculture inform the House whether there are representatives of the Board of Grain Commissioners or the Department of Agriculture with the delegation?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe there are members of the Board of Grain Commissioners with this delegation, but I believe there are three or four members of the Canadian Wheat Board.



AIR TRANSPORT


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the hon. gentleman's reputation for fairness, will he review the recent decision of the Air Transport Committee respecting class 1 regional air services on the Prairies, particularly with a view to annulling the decision to suspend services into western Manitoba?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware that there was a suspension of service. I will certainly take a look at the situation and if it is a matter which could be the subject of appeal to me presumably somebody will appeal it and I will look at it in that form.

Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



POST OFFICE


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications.
As a result of the apparent refusal of the department to renew the mail delivery contracts of G. Lapalme Inc., of Montreal, the employees of that company are working to rule.
I would like to know whether the minister has taken the necessary measures to restore order and to ensure satisfactory mail delivery and whether the employees of G. Lapalme Inc. will be hired by other companies which have secured contracts from March 31?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, it is true that G. Lapalme Inc. is contractually bound with the department to collect mail and carry it to relay boxes, but it appears that the slowness is due to the recent contracts awarded for mail transportation in the Montreal area and also for highway services. Unfortunately, the employer, G. Lapalme Inc., did not put in a tender and this has obviously put his employees in a position of insecurity.
As usual, we have called for tenders in all cities of the country and we have since advised the contractor and the unions, four or five months ago


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry but I have to interrupt the minister. I believe his answer should be shorter and I ask him to be as brief as possible in answering the specific question of the hon. member.


Eric William Kierans: To give a direct answer to the hon. member for Charlevoix, Mr. Speaker, the Post Office and Communications Department does all it can to settle the situation in Montreal and, naturally, the Lapalme company and its employees are asked to get back to work according to the terms of their contract.


Martial Asselin: I have a supplementary question for the minister, Mr. Speaker.
Being aware that troubles of this kind occurred last year in Montreal, can the minister assure the House that he will offer his good services to the G. Lapalme Inc., in order that mail delivery will be made regularly in Montreal, even if a strike breaks out-
February 3. 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that the supplementary question is hypothetical.


Martial Asselin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Already, the employees of G. Lapalme Inc., who are delivering the mail in Montreal, have started to work to rule and if they should continue, the patrons are the ones who will suffer. What I want to know is whether the minister will take whatever measures are necessary to ensure delivery of the mail?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made representations. He must assume that the minister has taken note of them.



AIRPORTS


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. Is he now in a position to name the location of the airport which will be an auxiliary to the Malton airport and, if not, when does he expect to make such an announcement?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I am not in a position yet to name it, primarily because of the hazards or risks of land speculation if there were a premature announcement. We are now examining the possibility of maximum disclosure and I should hope to be able to indicate this within a week or ten days following discussion with the Metro council and the council of the city of Toronto.



REQUEST FOR REPORT ON BOOTLEGGING IN PEACE RIVER AREA OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Mr. Robert Borrie (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister without Portfolio responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board I should like to direct this question to the minister answering for him today. Is a progress report available on investigations currently being conducted by inspectors of the Canadian Wheat Board in the Peace River area of British Columbia on the effect bootlegging of grain has on the local economy?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will try to find out the results of the investigations that were held.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the startling charges contained in the Barber report regarding farm machinery prices, will the Minister of Agriculture indicate whether the government plans to enlarge this inquiry to include other major agricultural input costs and specifically agrochemicals of all kinds?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member is asking whether we should have further inquiries, perhaps I should say I think we ought to investigate thoroughly the actions we can take respecting farm equipment, particularly tractors and combines, in view of Dr. Barber's report.



POLLUTION


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the report that Air Canada and Canadian Pacific Airlines are preparing to convert to smokeless engines during the next two years, and that it is possible the new burners could emit even more noxious and damaging fumes, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether his department has done any research on this matter or whether research is under way, and whether the department has full information on the results which would occur from such a change? If no information is available, will this be checked out by the department responsible?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question should be placed on the Order Paper.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Prime Minister's answer to me yesterday that it is now government policy to permit senior public servants to make public their personal views on matters of public policy, when does he intend to call a spade a spade and announce his preference and intent to implement a presidential system in this country?

February 3, 1970	COMMONS


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Wetaskiwin.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: You can groan all you want. I am rising on a serious point of order which I do not do lightly today or on any other day. There may be some aspects of the Prime Minister's conduct in respect of United States takeovers that we cannot debate in this House, but as far as the business of this House and this country is concerned, surely there comes a time when we should start to debate some aspects of this procedure.
We have heard for the first time under this Prime Minister the interesting doctrine that cabinet ministers can express individual viewpoints on matters of government policy until they become government policy. Perhaps no one took exception to that, but it was a new practice. But as a result of the Prime Minister's answer to my question yesterday he is defining for the first time a most fantastic doctrine of parliamentary business.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member is making a speech. I fail to see how this is a point of order, but if he has one he should make it as soon as possible.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I was coming to the summation of my point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Perraull:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I am sure the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour never heard this type of doctrine enunciated in British Columbia when he sat opposite the then Premier of British Columbia. My point of order is that it may be one thing for the Prime Minister to let his cabinet ministers give their viewpoints on public policy but I suggest it becomes quite another matter if senior public servants are to be allowed to give their personal viewpoints on matters under government study.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If that is the hon. member's point of order, I would have to rule that there is no point or order. It is obviously a question of debate. The hon. member may have a good point to make in connection with a debate on that subject, but I have to rule that this is not a point of order on which the Chair should be called to rule at this time. Orders of the day.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, if it is not a point of order, then I think it becomes a
DEBATES	3133
Inquiries of the Ministry question of privilege involving what members of the House, be they on the government side or on the opposition side, have to say either with regard to the third report of the B and B Commission, the white paper on taxation or any other government policy which affects all members, and how we are to conduct ourselves in the House in face of this new doctrine according to which senior federal public servants can say one thing and cabinet ministers can say another. How do we come to grips with any issues in the country when we have this fantastic, academic, theoretical display of viewpoints?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day. Is the Prime Minister rising on a point of order?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I wish to correct an error in Hansard which has just been brought to my attention.


Mr. Speaker:: This can be done by unanimous consent of the House. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The Prime Minister does not have the consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


An hon. Member:: This is in accordance with our parliamentary system.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is how you get a presidential system.


An hon. Member:: Macdonald has to go.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe there was an agreement among party representatives as to the possibility of limiting speeches in today's debate to 15 minutes, apart from the mover of the motion and the government member replying thereto. If I am correct that this was agreed to, I wonder if it could be made an order for the day.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As I understood it, in addition to the mover of the motion and the government respondent, representatives of each of the two other parties would be allowed more time. Subject to that, other hon. members taking part in the debate would be limited to 15 minutes. We are certainly agreeable to that.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed? If hon. members do not agree they should indicate so. It is

February 3, 1970
Regional Development
very difficult for the Chair to guess whether there are yeas or nays. Is there unanimous agreement?


André-Gilles Fortin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
In connection with the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I wish to ask the President of the Privy Council if the agreement applies only to today's debate or if it will serve as a precedent with regard to the other days allotted for opposition motions.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: First I should make it clear that the suggestion was not my own, but I am willing to accede to it. I understand that this rule is to apply to this debate only and in the case of further debates it would be subject to a decision as to whether this might be desirable.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered. Orders of the day.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


James Aloysius McGrath: That this House condemns the government's failure to co-ordinate its regional development policies under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion with other government activities, and its failure to bring in an appropriate reference to place this issue before the Standing Committee on Regional Development.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, this motion is
brought forward today out of the sense of frustration that we have experienced since this session started; first, our frustration in trying to receive information from the government regarding their regional development policies and regarding the various development programs that are in operation under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, and second, our utter frustration over our unsuccessful attempts to have a meeting of the Standing Committee on Regional Development convened.

Notwithstanding the fact that we are now well into the session, and that the members of the Standing Committee on Regional Development, which is supposedly the committee of this House charged with the responsibilities that come under the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand), have been appointed since the first day of the session, the government-and we can only believe it is the government that has this responsibility-has failed to convene an organizational meeting of this committee for the purpose of electing a chairman and a vice chairman. As a consequence of that, we have been frustrated in our attempts to bring before Parliament what we feel to be one of the most serious problems facing the country today, namely that of regional development, and also what we believe to be the government's failure to this date to deal with that problem adequately. So, we use this device in the hope that perhaps the minister, whom I am glad to see in his place and whom I hope to see on his feet today, will get the message from what I have to say and from the remarks of other hon. members during the course of this debate.
The aim of regional development is not a new one to this country. As a matter of fact, it is as old as confederation, but certainly since that time we have had a series of new programs. We have had revised programs and replaced programs, all supposedly to be the panacea to deal with the problem of regional development. But, Mr. Speaker, we still have regional disparities in this country. We still have the consequences of regional disparity notwithstanding grandiose attempts by the government and the minister, notwithstanding what has been said by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the promises he made to the country during the course of the last election campaign.
In 1961, we saw the beginning of the ARDA program, a program designed at that time to improve land use in the poorer rural areas of Canada, and hence designed to upgrade the economies of these areas. Then, in 1968 the original ARDA program was replaced by what became known as the FRED program, the Fund for Rural Economic Development, which was to provide money for other purposes as well as land use improvement, which was to provide for long-range planning of rural development, with consultation to take place between the federal and provincial governments. We know what happened to poor FRED. Poor FRED is dead.
February 3, 1970

In the meantime, the Area Development Incentives Program was begun with a view to encouraging industrial development. Under this program, started with such great promise in 1963, special areas were designated because of their high levels of unemployment, and firms willing to establish in these special areas were given concessions or grants by the government. We all know what happened to ADIA.
These were the national programs, but there were also special programs such as the Atlantic Development Board, which was started in 1962 and which recognized the special needs of the area known as the Atlantic provinces. In its short history, the Atlantic Development Board certainly fulfilled many of its expectations. It did great things in the four Atlantic provinces. It took on the responsibility for the over-all economic development in the region and for the stimulation of new regional programs. It made special aid available to the provinces for highway construction and for power development, all designed to make this traditionally backward area of the country more attractive to industry. Mr. Speaker, we know what happened to the Atlantic Development Board.
By 1968 we had a hodgepodge of government programs, some of them in conflict with the others, all with the general aim of improving the poorer regions of the country, but we had little or no co-ordination between them. For example, ARDA was first administered by the Department of Agriculture and then it went to the Department of Forestry. The Area Development Agency, which was responsible for industrial incentives, was under the Department of Industry. The Atlantic Development Board passed through different hands several times.
The result was administrative chaos. But also the result was one of continuing hardship for the people of the regionally disadvantaged areas who had been led to believe, by the introduction of these programs, that a new day had arrived. The promise of these various programs, which are now supposed to be coordinated under the minister, has never been fulfilled, perhaps with the exception of the Atlantic Development Board and it died before it had a chance to implement its program fully.
By the summer of 1969 it was obvious that something would have to be done to bring some order into the whole area. Now, we have the new Department of Regional Economic Expansion, which brings together all of 21611-591
Regional Development
these various programs dealing with regional disparity, and indeed which is charged by Parliament with co-ordinating them.
The minister in charge of this department-this point was made during the course of the debate setting up the department, and it is well to repeat it now-was vested by Parliament with enormous powers, powers that in my view no other minister of the Crown has ever had in peacetime. He was authorized, on his own initiative and on his own authority, to designate areas which he felt were in need of special assistance to improve the economic opportunities of their residents. He could virtually do anything which he felt would improve the economic conditions within these areas. He could make grants to provincial governments. He could make provision whereby provincial services could be expanded. He could make loans. He could even make outright grants to firms planning to locate in the areas. He could secure the co-operation of a special body to undertake development projects in an area. Hon. members who follow me in this debate will be making special reference to what has been taking place in the province of Prince Edward Island since the minister became responsible for regional development.
But more important, Mr. Speaker, the minister was supposed to co-ordinate all the programs of all of the other federal departments which would have some influence on the area of regional development and regional incentives. Those of us who had doubts about the advisability of Parliament granting such vast power to one minister could draw some consolation from the thought that the minister was genuine and enthusiastic in his intent. Consequently, we could expect that the power which Parliament had entrusted to him would be used in a very fast and very dramatic way, and that by virtue of these powers he would be able to deal with some of the glaring examples of regional disparity without going through a great deal of bureaucratic red tape. That is what Parliament intended at that time.
Unhappily for us, and in particular more unhappily for those people who live in the regionally disadvantaged areas, we now have the feeling that all isn't well with the government's regional development efforts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Aloysius McGrath: All we had to do was look around. I am glad to see the minister applauding my remarks, and I hope he will

February 3, 1970
Regional Development
shed a little more light on the subject than we have been able to get from him since this session started. We know that all is not well. Conditions in the weaker spots of Canada's economy are not even showing a slow improvement, are not even showing as much improvement as the minister would like us to believe. In one of his official releases last November, the minister boasted that the federal government's regional development program was creating new employment four times as fast as it did in 1968.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
I can only say that we must have four times as much unemployment as we did in 1968 if we are to accept that statement because, according to the minister, the grants made so far for 1969 would create 17,938 new jobs. Where are these new jobs that the minister spoke about so glowingly in one of his press releases last fall? The latest unemployment figures from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics show that in the Atlantic provinces, where the minister claims 9,000 new jobs have been created, unemployment rates have not changed from last year. If anything they are worse at this moment. I know they are worse in the province of Newfoundland. In the province of Quebec the minister claims, in the same press release, to have created 5,000 new jobs. For the rest of the country the claims are too insignificant to mention.
When I asked the minister for further information about these new jobs I was informed, and these are the minister's own words, "that some would be created in 1969, some would not appear until 1970 and some would not appear until 1971."


An hon. Member:: Some would not appear at all.


James Aloysius McGrath: And perhaps, as the hon. member suggests, some would not appear at all. To unemployed people in the depressed areas of this country, this does not appear as a very great effort.
What are the achievements for a minister who has been given so much power by Parliament? Nearly 18,000 new jobs have been created over a period of three years. That would not even solve the unemployment situation in the eastern area of Newfoundland. The real problem is not related to what we read in the minister's press releases because these can be examined and scrutinized; the real problem in this country today is that, except for the minister and his

deputy, Mr. Kent, nobody in this Parliament and consequently nobody in the country knows what is happening.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Hear, hear.


James Aloysius McGrath: I think it is fair to say that
the extent of the minister's power under the new legislation is only exceeded by the extent of the secrecy surrounding his activities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Aloysius McGrath: It has only been through the efforts of hon. members on this side of the House that the country knows anything about the new department's operations. It was our party which insisted that an amendment be made to the Regional Development Incentives Act to require the minister to report monthly to Parliament. It is because of this that we now have the information concerning 17 of the 278 grants referred to by the minister in the press release in which the creation of new jobs was glowingly reported. Of the remaining 261 grants made under the Area Development Incentives legislation, Parliament and the country know nothing. Perhaps we may know a little more after we hear from the minister today, if in fact we do hear from him.
We are equally in the dark concerning the signing of federal-provincial agreements under the present legislation. Of course, we hear all kinds of rumours, statements made by provincial premiers, provincial cabinet ministers and provincial politicians. Apparently they have information which Parliament is denied. For example, the Premier of Newfoundland has said, in superlatives that only he can use, that a great one-year plan will be signed by his province and the federal government on April 1 of this year.


An hon. Member:: Is he still Premier?


James Aloysius McGrath: Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I
suggest that April 1 is an appropriate date for the signing of such an agreement. The premier has also suggested that he is going to sign a great five-year agreement in July of this year. We hear little about that from the minister-as a matter of fact we hear nothing about it from the minister, no official announcement whatsoever; nothing. He will not even reply to questions, either orally or on the Order Paper, so we must be content with reading what provincial politicians have to say in the daily press.
Then, Mr. Speaker, we should refer to the Atlantic Advisory Council, the foster child of
February 3, 1970

the Atlantic Development Board-one could almost call it the illegitimate child. As a matter of fact if I were in Newfoundland I would say bastard child, but since I am not I can only say the illegitimate child of the Atlantic Development Board. In keeping with this government's policy of not telling Parliament anything, we know nothing about this new council other than the fact that it did meet in Saint John, New Brunswick, with the minister and his deputy. Some mention was made of the fact that the Atlantic Advisory Council was now concerning itself with regional development strategy.
Regional development strategy-what an excuse for inaction, Mr. Speaker! What a lame excuse for inaction in this area where unemployment will reach crisis proportions by March of this year. Surely, the members of that council must be aware that the Atlantic Development Board made the same statement when it was set up in 1962, but it was not given a chance to devise development strategy for the region. Surely, it is not too much to expect that, after almost ten years, there would be some over-all plan for the region. We know there is not, and we know that apart from what is taking place in Prince Edward Island, there is no strategy for the Atlantic provinces.
On January 19 last, the minister and five of his cabinet colleagues met with the Premier of Manitoba to discuss economic development. What official report did we get of this meeting? The report referred to, "General discussions to see how the two governments could best work together in the area." That is all we got; just that simple phrase. The consultations with Indian groups and provincial governments before the introduction of the new Indian policy were also kept secret. This secrecy was never intended by Parliament when the new legislation was passed but it now leaves the minister free to do whatever he wants. It makes him the most powerful man in Canada, the reigning czar of Canada. This concerns us, Mr. Speaker, and since this session started we have been pressing for a meeting of the regional development committee. We hope the minister will shed some light on exactly what is taking place.
We have seen this pattern emerge before. The designation of regions for industrial incentives under the Regional Development Incentives Act was also carried out in complete secrecy, "in consultation with the provinces". I would like to know the definition of the term "province" used in that context. Who else is concerned other than provincial
Regional Development
governments? Because of the provincial consultations, the minister said, the government cannot discuss why some areas, such as Cornwall for example, are not designated despite evident and pressing need.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
At the same time we know that one provincial government, Alberta, is loudly disputing the federal government's story concerning what went on during the discussions. It seems that we are witnessing a great charade; we are the unwitting participants in this game the minister is playing. The ministers go from one end of the country to the other holding consultations which are so confidential and so secret that we hear nothing about them. The deputy minister, Mr. Kent, is sent to these consultations, but no communiques are issued, no reports are made and the House is not informed. The ministers return to Ottawa and do what they decided to do before they left for these consultations. This is this government's operational definition of participatory democracy. You hold consultations, say nothing about them and then do exactly what you intended to do before you began those consultations. That is the government's version of participatory democracy.
The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion is going even farther. He, too, is determined to bypass parliamentary scrutiny. Questions on the Order Paper go unanswered; yet the minister is always very concerned to protect the interest of companies which are to receive capital grants. He seems less concerned about protecting the interest of the Canadian taxpayer. That is why we are here.
Most flagrant of all, in the view of some hon. members here, has been the minister's persistent refusal to convene the Standing Committee on Regional Development. This important committee has not met since the beginning of the session. Actually, it has not met since last June. Last spring, the committee set out on a tour of the country to look at the minister's great program in operation. We got only as far as the prairie provinces. The tour was cut short; the rest of it was pre-empted, and quite justly so, because we had to deal with legislation to set up the new department. That should not provide an excuse for preventing the committee fulfilling its obligation to visit other areas of the country, especially eastern Quebec and the Maritime provinces. But, no; the minister does not want the committee to meet, let alone go on the road, because he knows the committee will

February 3, 1970
Regional Development
discover that absolutely nothing has been happening.
He knows, for example, that if the committee were to go to eastern Quebec, where the unemployment rate is rising steadily, it would discover exactly what has been done-nothing. He knows if the committee were to go to my province, Newfoundland, it would report to Parliament exactly what the minister has been doing about the problems of the area-Nothing.


Mr. Marchand (Langelier):: Is the hon. member quite sure we have done nothing?


James Aloysius McGrath: He knows that if the committee were to visit Belle Isle, Parliament would soon know that nothing has been done to remedy the ills of this area that have been crying for attention. It is for these reasons that the minister does not want the committee to meet. I can understand why the minister does not want the committee to visit Cape Breton. He does not want problems connected with the Cape Breton Development Corporation, which have been alluded to in parliament by my colleague, the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir) and other hon. members from that area, to be brought to the committee's attention because it will see exactly what has been done about them-nothing.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breion-The Sydneys):: The
minister does not even know what has been happening in the area.


James Aloysius McGrath: On four different occasions, we have called on the government to convene a meeting of this committee, and these are all recorded in Hansard. On December 1, there was a motion under Standing Order 43 asking that the Standing Committee on Regional Development be convened. On another occasion, there was a motion proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) under Standing Order 43 to convene this committee in order that it might deal with the closing down of the Newstart program in his constituency. The minister gave a solemn undertaking before the Christmas recess that the committee would be convened. He said it would be convenient to convene a committee meeting in January. We have now reached February 3rd, and the committee still has not met.
No government makes a secret of its successes and I submit that the foregoing facts alluded to, coupled with the very skimpy information we have, is strong evidence that

the regional development policies of this government and this minister have been a total failure.


Mr. Lome Nysirom (Yorklon-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this debate, may I say that I welcome the opportunity that has been afforded us by the motion proposed by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) to deal with this entire subject. The members of this party have been as frustrated as the hon. member for St. John's East has been in trying to obtain information about the government's regional development program. We have been frustrated also because of the failure to convene a meeting of the regional development committee. This failure, I think, reflects on the government.
Just before ending his remarks, the hon. member for St. John's East said that the minister does not want the committee to travel around the country, and to eastern Quebec and the Maritimes in particular, because it will discover how little has been done. I am very happy he alluded to that situation. I, and other members of my party, will mention a number of areas of endeavour that we think should receive immediate priority and consideration from the government. Regional development, since the 1968 federal election, should have been an aspect of government activity meriting high priority. Many people in this country were happy to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) say during his election campaign that as soon as possible economic disparities, regional disparities and economic inequities existing in this country would be removed and corrected. Those people were sadly disappointed because so little has been done. It appears to me that little is being planned for the future in this area.
You know, Mr. Speaker, in the last year and a half we have heard much about problems of Canadian unity, separatism and alienation. There is real talk of separatism. In western Canada, people who feel alienated from the central government in Ottawa are beginning to talk of separating. The main reason for their attitude in my opinion is economic alienation, the alienation of these people from the mainstream of Canadian life. Many of these people are unemployed or working for wages which are insufficient to support the standard they are entitled to in a country as rich as Canada. These people are frustrated. Unless we bring about social and economic changes in many regions of Canada
February 3, 1970

suffering from inequities and unless all regions of Canada can be equal partners in confederation, no one can say that this country will stay together for the next 100 years.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Our party has long said that present regional inequities in Canada are intolerable and that we must upgrade the living standards of the people of some regions. Since the 1920's, the gap between the "haves" and "have-nots" in Canada has not narrowed. This cannot be tolerated in a country with the riches and know-how we have. We cannot afford to perpetuate the differences of wealth existing in various regions of the country and the situation in which a man's fate or income is determined more on the basis of where he lives than on the basis of his ambition or ability. Often the region in which he lives is a very dominant factor in deciding his opportunities for employment, the kind of education his children will receive and the future of his family. There are many examples of this. What is the result? The result is that the skills of many Canadians are not developed. In many cases, the skills they do have are not used to their fullest potential. These people do not have an opportunity to explore to the fullest what they wish to explore and to do what they wish to do.
Speaking in harsh economic terms, this lack of development is very costly to the country as a whole. According to economic predictions, hundreds of millions of dollars are lost every year because people are not given the opportunities they would like to have in various regions of the country. Underdeveloped regions of Canada are caught in a vicious circle. I am sure many members who speak this afternoon will mention many of these facts. We see that the underdeveloped and depressed regions are suffering from low incomes, unemployment and a low amount of capital to create new jobs. As a result, there is low productivity in these areas. This leads to a lower level of education, poor health and welfare services and a lower standard of living.
There are many ramifications to this problem. This is another reason why we cannot sit back. We must start exploring and initiating new ideas and programs in the whole area of regional economic development. In my own province of Saskatchewan, many of these things are very true. I know that there is a continual migration of young people from the rural areas to the cities, as well as
Regional Development
from the poorer areas to the richer areas of Canada. These are the areas in which there are opportunities for people with skills and university educations. This only complicates and worsens conditions in some of the economically depressed areas of Canada.
Last year, the Economic Council of Canada presented its fifth annual review. It dealt with poverty in this country and I think opened the eyes of many people to the fact that there was poverty in Canada and that something had to be done about it. I wish to read a short extract from the report of the Economic Council on the problem of poverty:
Poverty in Canada is real. Its numbers are not in the thousands, but millions. There is more of it than our society can tolerate, more than our economy can afford, and far more than existing measures and efforts can cope with. Its persistence, at a time when the bulk of Canadians enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world, is a disgrace.
We must realize the significance of this poverty both in rural and urban Canada. I do not want to suggest that the Department of Regional, Economic Expansion is the only government department that should be fighting poverty. It isn't. Poverty is a many-headed beast. It must be attacked from many different directions. The Department of Manpower and Immigration and the Department of National Health and Welfare also play a part. However, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and its minister are among the key people in the fight against poverty.
In 1967 the Dominion Bureau of Statistics said that approximately 45 per cent of Canadian families with incomes falling beneath the low income lines lived in nonurban areas. This income line was determined by the Economic Council of Canada. We know that the incidence of poverty is much higher in areas such as the Maritimes, eastern Quebec and indeed in the Prairies. It is also much higher among our Indian, Metis and Eskimo population. This is a problem which the committee responsible for this department should discuss here and now. We cannot continue procrastinating. If we do, the problem will become more and more complicated and more difficult to solve.
I have mentioned some areas and groups where the incidence of poverty is very high, but they are not the only areas. It is also very high among the white population in the big cities. The Economic Council of Canada said that perhaps one-third to one-half of the poverty in Canada today exists in the big cities of this country. This has very many serious

February 3, 1970
Regional Development
complications and ramifications. It is not a simple problem of income distribution. It is not a simple, economic problem. It has many side effects, one of which is a sense of helplessness and alienation for these people from the society in which they live. There is a culture of poverty. It is a never ending circle in which many people are trapped, creating many social and economic problems. I will give an example of this.
In the United States, a commission was set up to study the unrest, violence and alienation in many of the big cities in that country. They said that one of the reasons for this was poverty and that there was a very high correlation between poverty and crime. This is not very surprising because many of these people are put in situations that are vastly different from those of the majority of the people in that country. Some of these people have to resort to crime because of necessity, because they are alienated from the society in which they live or because of bitterness. These are things which we must also face up to in this country and which will have to be faced very soon by this government.
When John F. Kennedy was President of the United States, a commission was established to investigate much of the unrest in the big cities. They found that one reason was that people were leaving the rural areas of the United States, the farms, towns and villages, and moving into the cities. They were unskilled, in a strange atmosphere and became completely lost and alienated in this atmosphere. They were the rural poor and became the urban poor. This is why we must be concerned with these people now living in the rural and urban areas of our country. This is where the Department of Regional Economic Expansion must start to work immediately. Often, it is difficult to readily detect many of the poor people in this country. We must bear in mind that collectively the poor people are quite inarticulate. They are not organized and to a large extent are voiceless. They do not have a Chamber of Commerce, Bar Association or union to speak for them, to outline their conditions and particular circumstances. This is one reason why, for so many years, these problems have been overlooked. Another reason is that we have been too content to file these problems away under different headings in the various departments of government.
The poor people of this country need to have something done for them soon. This government will have to react because the pover-

ty in this country is very great. It is a great problem to the individual. This is my greatest concern because the individual is being condemned to a life of low income, a life that does not give him or his family an opportunity to do what he wishes. He is sometimes victimized by the lack of proper medical attention or care. He does not have the employment or educational opportunities and often finds himself in a way of life where he does not seem to have a sense of purpose or does not seem to know what he should be doing. These are matters that must be studied. These problems must be solved.
Poverty is also very costly to our society. Every year it costs this country hundreds of millions of dollars because the poor people are held back and are not allowed to do what they want to do. I wish to quote a very short paragraph from an article that appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on November 11, 1969. It reads:
Poverty may have cost the country as much as $2,284,600,000 in 1961 in loss of output that would otherwise have been achieved if the poor had been properly employed, says an analysis of census figures.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
This is just one indication that if we fail to act now, society as a whole will suffer. As I said earlier, this is not my main concern-my concern is principally for the people who live in poverty.
There are one or two other things I might say on this subject, but my time is limited and some of my hon. friends will be bringing out a variety of other points. However, in closing, I do wish to mention one other matter which is of great concern to me and to many hon. members from western Canada in all political parties. When the government announced last summer the areas to be designated under the new Area Development Incentives Act, I was unhappy to note that only a small area of Saskatchewan was included under the plan. We all know about the economic crisis which presently exists in Saskatchewan. Without going into details, let me say that it affects not only farmers but small businessmen and working people alike.
I should like the minister to explain, when he arises to make a statement in the House, why most of Saskatchewan has been excluded, in the main, from the benefits of this legislation. I would suggest to him that because of the present crisis the whole of the province should be designated as a special area, having regard to the economic situation
February 3, 1970

which confronts almost all of the people in that province. In the circumstances, I ask the minister to seriously consider including all of Saskatchewan as a designated area.
Before I sit down, I wish to move an amendment to the motion which is before us today; I hope it will enable us to bring out a few more points. It is seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) and it reads as follows:
That the motion be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma, and by adding immediately thereafter the following words:
"and this House further condemns the government for its failure to lessen regional poverty across Canada, and for its failure to create job opportunities so sorely needed at this time."


Stanley Howard Knowles: Carried.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: With this I should like to conclude, once again urging the government to take this debate seriously and convene a meeting of the committee as soon as possible in order that we may discuss the direction in which the government is moving in the sphere of regional economic problems and the whole question of poverty across this country.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I was in Quebec city yesterday for the meeting of Finance ministers and I learned that a debate would take place today on regional development. Even though it meant altering my schedule, I was most happy to do it, because that debate was to give me the opportunity to rise in the House and deal with an extremely complex problem affecting a great number of Canadians. I also thought that it would at least lead the spokesmen for opposition parties not only to express their views but also to give us food for thought on regional development.
Even though I have clear ideas on a professional and moral basis, I do not doubt that there is a way to improve the tools we have given ourselves. I already notice loopholes in pieces of legislation passed hardly a few months ago. It was rather logical for me to expect, especially from the spokesman for the official opposition, a comprehensive study of the whole philosophy of regional development and not merely meaningless and unproductive generalizations. And such was the substance of the remarks made by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). I have been trying to remember some meaningful point of his speech, which I unfortunately cannot do, 21611-60
Regional Development
because there is none. It was a general lament about unemployment and the alleged secrecy shrouding the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
It is certainly difficult to eliminate regional disparities in Canada. As the hon. member for St. John's East mentioned, probably as far back as the time of Confederation governments have been trying to wipe them out, but with little success. The only success worth mentioning is that, had we not implemented some of the programs, the gap would perhaps be wider still than it is now. But this is only an assumption, and I do not want to rest my argument on it.
At any rate, it is obvious that we have failed to bridge this gap. Through legislation passed last year, we have tried to give ourselves efficient tools which might enable us to reduce considerably these disparities. While we are attempting to make them disappear, there are things happening at the economic level which affect the implementation of our programs.
In a country as diversified as ours, where there are flagrant contradictions in the field of economics, how is it possible to reach the aims we have set for ourselves? For instance, how do we go about priming the economy in underdeveloped regions while some areas of the country are battling with inflation and others fighting recession? What monetary policy should we adopt? What kind of fiscal policy should we advocate to help certain regions without further aggravating inflation in others? The hon. member for St. John's East could have told us which monetary policy would allow us to reach that goal. It may be that opposition members have excellent ideas which they could share with us.
In our opinion, there are but two possible solutions to our problems: an anti-inflationary policy has to be adopted in an effort to curb the inflationary trend in some regions of the country, and a development policy has to be implemented in the underdeveloped areas.
These are two different policies and we believe it is the only way to reach our objectives. In fact, when inflation pushes prices up in Ontario, Alberta or British Columbia, we realize as well as anyone else that they also climb in St. John's, Moncton, Quebec City and everywhere. If we have to apply a restrictive monetary policy to combat inflation, we notice that such a policy brings adverse consequences on the under-developed areas where a more liberal monetary policy would

February 3, 1970
Regional Development
be called for. This renders the problem much more acute than it would normally be.
We have developed a new policy which implies a considerable increase of industrial incentives in order to persuade business to establish in less developed areas. What was the result? So far, 544 applications made to the department under the new legislation have been approved by the minister. Comparing the impact of the new legislation with what happened when the Area Development Incentives Act was passed in 1965, we see that the first application made after the law came into force was approved in January 1966. This year, in the same month, close to 80 applications had been approved.
When the legislation was passed in July or August last, the department was ready to operate though, of course, it was necessary to proceed to such adjustments as, for instance, training personnel. Some think that it is easy to find the required personnel in order to promote industrial development or to conclude with provinces agreements relating to regional development. Let those who claim they can train personnel more quickly tell us how they do it. As to ourselves, we had, first of all, to find the necessary personnel and it is what we did.
Moreover, negotiations had to be conducted with the provinces as regards regional development, which brought into play what we call infrastructures.
The hon. member for St. John's East asks us: where are the jobs that have been created? That is a very well-timed question, because in fact, there is more unemployment than before. A very pertinent question indeed! He should have given us the answer himself, because this is not only a group of irresponsible people that we have here. Everyone knows that when the department approves an application for some industrial incentive, two years, on the average, are needed before the firm is established and in a position to hire workers.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Mr. Forresiall:: Stop claiming jobs where they don't exist.


Jean Marchand: Will you listen? I listened to your representations a few minutes ago.


J. Michael Forrestall: Stop misleading us, then.
[Mr. Marchand (Langelier) .1


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister has the floor.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, if they definitely want to hold the debate in that vein, I can fight back, for I have enough experience, but their behaviour gives a good idea of the state of mind I denounced a while ago.
I was simply saying that when we approve an application for industrial incentive, an average of two years usually elapses before the plant becomes operational. Some industries might need one year or a year and a half, others three years, depending on the character of the industry concerned.
In 1969, we approved 359 applications, against 98 in 1968, and this should normally create 22,000 new jobs and not 17,000 as stated by the hon. member for St. John's East, who should revise his figures. However, if the number of jobs he mentioned was for November, I must admit that the hon. member was right.
Who in the opposition is able to create employment at a moment's notice?
Have the opposition members a policy that would enable them to achieve this miracle? If so, why do they keep their secret? It is important! How do they create employment overnight?


Mr. Speaker:: Order! I have to remind the minister that he should address himself to the Chair.


Jean Marchand: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but this is what happens when the debate takes a bad turn. Obviously, such things can happen.
The Regional Development Incentives Act has a purpose: to create employment, and we can already see its effects. As a matter of fact, when the hon. member for St. John's East says that nothing has been done, that no new job has been created since the enactment of the legislation, I suggest that he is acting in an irresponsible manner and that he is playing politics as I would not like to do so myself, and as I would not like to see others do it. They can accuse us of not having-


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The minister is imputing motives, and under our rules he is not allowed to do this.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not my interpretation of what the minister said. I
February 3, 1970

cannot interpret his statements as imputing motives. He made a statement but did not impute motives, and that is my ruling.


An hon. Member:: You are very sensitive.


Mr. MacEwan:: Much ado about nothing.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, under that legislation, I was authorized to pay some grants to companies willing to settle in underdeveloped areas. I will merely mention that since that legislation was passed, 350 applications have been approved, tor investments totalling approximately $639 million. This is what we did in connection with that legislation.
Evidently we have not solved every problem, but what else could we have done under that legislation, except approve a certain number of applications about industrial development? On the other hand, is that figure less than the previous one? Not only it is not, but it is four times higher. In my opinion, next year the growth rate will be much more considerable. I would like to know what hon. members of the opposition are aiming for, in order to see if our activities are really falling short of what the people expect.
As for this first tool at our disposal, we have tried to use it. In that regard, hon. members know how many applications were received and approved and how many jobs will eventually result. I must say "eventually", Mr. Speaker, because that will not happen overnight. I do not see how we could do it by tomorrow morning!
Moreover, with regard to the second part of the legislation which allows us to pay for the infra-structure in the provinces that are unable to establish all the essential services for industrial development, I have this to say: This part of the legislation establishing the department enables me to sign agreements with provinces in order to define priorities, to determine the necessary services and to plan a program for designated areas.
Of course all this leads to discussions. We are to meet the representatives of the provinces. They submitted their projects to us and it is only normal that we discuss them to ensure that they are best for developing the regions concerned. In short, what do we do when we conclude agreements of this nature? The federal government defrays the cost of services for which Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia pay, but some provinces are simply not in a position to set up this basic 21611-6(fi
Regional Development
structure on their own. Therefore we take money from people in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia and other prosperous provinces and give it to provinces or municipalities that need it.
It is our duty to see to it that the projects submitted are rational and intended to reach the objectives on which we have set our sight. It takes a while to read agreements with the provinces, Mr. Speaker, it cannot be done overnight. Indeed, it supposes several meetings. We have set a target date, next April 1st, to start spending money in that field. I have every reason to believe that we will do so in just about every province in Canada. Agreements are being reached in almost every area. In a few places, there are still a few details to straighten out. But I wonder why the commotion because it took us a few months to sign agreements that are extremely complex and difficult, because we did not report to the House every day or every week on those agreements. How can you negotiate an agreement publicly? We are negotiating agreements dealing with objectives and matters of provincial jurisdiction.
We would like the province to agree before we announce what the agreement is all about. It seems to me there is nothing shocking about the way we proceed and hon. members will get an opportunity to know about all the agreements negotiated with the provinces.
Why such secrecy? Precisely because the agreements deal with matters of provincial jurisdiction. We have no jurisdiction when it comes to sewage systems, roads, education or hospitals. We have to negotiate with the provinces and try to establish priorities in agreement with them.
What is shocking about that? The hon. member for St. John's East would probably want me to say: Well, here is what we suggest, what the province puts forward, what Mr. So-and-so says. Who will venture to imagine that it is possible to negotiate in this way? It is impossible. Once an agreement is reached, nothing prevents hon. members to criticize and to tell us that we went too far or not far enough. This is quite a normal process and I think that we can then arrive at constructive criticism. But simply to suggest to the public that we did not keep them informed about the various stages of our negotiations with the provinces, this is really childish.
I will deal now with the matter of co-ordination of activities. We know that the work which is carried out by the provinces and the

February 3, 1970
Regional Development
municipalities, by degree of importance, is fairly more significant than that carried out by the federal government itself and that is why there must be some co-ordination within the federal government of course, but most of all between the agencies of the various levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal, and that is our obvious purpose when negotiating agreements.
Our friend, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) has laid a general charge when dealing mainly with the problem of poverty. Poverty is like sin. I, too, am against it But I believe that we are trying and we shall continue to fight it within our own departmental jurisdiction. Of course we do not deny the fact that poverty exists in Canada but we are trying to fight it and I think that we must continue to exert pressures in order to get rid of it.
This is not a problem particular to Canada; it is also an American problem and one that plagues the western world, it may also be a world evil. It is probably most legitimate to require more efforts on our part in that field but there again, it might be a great, general, and even generous idea but it does not give a specific answer to the current problems.
The overall proposal made by the opposition, betrays their ignorance of the whole matter and also indicates a lack of courage. When you want to come to grips with a policy, you have to identify it and point at is weaknesses and failures. Those responsible for it must be brought back to their senses. All they can do is to use one big word: "coordination". This leads nowhere. It simply gives some hon. member a chance to take the floor for half an hour.
This question is of paramount importance for the future of Canada, and it should be a matter of concern for us. All they can find to say, however, is that there is a lack of coordination, putting the blame on the government.
This is truly what can be called "wasting a little time".
Anyway, I have indicated what we have done to stimulate industry and how far we have progressed in our agreements with the provinces. As the estimates will soon be tabled, hon. members will see the extent of the endeavours planned in the field of regional development. Possibly they will say that it is not enough, but they will realize that it is considerably more than was done previously.
The hon. member claims that it is less than before. According to him, things were

not so bad at the time of the Atlantic Development Board but since then the eastern provinces have obtained less. This is wrong. The estimates will give the lie to his statement in enabling members to check the facts. The House of Commons is too dignified a place for such grave and general charges to be made without hon. members first taking the trouble of checking their facts to make sure that they know what they are talking about.
At all events, the estimates will be tabled. Discussions will then be more definite and constructive because hon. members will be aware of the financial extent of our efforts. I do not say that it will be sufficient and that it will settle all problems. I am convinced that were I to be allocated twice as much money to spend, I would find areas where to spend it.
It is to be noted, however, that there is here a substantially increased effort. Once the estimates are tabled, I will be the first one to want the committee to convene to consider them and scrutinize all the information which I am prepared to supply in connection with regional development. I do not object to sittings of the committee. On the contrary. Five or six months after the implementation of the act, one cannot claim-
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Mr. Peters:: May I ask the minister a question, Mr. Speaker?


Jean Marchand: I have almost finished my speech.


An hon. Member:: Carry on!


Jean Marchand: The department is a new one and has been operating only for a few months. Agreements with the provinces have not all been finalized. Within a few weeks, it will all be settled and I believe it will be normal at that time for the committee to review the agreements and see how we want to proceed, and look into the statistics that the estimates will provide. In this way, the committee will be able to do something constructive, instead of merely making general recommendations about coordination.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, will the minister now permit a question? I should like to ask him whether he would say a word or two on what action is being taken with regard to
February 3, 1970

the development of growth centres, which was the only change in the new program as opposed to the old one? What negotiations with the provinces are taking place in this regard, and are any of the proposals that are being made to the government in a particular area being reviewed or extended as a result of the growth centre concept?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had read the act, he would realize that it does not deal with "growth centres". It does deal, however, with "special areas". Thus we have the power irrespective of designated areas, to designate, in agreement with any province, special areas where we can implement measures that we are not allowed to take under the industrial incentives legislation.
The act does not deal with "growth centres". However this may result in centres-


William Arnold Peters: This is just semantics.


Jean Marchand: It is not only semantics. It is different from that.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wishes to know what special areas will become designated areas, I must tell him that I cannot give this information at this time. It is already quite difficult for provincial governments and for us to exert our efforts on certain areas, even though we are aware that several regions are in need. If we are to reach an agreement, we cannot make them public before agreements are entered into with the provinces.
We do not want to play hide-and-seek. But as we cannot make the whole of Canada a special area, we must make a choice, and an extremely hard one for that matter. And the choice is even harder for the provinces.
If we publicize the various proposed projects, it would never be possible to reach a conclusion.
We do not want to play hide-and-seek, but simply to create an' atmosphere enabling us to reach specific conclusions.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: May I ask the minister one question? While I agree with the minister that we need consultation to enter into negotiations and to draw up a full-blown plan, could the minister give us an answer to a question which is
Regional Development causing most of us a great deal of concern, that is the reason the government is not moving now as it has been over the last 20 years in areas which are clearly under federal jurisdiction, such as public works, fishing facilities, postal facilities, airport facilities, and other facilities that are as clearly needed as the nose on your face. Why is it the government has not been moving in these areas? Why is it that austerity has been applied to the slow growth areas just as it has to other areas?
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Jean Marchand: I think this question can be answered only when we
know the details of the agreements which are going to be signed with the provinces.


John Howard Lundrigan: It is a completely federal problem.


Jean Marchand: We are putting together all the aspects and establishing the
priority, whether it is under federal jurisdiction or provincial jurisdiction.


John Howard Lundrigan: And you will do nothing until then.


Jean Marchand: We are doing a lot of things, but maybe we are not doing enough.


John Howard Lundrigan: That is the answer.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the minister started off by describing the remarks of the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) as banal, general and insipid. I would have to say it is a long time since I heard such a banal defence of a program as that given by the minister, but I would not describe the minister's speech as insipid because obviously he tried to make up in heat what he failed to generate by way of light.
I am very concerned about the lack of a program generally with regard to this question of regional economic expansion. We supported the creation of the department. We co-operated in getting the measure through the House, although it was not the way we would have proceeded ourselves. Nevertheless, we wanted to give the government every opportunity to develop a plan of operation. But the fact is that nothing of substance has yet come from the minister or the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. Meanwhile a good many regions of the country are

February 3, 1970
Regional Development
losing ground economically vis-a-vis the rest of the country.
I wish to say to the minister on behalf of myself, the members of my party, and I am sure the country as a whole, that the honeymoon is over for the minister and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) with regard to the question of regional disparities. It is time that the minister really told the country what he and his department are doing, and it is time the government permitted the committee concerned to examine in a reasonable way the program of the government with regard to regional disparities. I do not mean a rushed job when the estimates are before the Committee. It is impossible for the minister and the government to justify their refusal to allow the appropriate committee to examine the minister's program. It throws suspicion on the whole approach of the government.
It is two years since the election, but the department has done so little and the govern-iment as a whole has done so little, that they will not permit the committee to examine what has been done. Sure, there have been some grants made in some of the provinces, but nothing very much in others.
The minister pleads that he needs time. He says he could not create jobs tomorrow. Yet he did not attempt to deny that disparity is deepening in the country and is spreading in the country. For example, consider the position of the province of Saskatchewan. Two or three years ago this province became qualified as a have rather than a have-not province and yet the provisions for equalization payments to it were eliminated. Consider the situation in that province today, and the help and positive measures being given and taken by the federal government with regard to it.
Saskatchewan has reached the point where its premier had to beg the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) not to smile when he was discussing its problems. The federal government cannot claim that it has even started any program there. I do not think the minister would even pretend that he had done anything, and we are not aware of any measures undertaken by the Department of Industry or any other department. The government is displaying a cold-blooded, disinterested attitude toward the problems of that province, and it is not much wonder that there is a certain amount of talk about western separatism.
As far as I can see, the minister and the government have written off the whole idea of developing the near north, and are appar-

ently content to leave it flounder as best it can. Parliament has given this minister extraordinary powers so far as his own department is concerned, but the only way these powers have been used so far has been to put a strangle hold on the province of Prince Edward Island.
The federal government claims to be making a contribution of $225 million under the plan agreed with Prince Edward Island, but that is very misleading, Mr. Speaker. There is no such contribution over a period of 15 years so far as new federal money is concerned. A good deal of that amount is made up of bookkeeping transfers, as well as the phasing out and consolidation of existing programs. I would estimate that not more than $60 million at most of this alleged $225 million is new federal money going into Prince Edward Island over a period of 15 years.
There is also the danger that the federal government will not extend new programs as they arise to Prince Edward Island, with the excuse that Prince Edward Island is covered by a plan of its own. We had the announcement last spring that $6 million would be granted for highway projects to the Atlantic provinces, but none of this was to be allotted to Prince Edward Island on the ground that other arrangements had been made under its plan. How realistic is it to expect the province of P.E.I. to put up something like $500 million over a period of 15 years? I hope the plan will produce dynamic growth on that island so that it can meet that commitment, but I am very suspicious of any federal government that would put such a price tag as that on Prince Edward Island's entry into the plan.
I am concerned that the federal government is looking forward, if it is not already doing so, to running P.E.I. like a piece of federal property. I say that no federal plan, department or government should deprive the people of that province of their right to selfgovernment. The plan now in operation for Prince Edward Island is extremely centralized. Every decision is centralized here in Ottawa. Whatever degree of decentralization there used to be under the Atlantic Development Board has been removed, and everything is concentrated here in Ottawa. We have to ask, what are the minister and his colleagues up to?
Certainly, the policies of the federal government are placing very heavy financial pressures on all of the eastern provinces. We must recognize, as the Economic Council has point-
February 3, 1970

ed out time and time again, the importance of all these provinces being able to render a satisfactory degree of services, particularly growth related services, if they are ever to overcome the problems of economic disparity. Yet three of these five provinces have not yet been able to bring in the medicare plan, a nationwide program, although I believe that two at least are committed to doing so. The federal government must recognize the financial problems in all of these provinces which are suffering economic disparity, yet it seems to me it is exerting constant financial pressure on them and refusing to recognize their financial difficulties in providing services in any effective way. The minister made a great play about asking how one would apply a monetary policy in an effective way. Well, he could at least try. I would like to try. And what about fiscal policy? I say to the minister that the government has not made the slightest effort to adjust its fiscal policy to these areas. The whole effect of its fiscal policy down there has been to cut back and to aggravate the problems of slow growth. It is essential that these provinces be able to provide these services in order to participate in development programs, but as far as I can see the whole tendency, if not the intent, of the present policies of the government is to grind down these provinces.
The tax structure committee forecast the rapidity of the growth and the financial needs of the provinces for basic government services, yet no recognition has been given to that. As far as I can see, after using an antiinflation program as an excuse, and perhaps using negotiated plans as the implement, the tendency if not the intent of the federal government seems to be to bring all of these provinces into a condition of financial subserviency to the federal government.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Jean Marchand: They were before.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister does not deny it; he says they were, Mr. Speaker. I do not think the province of Quebec would accept that statement nor would some of the other provinces. I am saying that this is a tendency with very, very serious consequences. It is clear that the financial and fiscal policies of the minister's colleagues have set back the work to eliminate economic disparity. I would feel a little sorry for the minister had he not tried to defend himself so vigorously. I think his colleagues have crept from under his feet, and certainly in the past year they have
Regional Development
created far more disparity than the minister has eliminated. The country is falling back. The minister speaks about generalities and here is a generality he cannot deny: he has not made a bit of progress and the economic policies of his colleagues and the government as a whole have broadened and deepened economic disparity in the past year. It is the task and responsibility of the minister and his colleagues to get away from these general policies which are depressing all parts of the country and to adopt a positive approach.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, if the minister wants to help, let him bring the committee together and give the House a chance to consider what he is doing in detail and to make suggestions. Why is the minister afraid of doing that? I do not know, unless he is afraid of exposing how little has been accomplished. Let him speak to his colleagues, not ask us in this House to tell him how to apply an appropriate fiscal policy. Let the government abandon a fiscal policy which has been applied across the country and which, in spite of all the government says, is deepening our economic difficulties.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, when some hon. members opposite were still in the childhood stage I sat in the gallery of the other place and watched when the terms of union between Newfoundland and Canada were signed. It was a very unhappy incident for me, as I had opposed the idea of Newfoundland entering the Canadian confederation. I suppose most of my motivation at that time was emotional, although a bit of logic did creep into the various arguments. At one stage most of the comments that I made publicly on the subject were based on the standard complaint that I have been hearing for many years from such provinces as New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, the basic argument being that confederation was a bit of an abortion, both geographically and economically, and that Newfoundland would be a dory tied on to the schooner.
I made my decision very early following confederation that if we were to be Canadians, despite my best judgment of those days, then we ought to be good Canadians. Over the last 21 years both in public life and before, I have commented upon and tried to find solutions for and make recommendations about, so-called regional economic disparity. Of course, we did not call it that in the early days. I do not know what word was used but

February 3, 1970
Regional Development
there was generally a feeling on the part of those living in Newfoundland, and probably those in the Atlantic provinces as well, that in some way or other we were not getting our just dues, as it were, out of the promise of confederation. In 100 years we had not been able to achieve the general objectives, the promises, that seemed to be implicit in the original concept of one nation from sea to sea. I have to say, however, that over that period of 21 years I am satisfied that my own province has probably gone ahead more than it would have under any other arrangement. But I am also compelled to say that most of the progress and gains made were obvious for the simple reason that for such a long period there had been relatively little progress that what we gained seemed like a great deal. I suppose what it amounted to was that half a loaf appeared as good as a full one, and certainly better than no bread at all.
Today, as I strenuously grapple with this problem of regional economic expansion, I am conscious that the basic difficulty is the same as it was 21 years ago. It has been compounded, complicated by developments that have taken place, but the basic problem remains. I do not know the degree to which it is common to all four provinces, but in Newfoundland it seems to be a matter of trying to find sufficient gainful employment for a growing population. One of the miracles of confederation as far as Newfoundland is concerned is that we have managed, despite a decline in one end of the scale, to keep our population moving up slightly. We have not had the massive exodus that many people, including myself, forecast once the immigration barriers between Newfoundland and Canada were removed. Even though we have been able to keep the population static, the fact of the matter is that job opportunities simply are not there.
To hon. members opposite who are critical of this program I would say that, while I share their frustration and concern, I believe that if we were to announce tomorrow more attractive incentives than those the minister has outlined, which must rank with the most attractive in any western country, it still would be very very difficult to find people prepared to introduce the kind of industrial development necessary to take care of those now unemployed. As well as this group, there are others coming along at an ever-increasing rate, that is assuming our population will remain at the level it is now and that we have the normal increase.
When the minister spoke about the number of jobs the program has generated I have no quarrel with the figures. I can see some evidence already of the effect of the incentives program in Newfoundland. A week ago today, I was present at the opening of a new fishing installation which will give employment to many people. The cost is in the neighbourhood of $21 million, of which the federal government's contribution was substantially more than one-third; but this is really still only a drop in the bucket.
Perhaps the hon. Leader of the Opposition is right when he says that only if we can get together in terms of a committee discussion will these problems disappear. But I suggest in all honesty that as the former leader of a Conservative government in the province of Nova Scotia, he knows that it is not as simple as that. In fact, we are going to have an extremely difficult job even with incentives, even with growth centres and the like, to provide the kind of employment and the levels of employment which are necessary.
It is because of this complexity and because the history of the last 21 years has shown that many of the programs have not been successful that I do not criticize the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand) for what hon. members opposite referred to as his slowness in moving. Rather, I commend him for having the good sense to make sure that this time we have covered as many bases as possible. We do not want to go off in all directions and then find, ten years from now, that we have not achieved very much.
Hon. members from Newfoundland should be the last to suggest that there should be some sort of a precipitate haste in setting up industrial enterprises of any kind. We really must be sure that we have the right answers.
The fisheries, of course, are still pretty basic in terms of our Newfoundland economy. About a year or so ago we had a situation which all of us agreed was desperate. As a result of actions which were taken there has been a remarkable transition. The fact of the matter is that the fresh frozen fish industry is in an extremely buoyant state now and looking better all the time. The danger is, and I only mention this because this is one of our problems, that the incentives program may well attract more people into the fresh frozen fish industry, with the result that we will have a repetition of the depreciated position and sales picture we had a year or so ago. The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. Me-

February 3, 1970

Grath), and other members on his side of the House, can say all they want about regional economic expansion and development programs. Despite what the Leader of the Opposition said about it not being the responsibility of hon. members opposite to make specific suggestions, let us hear something more about this program than criticism.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I say, Mr. Speaker, that to suggest right now, for instance, that incentives should be provided in order to increase sales further and to raise the production of the fresh frozen fish industry in eastern Canada would be detrimental, in the long run, to the future of the area. We must examine that problem and look at it extremely carefully. That is what was meant when the minister referred to the need for consultation and thorough planning. I have heard repeatedly, when travelling to Newfoundland and other parts of the Maritime provinces, that the only answer to providing quick relief to economically depressed areas on the coast is "Give us another fish plant".
There is an awful parallel, and it is terribly striking, to what was said a few years ago to our wheat farmers on the prairies. It will be remembered that they were told to grow all the wheat they could because everything looked great. Let us not fall into that pitfall, and there is a great danger here.
There is a second danger when it comes to providing incentives in the fishing industry and that is,-I believe the hon. member who is the spokesman for the official opposition might be inclined to agree-in moving into the herring fishery simply because there is a market and providing fishermen with the means of getting into it. Again we would be, to use a familiar old expression, killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. There is a limit to the amount of job creation that can be performed within the fishing industry of the Atlantic provinces, and this is basic to the whole object of regional economic expansion.
These fisheries problems are related to something else about which hon. members in opposition will have to make up their minds. I do not blame them for their difficulty in doing so, but I say that the issue of centralization, in one form or another, must be decided one way or another. If we are to help people in the fishing industry in the small communities around the coast of Newfoundland, and I am confining myself to that area
Regional Development because it is the one I know best, if we are to provide those people with the kind of future they have a right to expect, if they are to realize the full promise of confederation, as I have called it, then we cannot do it in many of these smaller places without moving the people out. So, the growth centre concept to which the minister has referred and on which, as I happen to know, he and his officials have worked extremely hard in recent months, is a very valid one. But it contains difficulties as well. I can see that when a designation is made hon. gentlemen opposite will look at it and say, "Why is it in this area; why is it not somewhere else?" Inevitably, naturally, understandably and defensively hon. gentlemen are going to say, "But there is not enough in my riding to be of special interest."
What is the alternative? If you are not going to have development areas, if you are not to have growth centres or points round which you can polarize the population and try to provide employment opportunities for them, the answer is that we shall have to continue with what I have called the pastoral syndrome in Newfoundland. I suggest that many people think of that as the easiest way out. It is very easy, when one goes into a community or some backwood area of Newfoundland, to say, "We could not agree more; you are entitled to all the services and to all the improvements that you like."
But surely to goodness, if we are to take any real interest in these people we have to try at least to help them by getting them to move to growth centres and there provide employment for them. I know the stock answer to that is that we have put the cart before the horse and, in some respects, we probably did. Centralization may have moved ahead faster than was wise in some circumstances because, and I agree with those hon. members who have levelled this criticism at us, those who moved in did not have jobs. That is quite true. But I will tell you what they do have. They have better schooling, better access to hospitals and medical services and greater mobility than they ever had before. And if they do not have jobs where they are now, let us also remember that they would not have had jobs if they had remained behind either. So, I say that centralization in some form has to be part of the development program.
A question was asked this afternoon of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion why certain projects have not gone ahead in Newfoundland. To answer this, may I recount a story that took place in my community. I

February 3, 1970
Regional Development was involved in it and it took place on the Island of Sagona, on the south coast of that fine riding, Burin-Burgeo. At one point there was a community, and a man coming to the community saw a wharf worth about $75,000 being built. He said, "I can see that you are building a wharf; does that mean you are going to stay?" The answer given to him was, "No, we are moving as soon as we have finished it.".
As the hon. member for St. John's East said, there is a need for co-ordination if we are to ensure that the objectives of the regional economic expansion program and of the growth centres are logical, and if we are to avoid the anomalies to which I have just referred. Consequently we must look twice before proceeding with the construction of useless facilities costing $75,000 or $100,000 or $150,000, because once that money has been spent, it is not available for something else. In the constituency of Burin-Burgeo, there are approximately $2 million worth of marine facilities which are not being used today because, shortly after having been completed, the communities that erected them were moved to more logical places-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the minister but I am afraid that his time has expired.


John Howard Lundrigan: May I direct a question to the minister?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A question may be asked now only by unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Howard Lundrigan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed because the minister has become an Upper Canadian. I do not blame him because he now has a better chance to succeed, since he is not now in Newfoundland.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: With respect, Mr. Speaker, 1 will permit a question but not an insult.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Arnold Peters: I wish the hon. member would withdraw that remark.


John Howard Lundrigan: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I do not want that remark to stay on the record. I indicated that the minister had become an Upper Canadian, and I will withdraw that. The minister spoke about what the Leader of the Opposition had said, and he referred to the remarks of the Minis-

ter of Regional Economic Expansion. I ask, why is the government's austerity program being applied to my province? I realize that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), the Governor of the Bank of Canada and other experts argue that this austerity control is good from the standpoint of regional planning. I ask, why have these austerity goals been applied to my province?
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I will not ask Your Honour's indulgence to continue as long as it would take to answer in full. I deny the fact there has been this cut-back on a general basis. As the hon. minister said, when the committee has the figures and statistics in front of them, it will become evident that in fact there has been an increase in the last year or so in expenditures, at least in the area with which I am most familiar, over what it was 12 months before. In any event, I will be glad to get these figures now for the hon. member and also, if it is permissible for me to do so, to participate in the committee discussion.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, back in the old days before the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) kidnapped the Liberal government and transformed it into his own image, in the days when the present Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) and the present Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) were still private citizens in Quebec being ardently wooed by the Liberal hierarchy, these men were commonly referred to as the three wise men. I have not heard this expression used very frequently in recent times. As a matter of fact, recent events have somewhat obliterated this myth. The three wise men have now been supplemented by another trio to which I will refer as the three blind mice. These men, 1 suggest, are the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen).
The reason I make this assertion is that I believe these three individuals are blind to Canada's regional difficulties. They are either too obsessed with their positions or too timid to grapple with the problems that confront them. This failure to promote effective action to overcome problems of regional disparity is serious in all parts of the country and very much so in western Canada.
Not only has the government's consistent and obvious disinterest in the west bred a feeling of isolation from the rest of Canada,
February 3, 1970

February 3, 1970
Regional Development returns. In the face of such figures, it is difficult for a western Canadian to understand why he is almost totally ignored by Ottawa, except when taxes are levied, and why common sense and common justice do not compel this government to stop making empty promises and start acting.
It is particularly difficult to understand why the west has been excluded from assistance by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. The boundaries of his designated area were set arbitrarily by himself and his officials and from what I can see, with no set of rules or universal criteria. The minister claims the provinces were consulted fully before the lines were drawn, but this is at variance with what is claimed by provincial authorities, particularly the premier of my own province.
There was an exchange of letters last year between myself and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In a letter addressed to me dated October 10 last, the minister said:
Our conclusion, after consultation with the provincial government, (that is the government of Alberta), was that the program would produce the greatest benefits for the province as a whole if the southern region was designated.
My information is that the minister consulted no one in Alberta except his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, who just happened to represent a riding that coincided roughly with the designated area. In another part of the same letter, the minister stated:
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
We are talking about the kind of program that my department can best employ to ease the necessary adjustment process and cushion its effects on the people of the prairies.
At that time he said he was negotiating with the provincial government about instituting such a program. This is as far back as October 10. But no one has heard a word about the program since, or seen any sign of one being initiated. This is the type of windy delusion which comes from the offices of the trio to which I have referred- pronouncements which have led westerners to doubt the integrity of this government and to lose faith in the viability of Canada under such management.
It is more than a co-incidence that the minister has consistently refused to table in this House copies of the letters he claims were exchanged between him and various western premiers on the topic I have just been discussing. Reference to questions 581 and 582 will indicate this clearly.

Another glaring example of injustice and a further ground for the build-up of western animosity is to be found in the government's dairy policy. The government now proposes a $10 million cut in funds available under the Canadian dairy policy on the professed ground of aiding its austerity drive. What will happen, in fact, is that the share of western dairy farmers will be reduced in proportion to that of the central region. It is true there is over-production in Canada's dairy industry- but it is not in the west. The over-production happens to be in Quebec, but this fact is ignored. The committee is being asked to develop a national policy, the results of which will simply penalize those regions which have exercised a discretion in the field of supply management, and have not significantly overproduced. There is little use in prolonging this recital of the many shortcomings of the government's regional economic expansion and agriculture policies. They are so blatant that we can all see them.
I turn, now, to the third element in the trio of departments which the Minister of Agriculture claimed would solve the problems of the west. I listened with interest the other day to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration making much of little in his announcement of that department's success in finding jobs for students. As far as I and others are concerned, they were mere empty boasts. Let me cite only one case, that of a graduate student for whom no job can be found. This young man is now being badgered by solicitors for repayment of a student loan. He is Mr. Kenneth R. Powley of Vegre-ville, Alberta, an architect who graduated in June of 1968 but could find only fleeting employment until January 1969, and none since. He visited the nearest manpower centre seeking assistance, and according to a letter I received from the Minister of Manpower last September, he registered for employment with the manpower centre at Edmonton shortly after his graduation in 1968.
To date, the result has been nil. He is still unemployed, and I have a sheaf of application letters to show that it is not for lack of trying to get a job. He is willing to work in practically any field and at any location. Yet this great department, with its policy of job mobility, has totally failed to assist him. The case of Mr. Powley symbolizes the current condition of the west. He is a victim of federal promises which are without substance or good faith. He is a symbol of the utter and complete failure of the government's promise of regional assistance through a combination
February 3, 1970

of the three departments most closely concerned. Had he lived elsewhere he might have been more fortunate.
These are some of the feelings of westerners which have been communicated to me in my travels. It is a combination of such inequities with little promise of hope which has created the prevailing hostility toward the federal government and a growing sense of alienation. The result has spurred discussion of separatism, talk of forming a regional power bloc and of possible union with the United States. In the interest of preserving Canada, the reversal of this trend must be considered a basic priority of the government. I firmly believe that if the present callous disregard of the west continues we, as Canadians, will all suffer the consequences.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Deputy Speaker:: Before I call on the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria perhaps I might inform the House of the items to be discussed at the time of the adjournment. They are as follows: the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding)-transport- coal-application by Great Northern and Kootenay Elk railways; the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave)-Criminal Code-proclamation of remainder of amendments respecting breathalyzer; the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski)- Health and Welfare-representations by Diabetic Association respecting cyclamate ban-availability of substitute.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this House condemns the government's failure to co-ordinate its regional development policies under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion with other government activities, and its failure to bring in an appropriate reference to place this issue before the Standing Committee on Regional Development.
and the amendment thereto of Mr. Nystrom.
Regional Development [Translation]
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, the most important features of the presentation made by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), who sponsored the motion under study this afternoon, are the following: he spoke for approximately half an hour; he spoke in very loud tones; he even sweated quite a bit, but he said absolutely nothing. That is remarkable but also typical, and there is nothing to be done in this desperate case, in my view. I doubt that even St. Jude could be of any help to him.
As the motion presented by the hon. member for St. John's East has no meaning, it is very difficult to address oneself to it in an intelligent manner. It is a skeleton, some sort of noble cause without a defending knight. If the motion had at least some substance, we could comment on it intelligently, but, in the circumstances, this is rather difficult.
Mr. Speaker, the opposition motion presented today reads as follows:

That this House condemns the government's failure to co-ordinate its regional development policies under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion with other government activities, and its failure to bring in an appropriate reference to place this issue before the Standing Committee on Regional Development.

I intend first of all to let you know what I think of the advisability of such a motion and I will afterwards comment on the general economic expansion policy of the government.
I have naturally no right to impute motives to the mover, but nevertheless, I can ask myself what he had in mind when he presented that motion. I think it is a weak motion, even from a strictly political point of view. We all know to what extent the hon. member is imbued with political motives. This motion-I cannot help saying it-is not worth a cent.
A motion of censure brought in against the government always contains a great many negative elements. It is normal, they say. But when they stoop to childish and silly things, we can wonder, and rightly so, if money put at the disposal of opposition members for research purposes is not a total loss. I thought that there was still a little unseasoned timber among the opposition members, but I realize that they are all ready to go into action.
I was recently reading over the proceedings of the standing committee on regional development for Tuesday, June 10, 1969. The min-

February 3, 1970
Regional Development
ister was testifying before the committee, on which sits the hon. member for St. John's East. Bill C-202 had been referred to the committee for study. Obviously, the minister had been called upon to answer questions from members. To my great surprise, no reference was then made by the members of the committee to a need for coordinating the regional development policy and the other regional activities of the federal government, of other governments and of governmental agencies. The hon. member for St. John's East himself said absolutely nothing about the matter. He chose to rail against the minister. On that occasion, he really went too far, as shown by the official report.
As usual, the hon. member took the floor for fifteen minutes but had nothing to say about the bill. Then, he did not speak another word during the other two days this committee held sitting.
The minutes of proceedings show in fact that the hon. member for St. John's East did not attend the other two meetings when the committee studied the bill. Is that an indication of his interest in economic development problems? As I said, I do not want to impute motives to the hon. member and should he have had serious reasons for his absence, they ought to be accepted.
I have noted, however, several remarks made by the hon. member on that occasion. According to him, it is obvious that a great deal of co-operation, of co-ordination and of discussions with the provinces is necessary before conclusions can be reached on such or such an agreement. This was mentioned by the Minister in the House this afternon.
He stated in June last, When he appeared before the committee, that he intended to ask, for example, the advice of the Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation on housing, when the matter would be related to others such as employment.
I know that the minister, before approving an important grant for the establishment of a factory, gets in touch with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce on marketing, the Minister of Agriculture to check some data, the Manpower Centre to learn about the employment opportunities in the area where the industry wishes to settle. This is obvious, it is the daily routine. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand) shows his common sense when proceeding in such a way.
The Atlantic Area Development Board is one of the bodies especially established to

advise the minister where co-ordination, plans and programs are concerned. The minister himself made clear what he expected of the Board. To prove it, I shall quote from proceedings No. 14 of the Committee on Regional Development, dated June 10, 1969. Here is what it says:
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)

If there are abuses in that field-

He was talking about the field of regional economic development.
I quote further:

-I think we have to rely on that council to point out to the public that something is going wrong; the government is not doing what it should and so forth, the provinces or the federal government.
Then the council should say as was stated:
The majority of those men are surely in the position to resign if they do not agree with what we are doing. It will be the first one to underline what is going wrong.
I suppose this is what the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) undertook to do this afternoon. The minister said a little further one:
You know how those councils operate and you may be sure that if anything goes wrong, seriously wrong, it will be known. This is democracy and I accepted this from the start.

What is surprising, Mr. Speaker, is that to date no criticism has been made by the Atlantic Development Board. None of its members has resigned, which does prove that they do not see eye to eye with the member for St. John's East, that they are far more broadminded.
What does the member for St. John's East want when he speaks of co-ordination? Just what is his problem? He indicated at the beginning of his remarks that he was doubly frustrated. That is his problem, Mr. Speaker. For my part, I do not suffer from that disease and I feel very sorry for the hon. member. But I feel powerless to help him, for he refuses to listen to reason.
He read off a litany of agencies, sections and departments which have appeared since the fifties within the federal government. Some of them were active for a while. Others did not live up to expectations, but that is quite
February 3, 1970

normal. The rapid economic growth of Canada, the problems and difficulties that follow inevitably, dictate from month to month changes in the objectives originally set; of necessity, our programs, set-ups, and solutions must be modified.
The Progressive Conservative party obviously does not like change. The New Democrats, for their part, tell us we do not change rapidly enough, and the members of the Ral-liement creditiste say change is good, inasmuch as it suits them.
Mr. Speaker, I followed closely what the member from St. John's East had to say; I resigned myself to it unwillingly because there are far too many exaggerations in what he says for it to deserve much credibility. What surprised me most, is the absence of suggestions, of constructive criticism likely to prompt the government to improve its administration. The member and his party prefer to retire into their shells, when they do not offer the government destructive criticism.
What does the member for St. John's East means by co-ordination? Does he mean complex structures to the extent that we might loose sight of our objectives? As for me, I am satisfied that-projects and policies are coordinated between the various departments of the federal government on one hand, and the provinces on the other, in the struggle against regional diaparity. I learned it from the Minister of Economic Development of New Brunswick himself. He has nothing but praise for this co-operation. But if my friend from St. John's East has eyes and sees not, ears and hears not, that is his business.
Mr. Speaker, I would like in the few minutes left to me to deal with some projects that are taking shape in my constituency. One can find there, as I have already told the House, a regional council for the development of north-western New Brunswick. That council is made up of men chiefly and of a few women who have worked voluntarily for five years in order to study the economic development conditions in the Upper St. John Valley. They adjusted the structures of their organization to the purposes they have in mind. My fellow-citizens are not afraid of changes, provided they bring results.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
The members and directors of CRANO, namely the Conseil regional d'amenagement du Nord-Ouest, obtained the support of the
Regional Development provincial and federal governments. Moreover, the provincial government has lent them the services of public employees to help them in the administrative work, including economic surveys and statistics.
A black cloud is looming up over the horizon, since the agreement with the province of New Brunswick under ARDA expires on April 1st. CRANO members are wondering whether they will be able to keep on without the federal government's help that was guaranteed them in the past.
I wish to vouch for the work accomplished by that council in our area. I am personally convinced of the necessity of CRANO. I know the results of their work up to now. That organization is most useful. I am aware of the earnestness of those members, as regards the development of north-western New Brunswick. I am also aware of their sincerity and they deserve every possible support, whatever form it may take.
As I said, the first project approved under the new regional economic expansion legislation is located in my constituency of Mada-waska-Victoria. In addition to appreciably stimulating our regional economy, this new industry will create 400 new jobs. It will certainly provide a valuable incentive for the potato industry. I would even call it a real stimulus. If we succeed in developing other markets, we shall be able to build other potato processing plants, with the help, again, of the federal and provincial governments.
That plant is located at Grand Sault and construction is now under way in spite of the frost which is six or seven feet deep. This helps to demonstrate, however, that the program of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is yielding tangible results. The plant is steadily coming up and next fall, we hope to employ at least 300 people to start, and possibly 400. This means that the policies of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion are beginning to bear fruit and no doubt we shall, in due time, bear of other wonderful projects.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has now expired.


Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, in the short time at my disposal this afternoon, and at the risk of being perhaps parochial, I should like to attempt to place on the record of this House as clearly and as

February 3, 1970
Regional Development succinctly as I possibly can the very serious situation which faces the government and the people of my province of Prince Edward Island. I do this in the hope that I may possibly foster a desire on the part of this government to do something immediately to relieve a very distressing problem. Action must be taken to reduce the growing gap between the rich and the poor provinces of Canada. Each region of this country must be accepted as an integral part of Canada and must be developed according to its special needs and according to its potential.
The reduction of the growing gap between the rich and the poor provinces is a national problem, and the major responsibility of solving it must rest with the federal government and no one else. I say that if the so-called just society is ever to be anything more than a flimsy and meaningless promise it must be based on the right of every citizen of this country, first of all, to acquire an adequate income and, second and just as important, to be able to enjoy the same essential public services as are being enjoyed by the people living in the so-called richer provinces. The federal government must be made to realize, as apparently it has not realized yet, that the major burden of financing regional growth in the poorer provinces is its responsibility. Why is it its responsibility? Primarily because money is necessary to do that job and the poorer provinces just do not have the money nor, unfortunately, do they have the opportunities now to raise the necessary money through taxation.
Let me return, if I may, to my own province. Under present conditions, how can the government of Prince Edward Island possibly raise more money through the medium of taxation? The average weekly wage of the worker in our province is $75.97-that is $38.06 a week below the national average. In November of 1969 our unemployment rate was 7.9 per cent of the labour force. At that time that was the highest of any province in Canada. We depend very heavily on agriculture, and yet more than one half of our island farmers gross less than $2,500 a year, before taking out their expenses. The situation is growing worse. For four consecutive years now, the capital investment in the province has been decreasing, and I suggest that we cannot have the base for levying taxes unless we have capital investment. Our business establishments are small-75 per cent of the firms in our province have sales of less than $5,000 a year.

Perhaps more serious than all of this is the fact that many of our young people who are just entering the productive year of their lives are leaving our province, and for good reason. They are leaving because they cannot find jobs there and wish to take advantage of the opportunities which are offered in the more rapidly growing regions in this country. I suggest that perhaps they cannot be blamed. When our province entered confederation in 1873, our population was 97,000 people. Today, 97 years later, the population is still only 110,000 people. That is an increase of
13,000	people in 97 years. Young people have to move out; there is just nothing there for them to do.
This migration is general all over the maritime provinces. In 1851, 22 per cent of all Canadians resided in the maritime provinces. In 1961, 11 per cent resided there. Unfortunately, these young men and women leave, as I said before, in the most productive years of their lives. We rear and educate them at a cost which is estimated to be $20,000 per child, and just as they reach the age at which they are able to contribute something to our economy they leave for Ontario or some other province in Canada or for a state in the United States where they can earn an adequate wage. Only 55 per cent of our population is in the age group of 15 to 64 years, that is the age when they are likely to be in the labour force and when they can make a valuable contribution to our economy. Our population, therefore, is made up of a disproportionate percentage of the very young and the very old and of course we know that the very young and the very old, instead of contributing to the economy of the province, are more inclined to draw out of it.
There must be a narrowing of the gap in personal income between our region and other regions of Canada, and this must be accomplished through the generation of income within the region. This narrowing of the gap is a national responsibility. The task is to discover how to do it wisely. The minister says the government has been studying that situation, but I very seriously suggest that pouring subsidies into the area is not the full answer. What the government should be striving to give the Atlantic area and the other poorer provinces of Canada is a sound economic base. Our objective must be one of development, not one of welfare.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I was very encouraged when I read the speech the Minister of Regional Economic
February 3, 1970

Expansion delivered to the annual meeting of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council back in October, 1968. I would like to place part of that speech on the record and then ask the minister what he is doing to follow-up the statements made therein. This is what he is reported to have said in speaking about his own department:
The new department is being created essentially because regional development is a matter of top priority for the federal government. If the underdevelopment of the Atlantic provinces is not corrected-not by charity or subsidies but by helping them become areas of economic growth-then the unity of the country is almost as surely destroyed as it would be by the French-English confrontation. Our job is to see that economic growth is dispersed widely enough across the country to provide equal access to opportunities of productive employment for Canadians everywhere. This is what I mean by a regional development policy. I mean that the federal government is prepared to take special action where it is needed to bring opportunities up to standard. There has to be a comprehensive structuring of government action to regional needs.
That, Mr. Speaker, is a very weighty statement. It is one with which I entirely agree. But I say to the minister through you, Mr. Speaker, that mere words are not enough. Let us get on with the job.
In my own province, we have heard a great deal from the government and from the minister about the famous regional economic development plan. Let me take a look at that plan, Mr. Speaker. The minister says, and I want him to correct me if what I say is not correct, that the plan provides that $728 million will be spent to spark expansion in Prince Edward Island over the next 15 years. Some 95 per cent of the people of Canada think that the federal government is going to pour $728 million of the taxpayers' money into P.E.I. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Two-thirds of that money, $503 million of it, is going to be the responsibility of the province of Prince Edward Island. In other words, P.E.I., with a per capita debt which is now the highest of any province in Canada, is going to have to raise $503 million in order to participate in this plan. That leaves $225 million. Of this amount of $225 million, and correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Minister, $36.6 million is repayable by the provincial government. Some $38.6 million of that $225 million is only a loan, with interest, by the federal government to the provincial government. It is an interest bearing loan. So now, getting down to hard facts, this reduces the share of the federal government to $188.4 million.
Regional Development
But even all of that $188.4 million is not new money. It includes Ottawa's share of joint programs which are already in existence. If these contributions had continued, even at the 1968 rate of $8.5 million a year, in the 15 year period the total amount would have been $127.5 million. So, Mr. Speaker, how much new money are we getting? Instead of the $728 million we are now down to $60.9 million. If these figures are wrong, I want them to be corrected.
How much of that $60.9 million is going to get into the hands of the people? It is estimated that it is going to take 400 people to administer this plan. Put their salaries at $10,000 per year, and I suggest that is low because some of those who are now attempting to administer the plan are getting as high as $15,000 and $16,000 a year, and over the 15 year period you have $60 million gone in salaries. So, what have you got left? You have $90,000 for the people of P.E.I. If these figures are not correct, I hope the minister will correct me immediately.


Mr. Jerry Pringle (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, when I, as a member from British Columbia, look at the designated regions map I see there is probably more white area in British Columbia than in any other province. I have to concede, therefore, that this must be one of the prosperous provinces. So, I suppose I speak possibly as someone who is vitally interested ini all of Canada but as one coming from an area which is not really considered to require any help. In other words, we know what economic expansion is, but we are not quite too sure about disparity.
I would like, first of all, to congratulate the minister. I have watched this program, and I would suggest that some of my good friends from the Maritimes might be standing so close to the forest that they cannot see the trees. As a British Columbian, I had an opportunity to participate in some development in the Maritimes for a period of five or six years. I know some of the problems with which the people of the Maritimes are confronted. I know some of the problems with which industrialists there are confronted. I know a number of the problems with which the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) is confronted.
I see the definition of the word "disparity" is inequality of rank, station, degree or excellence. I am a little bit concerned about this word. I noticed that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) stated the government

February 3, 1970
Regional Development had a stranglehold on P.E.I., and I have just heard a fine speech by the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid), in which he referred to one of the poorer provinces that does not have money. He said it is the sole responsibility of the federal government to fix this up, and that there is no provincial responsibility. I wonder does the hon. gentleman really mean this? Does he mean to say it is the sole responsibility of the federal government?
Have you ever been involved in endeavouring to suggest to a fine group of happy people that they were poor, and have them say, "Who, Me? Poor?" The happiest people I have ever known in my life lived in Prince Edward Island. And then somebody said to them, "Tomorrow you shall be producers of food and as producers of food you will somehow or other get rich. What are you going to do about that? We are going to bring you in money." And they answered, "Well, that is fine. There is no complaint there. We will take that. When the fishing season starts, we will be on our boats. If you think we are going to stand in a line and peel potatoes, then we will take a second look at this proposal."
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: Nobody fishes in British Columbia?


M. Ervin Pringle: These people said, "If you feel we should all come to work when we have a blizzard or snowstorm, you might be disappointed." I do not blame the people of Prince Edward Island for this attitude. It is a way of life with them, and it is a great way of life.
The foreman of our field division told me-he may be wrong, of course-that the people of Prince Edward Island never had it so good as during the depression. They had plenty to eat, plenty of coal, and on Saturday night they could row out three miles and pick up a keg of rum.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


M. Ervin Pringle: The point I am trying to make, Mr. Speaker, is that this situation is not the complete responsibility of the government. We may provide, through the taxpayers of the country, the funds to do the job, but it is a joint effort. I would think that members from the Maritimes especially would feel it necessary for everybody to get together.
As I said before, I come from Fraser Valley East which is about the size of Prince Edward

Island. It has a population of 70,000 people, whereas the population of Prince Edward Island is 110,000. Fraser Valley East has one Member of Parliament, while Prince Edward Island has four. Fraser Valley East has no Senators, and Prince Edward Island has four. The cost to the federal government to have Prince Edward Island represented in both places is about $132,000. For Fraser Valley East the cost to the government is only $18,000. The per capita cost for Fraser Valley East is 26 cents; I am worth only 26 cents to each of my constituents. I should like the worthy gentlemen from Prince Edward Island to know that they are worth $1.20 per capita.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


M. Ervin Pringle: I want to make it very clear that this is not a criticism of the provincial government and certainly not of the way of life in that province, but I feel there is a sociological problem involved here. We cannot go in there and say we will give them one-third of the amount of money required to build a plant. A real dandy fish plant was built to the tune of $13 million, but it closed. I do not know why. Perhaps it was a question, not just of the plant but of the engineering of the entire project. I would say that the pro forma arrangements were a little biased, the market projections were a little wrong or the engineering was horrible. The plant was a duplicate of one built in British Columbia.
In dealing with the Prince Edward Island farmers we cannot just go there and tell them how to run their business. They have been farming for many years and are not sure that the information from agronomists about fertilizer is very good. We must go into the distressed areas, talk to the people and find out what they want. We must ask them, "Do you want a plant of this kind? Do you feel that this is the way you want to live? Will this program upset your way of life to the point that you will refuse to function?" In regard to this plant in the east, the unit labour cost was almost double that of the plant in the west.
I prophecy that in the not too distant future things will start to percolate in Prince Edward Island if we can get members of the opposition to adopt a positive approach similar to that advocated by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). I thought his criticism was objective and that he took a positive approach. I hope that our friends from Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick
February 3, 1970

would adopt the same positive approach to problems of regional expansion. This will not be achieved by standing up in this House and preaching blue ruin.
Another point which bothered me today was this business of expecting instant employment. We know there are plans on the books and applications approved for plants with an employment potential of 22,000 people. To stand up in this House and ask, "Where are the jobs?"-


An hon. Member:: There aren't any.


M. Ervin Pringle: I was asked that question a couple of times by the hon. member on my left. Let us take the example of a fish plant. Do you go out in the morning, turn a key and have a fish plant? Have you any idea of the amount of planning, programming and engineering required for any industrial plant? When it is built, you cannot start it off at maximum production; it takes three formative years before it gets off the ground. The plant I referred to in Prince Edward Island was built in six months and has taken six years to get into worth-while production. In the first five years it was not even possible to pay the interest on the loan.


An hon. Member:: What plant are you talking about?


M. Ervin Pringle: The plant in Montagne, Prince Edward Island.


An hon. Member:: A fish plant?


M. Ervin Pringle: A fish plant. There is no food plant there.


An hon. Member:: You are all mixed up. Fish or fowl; which is it?
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


M. Ervin Pringle: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. gentlemen for the kind remarks they are making. I hope we shall be able to realize the benefits that can accrue from the incentives act. Before ending my remarks may I say a word about a matter on which I am in complete agreement with a number of opposition members from one of the Maritime provinces. I do not believe you can build and operate industry in isolated areas. Transportation is one of the most important facets of any industry, because people and goods must be moved into and out of the industry.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That includes air transport.
Regional Development


M. Ervin Pringle: I come from Fraser Valley East, but I recommend most strongly that the government construct the Prince Edward Island causeway.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


M. Ervin Pringle: If we build the causeway we shall be in a better position to help the people and industries of Prince Edward Island.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member because his time has expired.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, when the legislation to establish the Department of Regional Economic Expansion was introduced and debated in this House last summer, and when the principal item of legislation proposed by the department during that year-the Regional Development Incentives Act-was brought forward, I think it will be agreed that in all quarters of the House there was general agreement upon the need to develop an adequate regional development program and an adequate program of regional economic expansion.
While there were some points of disagreement on the specific aspects of the government's proposal, and in some cases serious disagreement in areas which members of this party felt could jeopardize the prospects for success of the program, I think there was general agreement upon the principle of developing such a program, and therefore agreement as to the principle of the legislation passed by this House. Thus it can be said, Mr. Speaker, that the government embarked upon this new program with a high degree of good will in all parts of the House and in Canada generally.
However, it seems to me that a good deal of this good will has been dissipated and washed away during the past several months as a result of some of the actions of the government, some of the things it has done and some of the things it has not done. No better example of the type of thing that has been done by the government can be found than the department's news release of last November 19. That news release issued by the department stated, "Regional program creating more new jobs." It went on to say:
The federal government's regional development program is creating new employment four times as fast as it did in 1968.
Then there was some elaboration on this matter. It was pointed out that from January to mid-November the department has

February 3, 1970
Regional Development approved 278 development incentives for firms intending to establish new plants or expand into slow growth regions of Canada. There were further details in the release about the estimated permanent employment which would result. There was also the statement that this activity was a good deal higher than in previous years.
It all sounded very fine, and consequently I asked for more information on this annouce-ment by the department. I moved a motion for papers in which 1 asked for a copy of the list of the 278 development incentive grants and for some other information. I was informed on January 28, Wednesday last, by the parliamentary secretary that "the cases referred to are not grants paid out but offers made." He went on to say, as reported at page 2928 of Hansard:
The details requested will be made public in all cases when the project is proceeded with, and before any grant is actually paid. But at the offer stage, confidentiality is essential to the program.
I want to make it clear that I am not blaming the department for bragging a little about getting a larger number of applications than in previous years, even though many of these applications would be from firms which were trying to get in under the deadline of the old legislation because in many cases they would not be able to qualify under the new legislation in view of the change of boundaries. I am not blaming the department for wanting to take a little credit for this. But it is clear from the answer given that these are not firm projects; there is nothing concrete about them.
They are only offers to the extent that the government is carrying out its commitment. They are only offers of grants if a decision is made by the private firm involved to proceed with the development project in question. Thus, it seems to me that the department's news release creates a false impression of what is being done under the aegis of this department.
It seems to me that there are a number of drastic failures and shortcoming in the government's program as it has developed up to the present time. The first major point is that the department has not developed an effective program that can be used as a weapon in the war on poverty. I think all hon. members will recognize that problems of poverty cannot and will not be solved overnight. I believe it must be said that to date we have not seen any evidence that the department is developing any sort of program that can really be

described as a attack on the whole problem of poverty. I do not intend to go into this matter in any further detail because the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) dealt with it in his address this afternoon.
The second point I wish to draw to the attention of the House is that the government has failed with its program in this department to counterbalance the impact of its policies of fiscal and monetary restraint in regions which are suffering economic setbacks or which are economically deprived and underdeveloped. Our attention has been drawn to the fact that the government will tolerate a high level of unemployment. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) indicated that he is willing to tolerate a 6 per cent level of unemployment without any difficulty.
This means a 10 per cent rate of unemployment in Quebec, a 12 per cent rate in the Maritime provinces, and for my own province of Saskatchewan a 10 per cent rate of unemployment in the urban centres and communities. Thus, we see that the government's program in the area of regional economic expansion has not been effective and I suggest it will not be effective, within its present framework, in counterbalancing many of the ill-effects of the government's present program and policy of fiscal and monetary restraint.
Third, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that there has been political chicanery in the establishment of designated areas under the Regional Development Incentives Act. I have found it rather difficult to obtain answers and adequate information on government policy and approach in dealing with this particular matter. I have asked a good many questions on this subject during the current session of Parliament. One question I asked with respect to seven out of our ten provinces was the following:
What criteria were used by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in the selection of designated areas for the province-
The answer provided to each question was, "Weighted measures of rates of economic growth-employment, income and population-and of potential for secondary industry". This is a clear case, so far as I am concerned, of bureaucratic gobbledegook. Thus, we see what wording was used to set out the criteria for the designation of areas under this new legislation. Subsequently, I placed a motion for papers on the Order Paper asking for a copy of all correspondence between the gov-
February 3, 1970

ernment of Canada and each of the provinces regarding the selection of designated regions under the new Regional Development Incentives Act. The answer I received was that correspondence was exchanged only with the province of Alberta and the government of Alberta, and that with respect to the other provinces there was no correspondence.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
This seems to be a pretty strange way of running a government, a business or anything else. There is not a single scrap of correspondence dealing with the matter under consideration-a matter, incidentally, wherein it was a requirement of the legislation that there be consultation between the federal government and the province concerned before the federal government made a decision.
Subsequently, I obtained information regarding the proposals of the government of Alberta. This is information to which I felt I was entitled, and which I received. When I asked for information about the views of the federal government and the views of the other provinces across Canada, I was told that the details of such consultations were confidential. I suggest this is in conflict with the fact that I received information respecting one province. I suggest this sort of secrecy in carrying on the operations of the department in the long run will not stand the department in good stead in bringing these programs to the point of success.
I did obtain information subsequently when I asked for documents which would describe the criteria used by the department in selecting the designated areas across Canada for seven of the provinces. I obtained a table in each case entitled, "Economic growth measures for DBS regions". I examined each of these tables that I had requested for seven of the ten provinces, the other three being the Maritime provinces which were completely designated under this legislation. There was a series of tables. There was no indication given of the correlation among the various columns of figures in the tables. There was a table entitled "Income per capita 1966". This set of figures ranged, for example, in the province of British Columbia between 88 and 127. It is not quite clear to me what the 88 and 127 represent. It seems to be a pretty strange way of running a program, if this is the kind of information they use to establish their criteria.
There is a further set of figures dealing with population, comparing 1966 with 1961. It
Regional Development appears to be some sort of percentage change figure, but again this is not completely clear. The same is true with respect to a comparison of employment between 1968 and 1961, also income per capita comparison in 1964 to 1966 with 1961 to 1963.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is a composite change index. I found that this composite change index was apparently used as a starting point in establishing the regions across Canada. I have before me a map which I requested and which was supplied to me through the courtesy of the parliamentary secretary to the minister. It sets out the boundaries for these different DBS areas. I then took the figures supplied to me, the composite change index, and I found there were many cases-I could go into them in some detail if I had the time-which indicate that political influence was brought to bear in the final selection of designated areas across Canada. I hope to deal with some of these points on another occasion.
I wish to deal briefly with several other failures of the government in developing this legislation. The government failed to develop the growth centre concept in developing its program. It seems there is even conflict between the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) in their approach to this matter. I suggest, as well, there has been a give-away to the private sector of our economy. This has been carried on in the form of a shotgun approach; the government simply made grants to firms as they applied for them. This was done in quite a haphazard, scattergun manner. This policy involves a failure to develop any sort of an overallcomprehensive program for orderly development. At the same time, it represents a giveaway to the private sector of the economy.
I have before me a list of firms for whom grants have been approved over the past several months. In total these firms, most of them in the eastern part of Canada, intend to spend approximately $28.7 million in developing various projects. Of this $28.7 million, approximately $11.5 million will be provided by way of grant through the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. This represents a straight give-away of public funds. The only benefit arising out of this expenditure is the hope of the government that there will be some form of stable, permanent economic activity. However, the government holds no equity in these projects once it has

February 3, 1970
Regional Development
made a grant. This seems to be an inadequacy of the program.
I suggest there has been gross failure by the government in allowing grants to be made to foreign-owned and foreign-controlled firms. There is a good deal of concern about this matter at the present time. Some ministers have expressed concern about it. Nevertheless, when my colleague the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) and myself suggested to the minister, when this legislation was before the committee last summer, that before a grant is given an attempt should be made to ensure Canadian ownership of firms, he said this could not be done; there could not be discrimination against some firms.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. The hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster).


Mr. Foster:: Mr. Speaker, may we call it six o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the opposition motion seeks to condemn the government for failure to co-ordinate its regional development policies under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion with other government activities, and for failure to make an appropriate reference to place this issue before the Standing Committee on Regional Development.
I suppose the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) who introduced this motion did so with sincerity. Nevertheless, I cannot easily imagine weaker wording for a motion designed to bring the activities of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion under review on an opposition day. Mr. Speaker, the co-ordination of the activities of government departments is precisely what this new department is all about. In April, 1969, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion was established for the express purpose of co-ordinating government activities in the field of regional development.

The hon. member for St. John's East dealt in considerable detail with the shortcomings of various programs which have now been incorporated into the responsibility of this department. Surely, if there are shortcomings in the FRED program or the ADA program, for example, and if these shortcomings were related to a lack of co-ordination among government departments, as the motion indicates, the establishment of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion would put an end to these shortcomings, since it would bring all the various programs together.
I believe we should be careful not to underestimate the difficulty of bringing together programs as numerous and as various as the following:
1.	The Rural development branch of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry;
2.	Agricultural re-development (ARDA);
3.	The fund for regional economic development (FRED);
4.	The Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act (MMRA);
5.	The Area Development Agency (ADA);
6.	The Atlantic Development Board (ADB);
7.	The Canada Newstart Program;
8.	The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act (PFRA);
9.	The Cape Breton Development Corporation (Devco);
10.	The Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act.
I understand that the administration of these various programs has created the need for a new department with a staff of approximately 1,400 people. Indeed, in the department's annual report we find the final annual reports for these many programs as separate entities-the last occasion upon which they will be so listed.
Let us consider the degree of co-operation which exists among the various government departments. I have here an application for a development incentive grant under the Regional Development Incentives Act. Question No. 7 on this application form is: Will the operation produce wastes which would pollute air, water or soil? It seems clear to me that once the form has been filled out, the application must be directed to the attention of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, should the enterprise be likely to cause pollution to soil or water.
If it were likely to cause air pollution, reference would have to be made to the Depart-
February 3. 1970	COMMONS
ment of National Health and Welfare. I understand, too, that applications for incentive grants on the part of major industries are appraised by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to ensure as far as possible that these enterprises will be economically viable. Thereafter, assistance is made available as might be necessary in the field of trade or external sales.
It is interesting to note that when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced the austerity program last summer involving cutbacks in the operations of many government departments, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion was exempted from these measures because of the need to stimulate economic activity in the slow-growth areas. Though no one likes an austerity program, it may well be that this program, by bringing about a lack of funds for economic development in certain parts of the country, has increased the interest of industry in applying for the incentive grants available only to assist development in the slow-growth regions.
As one who comes from the constituency of Algoma, parts of which have been designated for many years, I welcome this increased interest shown by companies in establishing themselves in slow-growth areas. I am aware that there was a flood of applications for incentive grants during December, 1969. In the 1969 calendar year, 359 offers of incentive grants were made, resulting in 22,100 jobs. This compares with 98 approvals and 5,350 jobs expected for the year 1968. I believe this trend will continue and that the economic disparity which has existed for so long among various areas of Canada will be lessened in the years ahead.
Good co-ordination between federal government policies and departments does not always mean, however, that economic development will take place immediately. It should be remembered that many fields of governmental responsibility for development lie within provincial responsibility, and that unless the provincial government concerned is willing to co-operate with the federal government in its incentive program, little progress can be made.
For example, in my own constituency of Algoma, the town of Blind River has lost its only industry, the McFadden Lumber Company, which employed more than 300 people. The province of Ontario controls the forest limits which provide the wood fibre for this
DEBATES	3163
Regional Development
mill. There are about one million acres of merchandisable timber in the area to supply an integrated forest industry. Although the federal government, under the incentives program approved last spring, now offers incentives of up to $12 million for the establishment of a pulp and paper mill in the town, the province has not advertised the availability of these limits on a world basis since 1966.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
One would think that with over a million acres of merchandisable timber waiting to be utilized, the provincial government would get moving and advertise the availability of these limits after four years. Just the fact that the federal incentives grants have increased during the past six months from $6 million to $12 million should have stimulated the provincial government to advertise these limits again. Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, this town of 3,500 people waits and hopes that a new forest-based industry will establish there.
With regard to the special areas provided for under the act establishing the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, I realize that there is a strong feeling within the department that these areas should be established only in the Maritimes. The rationale for this policy is that the wealthier provinces, like the province of Ontario, have fiscal resources to provide infrastructure for industrial development. This may be a very well thought-out plan and perhaps the province of Ontario will provide sewer, water and other services necessary to provide the infrastructure for industrial development in the slow-growth areas of northern Ontario, but so far it has not and there is little indication that it will.
In my constituency there are eight incorporated towns, only two of which have complete water and sewage treatment plants. The lack of this infrastructure prevents industry coming to these communities. One small town was offered sewer and water service from the Ontario Water Resources Commission, at a cost of around $400 a household per year for a period of 20 years. In a slow-growth area this kind of fee structure is impossible, and unless it is changed sewer and water service will never be provided.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask that when the special areas are established across Canada this spring, the minister and his departmental officials take another look at their present policy for special areas because I doubt whether the province of Ontario plans

February 3, 1970
Regional Development to provide the infrastructure necessary for industry, and in the end industry will not come to the slow-growth areas of northern Ontario without it.
I note that the ARDA agreement between the federal government and the provincial governments is due to expire at the end of March, 1970. The ARDA program on Manitoulin Island in my constituency completely refutes the opposition's motion today about co-ordination among government departments. May I give the House some examples. This winter, under the ARDA program, we have some 60 farmers taking a course called "Business of farming" in the Algoma and Manitoulin areas. This involves co-operation among the Canada Manpower centre, the Ontario Department of Education, the Ontario Department of Agriculture and the ARDA program under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
This program is designed to augment management skills of young farmers interested in the business of farming in the years ahead. At the same time, they are provided with allowances to assist them to arrange for the extra help needed on their farms during their absence for this training program. It gives them an opportunity to receive information about new farming techniques which could lead to the reorganization of their farming enterprises.
The ARDA program has also provided a farm enlargement program for some 60 farmers where a farmer with an economically viable farm is able to lease additional land for up to 25 years before pin-chasing it. This, at a time when capital is scarce, is of great assistance. Other ARDA projects which have involved cooperation among many government departments include the development of four community pastures. Some of these have involved development on Indian reserves, including one at Wikwemikong Indian reserve, which involved co-operation among the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the local Indian band, and the Ontario Department of Agriculture.
With these few remarks, which cover only a few of the ARDA projects in my constituency, I believe it is apparent that a new agreement should be signed between the two levels of government so that the many worth while projects which have been started and developed over the past five or six years will continue to expand in the future. I believe

that the whole outreach of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion must be toward helping people. Certainly the last nine months that this department has been in existence indicates that this is the direction in which it is going.


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, when the regional development incentives bill was introduced to the House last June, we on this side welcomed the legislation as something we had been advocating for a good many years and to which we hoped the government would give first priority. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) pointed out at that time that we had been waiting a long time for this legislation, that the government had wasted too much time already in bringing it in, and that he hoped that now it had been introduced in the House it would be passed quickly and the government would move a little faster in bringing help to areas suffering regional disparity.
He also pointed out that because of the failure of the government to do anything for four or five years, a great deal of time had been lost in the Atlantic provinces and it behooved the government to move a little faster to make up for this lost time. He also expressed doubts that there had been any real change in government thinking and he wondered if they would actually move any faster once the legislation had been put through. The doubts that our leader expressed at that time were very real ones, and many people in the region, including myself, are beginning to question the government's good intentions in implementing this legislation.
Leading papers in the area have carried editorials on the subject, and in every case they are beginning to wonder if the government really means to take any immediate action to correct the problems of the region. Like most people in the Maritimes, I was quite happy to hear the minister's remarks in Saint John early in January, that his department was prepared to spend millions and millions of dollars in the Maritimes and that this could be done without adding anything to the inflationary pressures. But our enthusiasm likely will be tempered by native caution. Maritimers will, not unreasonably, await specific results before getting carried away by the minister's words, for his remarks are really nothing new.
We in that part of Canada have been saying for years that while there may be a
February 3, 1970

cost-push inflation in the rest of Canada, that is certainly not the problem in our area. Inflationary pressures may remain very high in the rest of Canada, but in the Atlantic area people are getting the worst of both worlds. We are already afflicted with high unemployment and low wages, and we are likely to be seriously hurt if the government in Ottawa does not tailor its financial policies to fit situations which exist in the depressed areas of the country.
It is little comfort to us in the Atlantic region to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) remark that he is prepared to take measures which might increase unemployment in the country up to 6 per cent or more. The Prime Minister recognizes that Ontario has been the chief cause of inflation, and he says that he is prepared to take stern measures to reduce these inflationary pressures.
What the Prime Minister does not seem to realize or care about is that we in the Atlantic area cannot wait much longer for this government to do something about unemployment. It is true that in New Brunswick we are hearing all sorts of vague rumours about great new developments to take place, but nobody says when. That will-o-the-wisp, the president of the New Brunswick Development Corporation, is chasing all over the world trying to entice industry to come to New Brunswick and only he knows what promises he is making. I have been told he does not even answer to his own Minister of Economic Growth. Our people are asking why there is this veil of secrecy. Public funds are being spent, and people are entitled to know what promises are being made. How could you expect the people of New Brunswick to have any confidence in a provincial government which could perpetrate the Fundy Chemical Park fiasco on them? Let the minister and his colleagues be frank and tell us what is going on.
The minister has given us some figures. He has told us about 17 grants that have been approved and how they are spread across the country. These figures in themselves suggest that the system of a single grant structure for all the slow-growth regions will not work. If a firm has a chance of receiving a grant in either Nova Scotia or Quebec, it is far more likely to choose Quebec as its location because it is so much closer to the main marketing and productive centres of Canada.
Regional Development
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Professor T. N. Brewis in his book published last year and entitled "Regional Development Policies in Canada" noted that this problem of a uniform system of grants had been a problem of the area development incentives program. Under that program the underdeveloped areas of Ontario had been the obvious beneficiaries. There are also other indications that the regional development programs are failing to achieve their aims. The industries which are being attracted to the designated regions do not always come from the overcrowded, industrial centres of this country.
One example was brought to the attention of the House last December by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken). He referred to the Glaverbel Glass Company of Belgium which had sound intentions of locating a plant in Parry Sound but was suddenly attracted away to Quebec city by the regional incentives people. Parry Sound is hardly an area from which an industry should be lured away. Yet this is exactly the result of the programs being pursued by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. No wonder the minister is so anxious to keep quiet about the activities of his department.
So far I have dealt with what might be called incidents of failure in the regional development program. But a far more serious consequence than these incidents has been the gross failure of this government to co-ordinate its other policies with its regional development policies. There are three prime examples of the government's flagrant disregard for regional development in the over-all policies, namely, the proposals of the white paper on taxation, the anti-inflationary policies of the government, and the austerity program in government spending.
The white paper hits hard at small business-despite the protest of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson)-which is the type of business most commonly found in the slow-growth areas. It proposes to remove the special, lower tax rate for small businesses and thus raise their tax bill and reduce their ability to plough earnings back into the business. Owners of small publicly-traded businesses will have difficulty maintaining ownership when faced with a tax bill every five years for the capital gains on the stock they hold in their companies. Farmers, too, will be hit by the new tax proposals. Capital gains taxing of their sales of livestock and equipment, and

February 3, 1970
Regional Development
the removal of tax concessions previously granted to farm co-operatives, will certainly cut into farm income.
The government also has unfavourable changes in store for the extractive industries. In other words, the tax paper manages to strike at the three staples of the slow growth areas: small business, farming, and extraction. Is this an indication of the government's sincerity about improving regional economies?
Another example is the anti-inflationary measures taken by this government. The Prime Minister says his government will fight inflation even if the national unemployment rate goes as high as 6 per cent. But the unemployment rate in Quebec is already 7 per cent; in the Atlantic provinces it is already 7.4 per cent, while the national rate is 4.8 per cent. If the national rate is allowed to go to 6 per cent, these high unemployment areas will be hit much harder. C. R. McFadden, head of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, estimates that unemployment in the Maritimes could go as high as 10 per cent. In other words, the government is quite prepared to let the slow-growth areas of the country underwrite the cost of restoring price stability.
The spending of the government under its program of austerity is equally lopsided. With cries of "Economy" and "Let's tighten our belts" the government has cut back spending on the Newstart program and has frozen hiring for the Cape Breton Development Corporation. At the same time, it feels no pangs of conscience about spending $27 million for a new defence headquarters in Ottawa.
In fact, the spending of the Department of Public Works in general is an instructive case. Take, for example, the department's release concerning contracts let during the month of November. In all the areas which the government did not single out in its budget for restraints on capital spending, Public Works awarded contracts with a total value of $2,383,781. In Toronto alone, its contracts were worth nearly three times as much. In Ottawa, its contracts were worth nearly ten times as much, and construction worth $50 million more is planned for Ottawa beginning this summer.
The government is preaching restraint for the weaker areas of the economy while pumping money into the centres of inflation, and this despite the minister's statement in Saint John early last month that the government could spend "millions and millions of

dollars in the Maritimes without adding anything to inflationary pressures". Of course, he did not say anything about the rest of the country-I admit that-but it hardly ties in with the government's war against inflation to spend millions of dollars in inflationary areas and not in the depressed areas.
To summarize my main points, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand) has created great anxiety in those of us who are interested in regional development by his persistent refusal to remove the secrecy which surrounds the operations of his department. Such secrecy, along with the small bits of information which have managed to leak out about the department's performance, lead us to believe that the program is foundering badly.
No matter how well the department's own programs were doing, they could not possibly compensate for the department's utter failure to fulfil its role in co-ordinating other government programs with regional impact. The fiscal and monetary policies of the present government are such as to wipe out entirely any good which might have been done under the regional development program.
Almost no one disagrees with the aims of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. If the minister would only re-open the channels for discussion of his policies, he might find that he has gained valuable allies for the struggles in which he is obviously engaged with other members of the cabinet.


Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to participate in this debate. However, I feel that not only do I want to express my appreciation of the views I have heard here-and I will welcome meeting the members of the committee to hear their views-but, more important, I want to correct the impression which may have been left by the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid) in figures which he quoted for the Prince Edward Island plan. Either he is not familiar with the financial aspects of that plan or he was speaking in a very jocular manner. None the less, the impression was left that there is very little federal money in that plan. That, of course, is nonsense.
The hon. member said that what there was in the plan was meaningless, because the money would have been there anyway as a result of the standard shared-cost programs. That is not the case, either. He also said that other funds would be spent for personnel, on
February 3. 1970

salaries for people administering the plan. That is certainly not fair to the P.E.I. plan or to other hon. members who want to understand what is actually happening.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
I trust that when the committee meets we will have a more serious and valuable input than that.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let me run over very briefly the basic outlines of the Prince Edward Island development plan. These facts can be found in a small booklet published by the department last year. The financial aspects are set out on its back pages for all to see. The total development plan is designed to cover a 15-year period. The total investment in that plan by the two levels of government is expected to be $723 million, of which the federal contribution would be in the order of $225 million and the provincial contribution $498 million. But the plan includes all the educational costs of the province of P.E.I. and many other normal provincial expenditures.
I would like to present the members of the House with the costs of the plan broken down in some detail-and only for the first five to seven years, which is the first phase of the plan, after which it is subject to review. The figures for those five to seven years are outlined in the little booklet that I mentioned. This five to seven-year period, known as phase 1, is designed to cover total spending of approximately $243 million, of which the federal share is forecast at $125 million and the provincial share at $118 million; that is to say, in phase 1 the federal spending exceeds the provincial spending. That is part of the design. The federal spending exceeds the provincial spending in order to put some momentum into the development plan at the start That is the time to have the maximum federal contribution. Of those provincial costs of $118 million, education alone comes to $97 million. That is approximately 80 per cent of the provincial spending forecast under the plan. All the rest, so far as the province is concerned, are normal provincial expenditures.
The whole of the extra spending on the Prince Edward Island Development Plan in phase 1 is federal spending of some $125 million. Of this sum, it is true that approximately $6 million would be spent on vocational training programs in any case. However, the rest is not available under any standard shared-cost, federal-provincial programs as 21611-su
Regional Development
they operate in other provinces. I think that is the point which the hon. member for Cardigan failed to recognize. It is true that the federal govenment will be doing some of the same things in other Atlantic provinces, and to some extent also in Quebec and in the prairies. But none of this represents standard programs available in, say, the province of Ontario. It is all extra development spending; it is extra because of the regional disparities recognized in the province of P.E.I.
It is also true that of this $119 millon federal spending, $36 million will be credit. The hon. member drew attention to the credit features. It is credit because it is to be used, for example, for purchasing land. The province recovers this investment. That is the nature of the plan. But the remaining $83 million in the federal portion over the next five to seven years is a pure contribution from the taxpayers of Canada to the development plan.
How is it to be spent? The hon. member said that most of it would be spent on salaries. This is sheer nonsense. I do not know where he got his figures. Of course, some will be spent on salaries because personnel providing services will be involved in the development plan-for example, agricultural extension officers.
Let me list a few of the facts of the spending proposed: tourism, the development of campsites, etc., $4 million; housing, to reduce housing costs, $6 million; highways, $7i million; industrial financing, $3 million; pollution control, $1 million; fisheries services, $5 million-I stress that this is additional federal spending to put the plan in momentum -agricultural services, $12i million; health and welfare services, $3 million; and then an additional general development grant, not specified, to help the province cover extra provincial costs, $20.6 million.
All these facts are available in the booklet I have mentioned. I do not think it does a service to this House or to the people of Prince Edward Island to try to reduce all this federal spending to $90,000, or whatever figure the hon. member mentioned. If the hon. member had gone on a little longer, he would have had the province of P.E.I. contributing to the development of some other region of the country through this development plan. It just does not make sense to pursue that line of thought.
It seems to me the hon. member took the same approach as, unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) did in saying that nothing substantial is being done. The:

February 3, 1970
Regional Development
facts refute that. Surely the people of the provinces, and indeed all the people of Canada, will not believe that nothing substantial is being done.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saini-Hyacinlhe):: Mr. Speaker, I believe I would not fulfil my duty if I did not take a few minutes to draw the minister's attention to the difficult conditions prevailing in Saint-Hyacinthe and the area, and to ask for his co-operation in order to eliminate them because they worry a great many workers, industrialists and businessmen in my riding who live from their daily work or the operation of their business.
Other reasons also prompt me to take part in this debate as the province of Quebec is now going through a period of severe unemployment which causes misery and concern.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
We must think, for example, about the situation existing in the Lower St. Lawrence valley to realize that the minister is surely justified in using all available means in order to speed up the program that he has outlined and to assist as soon as possible these people who are in the most unfortunate circumstances.
In the St. Hyacinthe area, unions describe the conditions as alarming. In the course of the last few months many industries have had to close down due to lack of business, throwing hundreds of workers into the street. Many other industries have had to reduce their work force drastically with the result that in the St. Hyacinthe region alone there are at the present time nearly 4,500 unemployed.
The minister knows that the Central Council of the City of St. Hyacinthe has been justifiably concerned with the difficult situation now prevailing there. Recently the local Union officials invited the minister to meet them in St. Hyacinthe in order to discuss this situation.
I would like to briefly recall to the minister what journalists and labour leaders have had to say about prevailing economic conditions in our region. I had the pleasure of attending the conference held by the minister on January 21. Some 300 persons were present, greatly concerned with the economic situation and with whatever proposals the minister could offer.
The St. Hyacinthe newspaper, he Clairon, briefly reviewed the situation, mentioning that 17 per cent of the St. Hyacinthe labour force is now unemployed.

That is one of the most affected areas in the province of Quebec, and the people that live there certainly deserve particular attention from the minister. Unfortunately, I did not receive a copy of the brief presented to the minister and containing an in-depth study of the situation. That is why I must trust the newspaper and say that the officials of the CNTU, workers in general and business leaders agree that the minister should, having thoroughly looked into the matter, declare that St. Hyacinthe is if not a designated area, at least a special area. The Quebec government has already taken similar action so that industries interested in settling in St. Hyacinthe may avail themselves of the advantages provided by the provincial government.
As it was clearly suggested to the minister when he visited St. Hyacinthe, it is wrong to consider the town of St. Hyacinthe, as well as the rest of the area at that, as being part of the area of Montreal. The minister will have in mind the great number of arguments proving that the area of St. Hyacinthe is entirely different from that of Montreal.
And I need no other evidence than what the mayor of Saint-Hyacinthe himself said. I hope that the minister will carefully consider the arguments that were submitted to him. He will certainly remember that when he came to Saint-Hyacinthe, the first citizen of the city told him that because the city is not considered as a designated area, it is subject to unfavourable competition from cities like Drummondville, Saint-Jean and Granby.
I know of some firms which would have been interested in coming to Saint-Hyacinthe but because of the disadvantages due to the fact that this city is not considered as a designated area, they went elsewhere, to Granby, Saint-Jean or Drummondville.
It is difficult for the people of Saint-Hyacinthe, who pay their taxes, as well as for those of Granby, Saint-Jean and Drummondville-


Mr. Marchand (Langeiier):: Yes, but if it is
argued that my department's program was fruitless, they could not have existed.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: -for the minister's information, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I have proof to the contrary.


Len Marchand: You would have to convince my colleague. It seems that the program was fruitless.


An hon. Member:: There is nothing to be done.
February 3, 1970


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: In any event, I am sure that, because of Bill C-202, several industries did not settle in Saint-Hyacinthe. Our electors are not jealous because those industries settled elsewhere, but a matter of justice is involved and I think that the Minister's former colleagues in the labour movement have made it clear. I would now like to speak on their behalf and request earnestly all the attention to which the city of Saint-Hyacinthe is entitled.
If there is one thing I could reproach the minister with, it is that the Queec point of view has not been sufficiently taken into account, especially in connection with the location of the new international airport. In my opinion, that was a mistake. Indeed, it was quite wrong to dismiss the views of Quebec, since it had several reasons to choose another location. This has surely embittered not only the authorities of the province of Quebec, but many citizens who shared their opinion.
It is also difficult for the workers at the Lauzon shipyards, for exemple, to forget the promises made to them during the last election campaign.


Jean Marchand: What promises?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: The promises to get contracts in order to give jobs to the workers of the Lauzon shipyards.


Jean Marchand: That is wrong.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Today, we realize that those shipyards are in jeopardy, which does not help the workers of that part of the province, who are faced with many difficulties.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take too much of the time of the House, but I urge the minister ro reconsider the case of the Saint-Hyacinthe area and to make it a designated area so that the efforts of the federal and provincial governments will be better coordinated with a view to bringing new industries into our region which offers every possibility of providing jobs to those who need them.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: February 3, 1970
Regional Development
Island, who made a speech this afternoon was a member, I think. Unfortunately, this Board had no authority whatever and no budget. It is indeed the Liberal government which, when it came into power in 1963, not only gave powers to this council but also-which was far more important-a budget of $100 million.
But this is a thing of the past; speaking about it or discussing it further will not change anything. Let us turn to the present and the future instead, and worry about what can be done to improve the situation.
A department was created, barely six months ago, to tackle squarely the problems of regional disparities.
Since then, an important bill was adopted, Bill C-202, to provide financial assistance to such industries as will settle or prosper in the designated areas. That act replaces Bill C-129, adopted in the early sixties, which had become-it was soon found out-slightly too restrictive.
Bill C-129, Mr. Speaker, in spite of its weaknesses, gave very good results. According to the report of the department on its activities, as tabled by the minister last Friday, the Regional Development Agency had approved, to March 31,	1969,	1040
applications for capital grants, totalling over $2,600 million and representing 65,000 new jobs.
Obviously, all those plans were probably not carried out, and this, for various reasons beyond the control of the federal government. But it certainly is not fair for the opposition to say that nothing has been done as they have been doing since the beginning of this debate.
Looking at the table which appears on page 19 of that report, I see that the Atlantic provinces, particularly, benefitted the most from this bill. In fact, 301 projects were approved, representing investments of $897 million, and
21,000	new jobs. Quebec follows with 289 projects, amounting to investments of $800 million and 16,000 new jobs. Ontario comes next, with 220 projects, representing only $420 million in capital investments and 16,000 new jobs.
It is therefore obvious from this report, that the Atlantic provinces were the ones that benefitted the most from this act and from many others administered by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
I come from the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area, one with a population of about 300,000. If the people from my constituency could

benefit as much as those of Prince Edward Island from the act during the next five years, we would be in the seventh heaven, for should this project become a reality, Prince Edward Island will get from the federal government, and only out of this investment project, more than $125 million. The same amount of money should be invested in the four constituencies of the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area, where there are 300,000 people. We would be most happy about that. Instead of criticizing a government that would grant such amounts of money, the 300,000 citizens of the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area would be most happy and grateful.
But what do we see instead? The government is blamed and pilloried for seemingly not doing enough.
The area I represent also benefitted from that act, in a much lesser way however, which is understandable, as it has but few very large firms. We do have some large ones, but they do not expand very fast. Nevertheless, Alcan was given a development incentive by the department for the building of a new plant in Arvida.
The act was restrictive enough, as I said a while ago, and in many cases, on account of requirements from the inspectors and from the act, the amounts spent to qualify for an incentive almost cancelled out the benefits thus obtained, especially for projects involving less than $75,000.
Another weakness which I have been able to notice in Bill C-129 is the time gap between when the applications are made and when the subsidy is paid, which has been so long in some cases that the business has been obliged to pay to the bank rather large amounts in interest on a temporary financing of the subsidy it was going to receive.
I hope that such problems will not arise again in practice, and I think that Bill C-202, in the case at least of small projects, has rectified this situation.
My area is among the designated areas and during the last few years, the federal government paid for an extensive study of the conditions and the economic potential of our area. That study has been carried out by a highly qualified expert, Mr. Pierre-Yves Pepin of Montreal, and recently a very interesting report on the matter has been presented.
Nearly a year ago, a mission of economic planning was appointed by the provincial government in order to carry out a study of
February 3, 1970

the whole area and a plan is starting to take shape which no doubt will soon be submitted to the federal and provincial authorities for approval and implementation.
The Department of Regional Economic Expansion will certainly be asked for its support and I am confident that the present minister will listen with sympathy to that request so that the beautiful Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area, which he knows well, can have once again a strong economy which will keep there thousands of young people educated today at very great expenses and whom unfortunately we see now move out of the area every day.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to miss this opportunity to say a few words on the motion introduced today and which reads as follows:
That this House condemns the Government's failure to coordinate its Regional Development policies under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion with other government activities, and its failure to bring in an appropriate reference to place this issue before the Standing Committee on Regional Development.
I would also like to make a few remarks on the amendment which adds, and I quote: and this House further condemns the government for its failure to lessen regional poverty across Canada, and for its failure to create job opportunities so sorely needed at this time.
Have we actually the right to blame the government? Surely if we study all the aspects of the problem, we can certainly do so, because, in everything, there is always some good and some bad, and men are not more perfect than the laws that they enact.
The new department had in mind, I think, a comprehensive project, and it urges all groups: provincial governments, municipalities, companies, industrialists, to come and co-operate with a view to reducing unemployment across Canada.
If the government is to be blamed in some instances, we also have to examine our own conscience, since that question is of the utmost interest to us. We must ask ourselves whether we have done our duty and have informed the population on the aims of the department.
The minister, in the introduction to the report of his department for the year 1968-69, stated the following, and I quote:
The first phase in the establishment of the new department was dealing with the re-grouping under the authority of a single minister of ail the federal organizations and programs devoted to regional development and social progress. The
Regional Development
oldest of those programs dated back to 1935, but most of them had been initiated since 1960; each was designed to settle what was originally considered distinct and isolated cases-
As a matter of fact, a few years ago, when the famous ARDA program was introduced, I had the opportunity to rise in the House and to congratulate the then Minister of Forestry. I drew to his attention in particular the fact that, thanks to the ARDA program, many blueberry operations had been set up in my region. We got grants totalling more than $3 million to that effect. I then told the minister that he was making a big mistake by setting up those blueberry operations.
Six or seven years later, it turned out that I had been right. The blueberry fields have become public places where pickers are fighting for the blueberries. Once everything had been levelled down, I told him: You should not have caused all those trees to be chopped down, because you should know that blueberries grow in the woods with trees a necessary protection.
Well, what is being done now? Just a return to what I recommended six or seven years ago. I quote from a November 1969 newspaper:
Parcels of land will be distributed to the pickers.
So the blueberry fields which had almost been regionalized are going to be returned to the owners.
I believed it was a mistake at the time and I had censored the government for thus venturing into areas it was not too familiar with. I had precisely told the minister that he knew nothing about blueberry operations. This was no fault of his, but he should have heeded my advice.
Today, because of these failures, blueberry production has considerably decreased. However the new arrangements should result in correcting these mistakes.
This organization has been established recently, as I said a moment ago. Its aim is to centralize all efforts in an attempt to solve the problem as a whole.
If we really want to solve it, co-operation is essential on the part of the provinces, companies and industrialists.
The Quebec government has certainly understood the aims of this department, since in September 1969 a newspaper stated that it intended to invest $50 million in the program for financial assistance to primary industries.

February 3, 1970
Regional Development
Reading this article, I understood immediately that the province of Quebec was aware of the part it had to play, since it allocated funds for joint programs which the Department of Regional Economic Expansion will help to put into effect in each of the regions.
As far as my riding is concerned, much work has been done. In fact, we have benefit-ted from the planning mission as well as from the REC which is doing an excellent job in determining means to promote industry, agriculture and tourism.
We have obtained an excellent report of some 450 pages which is full of valuable information. On reading that report, some deficiencies are discovered, even in my area. Indeed, some authorities, such as reeves, have violently criticized it. In my opinion, it has given too much importance to the Upper Saguenay area in comparison with others, namely the Lake St. John and Roberval areas.
Apparently, all the industry has been centered in the Upper Saguenay, while the Lake St. John area becomes an experimental farm. In fact, it is considered as being mainly a farming district, while the best farm lands happen to be in the Roberval area where the future of forestry operations looks very promising.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
It will probably be necessary to retimber the present lands in order to start a forest development.
If one of our distinguished citizens, a reeve, expressed straightforwardly his opinions on that matter, he was sometimes right. If it had been arranged to have the study made by people of the area, I think the results would have been different.
Anyway I do not wish to destroy everything that has been done because there has been some progress. What has been achieved is surely not useless since it has already given rise to discussions and certainly it has helped the minister realize that the people of the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area are not only awakening but want to study the problems and get out of the present dead-lock.
We have already seen some results in our area, since we have received a grant for one of our most prosperous industries, one that manufactures machinery used in forestry, such as motor chain-saws and, in my opinion, this is quite an achievement. We hope this assistance will be continued, in order that

other similar industries will contribute to the recovery of our economy which is not based entirely on the forest industry because the people there also go in for farming. We also hope that in this field we will be able some day to note some progress.
We have also a very interesting project in St.-Felicien and there is no need for me to cross the t's, as the Minister knows what I am alluding to. Besides, I contacted him on that subject and I am sure that the Minister will do what he can so that the studies about St.-Felicien be carried out as soon as possible, because the region needs it. This industry would create 2,000 or 2,500 jobs. I think that it is a constructive project and I feel sure that the Minister is very much interested in it.
Besides, I received the other day from the city of Roberval-the Minister must have got one too-a copy of the memorandum which it submitted to the economic mission-


The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Mr. J. B. Morison (Hamillon-Wenlworih):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I was talking to the leader of the House, my hon. friend from Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald), and he expressed concern about some of the comments which had been made in connection with the tardiness of the regional development committee in convening again after the fall recess.
As the chairman of that committee, and in an effort to be fair and objective, I feel that with all due respect to members of the House, and in answer to their complaints that they have been left in the dark about what the committee and the department have been doing, I should review what the committee has done over the past 18 months.
As many members know, this was a new committee, one made up of people here for the first time and who were not familiar with committee procedure. The committee encountered a further handicap in that it was immediately presented with the estimates of two government departments which were being phased out. In studying these estimates and listening to hon. members such as the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis) and the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir), we probably heard more about coal mines and found out more on the subject of coal and steel than we ever realized we did not know. As we pro-
February 3, 1970

gressed through the Maritimes and into the west we picked up an idea of just what the government had been trying to establish through the fragmented departmental programs and the ARDA development plan. We had a taste of what might be accomplished by the new department which was being instituted.
Having made progress through the estimates, we decided at the steering committee meetings that we would go to the west and investigate on site the FRED, ARDA and Newstart programs. These were, of course, older programs and it was easier to judge how they were accomplishing the ends which the departments had sought to achieve. Nevertheless, the committee kept in mind the eloquent plea from Bell Island. It decided, and fully intended, to go to Newfoundland and the Maritimes to look into the problems of transportation which we knew existed there. However, we decided to go west first.
I recall, as we got to Prince Albert, our first stop, the sense of frustration which I felt. It is curious that the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) should have opened his remarks by talking about frustration. Members of the opposition refer to their frustration when they look across to the government benches. I will always remember the frustration I experienced, because I understood what those kids must have felt when they got to the airport, having driven 80 or 100 miles to see that bright young member of the committee, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, and found that after all he was not with us. I sensed their frustration and I, too, was frustrated. I knew that this young member's mind was probably filled with his marriage and his forthcoming nuptials, and that he just could not be with us. I am sure he, too, was frustrated-not with his marriage, of course, but with his inability to be present at that time.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Here we have different frustrations and they probably all revert back basically to the people. You cannot think of government; you must think of the people. This was true of our committee work. I was impressed, and I know members of the committee were, with Newstart. The people, particularly those from Newfoundland, had never seen anything like it. As a matter of fact, they had never had a program like this on the island. We found that ARDA programs had worked wonders.
Regional Development
After returning to Ottawa with the experience we gained in the west, we knew what we intended to do. We were prepared to go to the east, study the existing programs there and make recommendations as to how they could be improved. The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) generously suggested, when we got back and were confronted with the bill to establish the Regional Development Incentives Act, that we did not have much choice. If we postponed the committee study of this bill and decided to go east, the whole program would have been put off for six or nine momhs because of the summer break; we probably would not be having this debate tonight because we would just be considering the first stage of the measure.
The committee in its enthusiasm for this measure, and with its tremendous responsibility-I cannot praise the members too highly- studied the bill and returned it to this House in time to pass it by the end of June in order that the new department could commence with the program hon. members have been discussing tonight. Following this we adjourned for the summer.
There was some discussion about going to Newfoundland and the Maritimes even at that time. I would have been very happy to go there even though it might have been too early for tuna fishing. I still think it would have been a good trip. But hon. members were tired, they had worked hard during the spring, and the consensus was that it would be better if we waited until the fall.
Had we gone to the east in the summer, a double load would have fallen upon the shoulders of hon. members. Had we gone there and presented ourselves as the great white hope, if you will, or the seviour to the people suffering regional disparity, we might have raised their hopes for no real reason, because we were going just to look. We were not prepared immediately to say we intended to enter into constructive programs. In any event, it was decided to put off that trip.
During the summer numerous letters were exchanged, there were telephone calls and there was a meeting. Often the 264 members of this chamber have a hard time reaching agreement. I realize that the "famous five" who were attempting to plan the Newfoundland trip were probably experiencing difficulty in reaching agreement on priority and the areas the committee should visit. I have no direct knowledge of this, but knowing their enthusiasm, and with my interest in their

February 3, 1970
Regional Development
problems, I am sure if there had been a meeting of minds we would have done something before October or November.
I do not wish to ingratiate myself with the minister, and certainly I am not the type to ingratiate myself with the government. However, I take complete responsibility for the committee not being reconvened in December. The House Leader spoke to me about this matter. In fact, he advised the committees branch that we should reconvene. Perhaps I did not have the authority, but after talking to the members of the committee I decided there was no real purpose in reconvening and that nothing of significance could be accomplished if we did reconvene in December.
The members of this committee are young and enthusiastic. They are not the type of committee members who want to sit in committee just for the sake of doing something. There were other committees sitting in December which demanded much of hon. members' time. On that basis, I advised the House Leaders that we would be better advised to wait until we had the first full year's estimates of the department before the committee for study.
Let me say without any malice, and not as a snide remark, that opposition members have the advantage of the research people which this government has provided. They are a great deal better off than we, for this reason. If they have had any spare time during the time the House has been sitting, I hope they have used their research people to prepare themselves for the committee's study of the estimates. I hope when this study commences they will present many constructive ideas. Let them tear the estimates apart, without knocking them just for the sake of knocking them.


James Aloysius McGrath: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John B. Morison: I am certainly no expert on research and development, but having been the chairman of this committee I have a warmth and fondness for research and development. Because we initiated this matter, I like to think of it as our baby.


James Aloysius McGrath: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John B. Morison: As I listened to opposition spokesmen today, all I can say is: Wait until the baby can walk and talk before you beat it over the head.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member took it upon himself to accept full responsibility for not reconvening the committee. What right did he have to take that responsibility upon himself, since he was no longer the chairman of the committee?


An hon. Member:: Think fast.


John B. Morison: I do not think I really have to think too fast on that question. Mr. McGrath-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John B. Morison: The hon. member for St. John's East-I am sorry. That was probably a Freudian slip. I have known the hon. member for St. John's East for a pleasant six or seven months. I have become a little informal with him at times, and therefore I made that Freudian slip. Whether I was the chairman or not, having been the chairman with a fair knowledge of how members of the committee were thinking, and being the logical person to discuss the problems of the committee, I gave this advice to the House leader and I take full responsibility.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that the government which was elected in 1968 intended that the Department of Regional Development should be the keystone in the so-called just society. This afternoon the latest report from the department came into my hands. I notice that the second paragraph on page 1 confirms this viewpoint. It says, with reference to the establishment of this department:
The announcement stemmed from the Prime Minister's previously declared policy of making regional development a matter of top priority for the government.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
I think it will be equally obvious from the worth-while debate that has taken place today that, while the government might have intended to make the Department of Regional Economic Development the cornerstone of the implementation of the just society, it has fallen far short of the mark with respect to implementation. Notwithstanding the large amount of propaganda, as demonstrated by the many press releases that have been issued, this program unfortunately has not yet got off the ground. In fact, I would think the amount of attention that has been paid in speeches and press releases to this subject has aggravated a situation which is inherent in the Canadian body politic, that is, the prob-
(Mr. Morison.]
February 3, 1970

February 3, 1970
Regional Development
than any other in binding this nation from sea to sea.
I think everybody who understands the problems of Canadian confederation will agree with that. Under this new department the minister has that opportunity. Solving regional economic disparity is not an easy task because our climatic and geographic conditions aggravate the problem. For years Ottawa stayed clear of its obligation in this regard and we did not advance very much on the original national policy that first brought Canada together. Nothing happened really until the late 1950s.
Much can be done through policy decisions of this government. The minister said during the course of his speech that some areas are affected by deflation and others inflation. I wish he would communicate this information to his colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), because one of the reasons for the misunderstanding concerning the government's approach to regional disparity is the unequal application of the austerity program.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
The austeri'y program has slowed down or cancelled programs that were actually on the drawing board. This applies particularly to some projects under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, and I would say this situation is more apparent in western Canada than in any other operation that the federal government might carry out. It offsets all the propaganda and the press reports about increasing job opportunities.
As a result of the growing problems in the west, the Premier of Manitoba visited Ottawa not long ago to bring some of these difficulties to the attention of the minister and a few of his colleagues. I would point out that the provinces actually were ahead of Ottawa in coming to grips with special regional, economic incentives which have become necessary in our post-World War II economy. Manitoba introduced a dynamic program in the late 1950s. In close co-operation with Ottawa it introduced power development programs such as the Shellmouth Dam project which has been in progress all this time and will be completed this year, the erection of vocational schools, the Winnipeg floodway, and so forth.
Following his talks in Ottawa, the Premier of Manitoba was interviewed by the Winnipeg Free Press. In a red headline, almost as large as those that used to be created by the deputy minister, it stated, "Schreyer Unsatisfied with Talks", with a subheading "Federal
[Mr. Dinsdale.l
Piecemeal Approach Disappoints Manitoba Premier." This is why the west is hopping mad. The premier said that no matter how hard Manitoba pressed its counterparts in the federal cabinet, it could get no clear picture of the federal funds that would be available to Manitoba through the Department of Economic Regional Expansion.
To use a quotation I picked up just this evening from the Ottawa Journal, Mr. Speaker, I say that the government has been sounding the bugle long enough concerning the success of its programs. Now it must teach the bugler to play "Charge!" and get to the essence of the problems. If no funds are available from Ottawa, no programs will be implemented at the provincial level.
Even though this motion is not coming to a vote, I hope that everything said in the chamber today will not be lost on the minister. Our approach is positive. We have tried to bring to his attention some of the difficulties in various parts of Canada. I hope he has listened to what members have said about the growing disenchantment of the west, and that he will seize his responsibilities as leader of this new department and see that the new national development program, which the Winnipeg Free Press used to talk about, will be implemented in fact as well as in propaganda.


Mr. Ovide Laflamme (Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to add a few words after hearing some members of the opposition. This motion is to say the least untimely under the circumstances.
I think that the government is the least to blame when it comes to restructuring all its activities in order to stop economic disparities.
Some members of the opposition want, as a matter of fact, a little childishly, to force the government to solve within less than a year problems which have always existed. In my opinion they just want, as the previous speaker said, to give rise to hate among the people instead of appealing to their reason.
If we upbraid the Department of Regional Economic Expansion for inaction and question the implications of the legislation, namely those of Bill C-202, passed on June 27, 1969, that is barely six months ago, this in no way settles the economic problems of this country, nor suppresses the regional economic disparities. Above all, this shows a lack of
February 3, 1970

understanding of the means of action at the government's disposal.
Regional disparities exist and they would tend to increase at the expense of the future well-being of our citizens in the absence of governmental intervention. Then, how should we behave? There will never be efficient governmental action without concurrent initiative on the part of private citizens and private enterprise.
Unless we create basic structures designed to urge the private citizens or private enterprise to act, and unless some economic controls are imposed, only initiative and incentives will generate action.
Bill C-202 which was passed by the House last June deals with industrial incentives required for developing depressed regions. Within a very short period and thanks to their ini'ia'ive, the people will manage to eliminate these regional disparities.
I represent an economically underprivileged region. Before introducing Bill C-202, the department acted with wisdom and clearsightedness by selecting the disadvantaged regions; earlier, this was rather like a strait-jacket which effec'ively prevented the government from acting.
What is more desirable yet is coordination. It already exists within the department, but it must also exist within provincial government and municipalities. The latter claim that they do not have the necessary financial means to honorably discharge their duties, but they have however the first say insofar as the development of the territory is concerned. Because of the very large number of municipalities, such aclion de'eriorates and is often lacking in co-ordination and planning.
But at the provincial level, industrial incentives work together wi'h economic wealth, thus creating a force which goes against solutions likely to eliminate regional disparities.
If we are able to take advantage of natural means of action, namely natural resources, the implementation of Bill C-202 and the action of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand), wi'h the help of personal initiative and co-ordination at all government levels, will bring, I submit, concrete results.
In spite of what certain members may think, we are at the present time faced with the serious problem of unemployment. We hope that the legislations passed by this
Regional Development
government will enable us to solve partly the problem of unemployment, as well as the one not less serious, concerning regional disparities.
Instead of blaming the government which is setting itself to a mammoth task, I suggest it would be better to bring forward constructive suggestions.
I shall conclude my remarks by saying that the measures adopted by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and by the agencies it has set up, are quite efficient, and that the government will attain its objectives.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I feel I have been "had" without the benefit of osculation. I am particularly interested in this bill because it affects the part of Canada that I come from, where not too much is being done. The minister would deserve a great deal more credit if he would agree to set up a committee to make reports, instead of leaving that to his parliamentary secretary. One of the problems of his department is that he has always left things to somebody else. He has a background of national attachment in his former occupation. I had a long period of international attachment, and now I have become a strong nationalist and he a strong provincialist.
All afternoon I have heard complaints from the maritimers; but if anything has been done anywhere, that is the place. I would like to hear some maritimers ask the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to put money into the heavy water plant which was to bring so many benefits to the province of Nova Scotia. Surely they cannot afford to tie up $100 million in this project. It was built on federal advice, and it is up to the federal government to salvage it. The people of the Mariiimes cannot afford to lose their investment in the project. The minister should look into the whole matter before they lose any more money.
Mr. Speaker, I recommend to the minister the documents of the mid-Canada corridor concept put out by Acres Research. I am well aware of the merits of this document as well as its weaknesses. As a socialist I have no intention of turning over all of the mid-Canada corridor for private enterprise to exploit, but they have indicated the resources that are available, the massive expenditure involved and the rewards of such develop-

February 3, 1970
Regional Development
ment. This will never happen under this minister, for the simple reason that the provinces will not allow the federal government to have full control of the area unless the federal government states how much it is willing to spend.
It seems that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing) has considered this kind of project in relation to northern development because he has been interested in the development of a concept where business and government get together and evolve the total concept of a given area. The time has come for us to look forward. Shared-cost programs have failed and the people will not again become excited about ARDA, FRED or any similar projects.
If the federal government has a role, it is to look at the total concept of what can be done and set about doing it in an orderly fashion. As long as the federal government is willing to put up the money, the provinces will not throw any roadblocks in the way. I am sick and tired of all this bickering back and forth about what areas are to be designated. The federal government has to make the decision. The provinces are willing to let them put up the money, but they want the say in how the projects are run.
This program is not bringing new industry into my area, where resources are plentiful. We have put out money for a sawmill to be built or expanded, for a plywood factory or some other factory that was proposed for the area. I have no quarrel with the priority given to this program by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), but let us look at it on a national basis. I have listened with great patience all afternoon to complaints about projects in individual areas. Surely, in the national Parliament we are interested in a national concept. We know that the area of Canada which is not developed is the mid-Canada corridor, and we know that industry from the Golden Horseshoe will not go into that area unless it is provided with great incentives. Such incentives need not necessarily be monetary; they may have relation to the total concept of what can be done in the area. It is here that the government should be giving leadership to industry.
I hope that before the committee meets the minister will state what is to be done about the one project that has cost the Maritimes more money than any other and which will go down the drain unless the federal government gives assistance. I hope he suggests that certain things be done in conjunction with

Atomic Energy so that at least that problem will be solved to the satisfaction of all Canadians.
The concept of regional development, Mr. Speaker, is national, not provincial and not parochial. I suggest we get on with the national concept of regional development.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being ten o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that by virtue of section 11 of Standing Order 58, these proceedings are deemed to be terminated. A motion to adjourn the House is under consideration. The motion is that this House do now adjourn.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, on December 3 I directed the following question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), as recorded at page 1554 of Hansard:
Has the Canadian Transport Commission received an application from the Great Northern Railway Company and the Kootenay Elk Railway Company for permission to build lines into the United States and back into Canada at the Pacific coast for the purpose of carrying coal to the Pacific coast via the United States?
This question is of vital importance to the economy of British Columbia and to Canada in general. I welcome the opportunity to raise it at this time so that further information and facts on the situation can be placed on the record. Perhaps the minister will give the House tonight some information on both these applications and the hearings which I understand are now under way.
Since raising my question in the House there have been several articles in the various news media from information supplied by Crows Nest Industries Limited, one of the applicants interested in building a rail link to the United States and shipping Canadian coal via United States railway lines. This company is trying to tell the Canadian public that CPR lacks the carrying capacity to meet the
February 3, 1970	COMMONS
demands of the Japanese steel industry for Canadian coal. It indicates that the freight rates asked by CPR are higher than the company can afford to pay.
Last year a similar controversy took place when the Kaiser Coal Company advocated the shipping of Canadian coal via the Great Northern Railway to Roberts Bank. At that time I thought this matter had been settled. The CPR apparently negotiated an acceptable freight rate of $3.50 per long ton of coal for a 15-year period. I understand that since that time it has added another contract for two million tons annually at the same rate.
However, the charge that CPR lines cannot handle the coal which will be mined in East Kootenay is a disturbing one and, in my opinion, is not based on any factual evidence which Crows Nest Industries Limited can produce. I am opposed to the shipment of Canadian resources over United States railway lines if we can possibly ship the material via an all-Canadian route. Any time we use our transportation systems in Canada, we are providing more jobs for Canadians and we are also adding, as in the case of this huge coal contract, many millions of dollars annually to the Canadian economy.
There are other advantages to shipping by an all-Canadian route which might not be readily discernible to the general Canadian public. One advantage is the employment which the supplying of the equipment gives to Canadians in many parts of our country. For example, the coal cars are built in the Hawker-Siddeley plant in Nova Scotia; steel for these cars comes from Hamilton; the locomotives are built in Montreal; the steel rails come from Algoma Steel at Sault Ste. Marie; the wooden ties for the track come from various parts of Canada; workmen on trains come from our own railway unions. Their money, plus the freight rates, accrues to individuals and companies within Canada. It is worth millions of dollars to our economy.
Here is an estimate of the Canadian labour income which results from coal traffic moved on Canadian lines. From the Kootenay area of B.C. to the West Coast, for each one million long tons of coal moved annually there is a return of about $1.2 million annually. This means an annual outlay of labour income from the present five million tons of coal being moved of about $6 million. This labour income represents wages, salaries and related railway employee benefits. There is little enough return to the Canadian economy through the development of this resource. We
DEBATES	3179
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion cannot afford to lose the jobs and the purchasing power involved by shipping coal by way of the United States.
At present the CPR has two contracts for hauling coal. One contract is for 15 years at three million tons per year. The second contract is for three years at two million tons per year. During the period in which it will be hauling five million tons per year they plan to use two trains per day with 88 cars in each. On April 1, 1972, the Fording Coal Company plans to ship another three million tons per year in addition to the figures I have given. This will require another 105-car train.
I am surprised that Crow's Nest Industries Limited has applied to build a connecting link with the Great Northern Railway in the United States. To my knowledge, this company does not yet have a buyer for any of its coal. This fact alone should void its present application. In my opinion, its charge that CPR does not have the carrying capacity to handle all the coal in the Fernie area is also unfounded. From information I have been able to obtain it would appear that CPR has ordered 578 cars, 37 diesel locomotives and 5 robot cars which will be sufficient to handle the contracts they now hold. Other equipment can be added as required. I understand the main CPR line from Calgary to Vancouver averages 7 trains per day in each direction. Sometimes there is a peak of ten trains per day, if there is a rush on wheat, potash and coal at the same time.
In 1968 a centralized traffic control system on this line was completed. It can now handle a minimum of one train an hour in each direction. Taking the present peak of 10 trains per day, it means that another 14 trains, minimum, per day could travel this route. I am informed that the present 3 million tons yearly contract requires only one train per day which consists of 105 cars. This is based on 345 days per year. A 20-day period in the year should cover any line interruptions or breakdown at the mine or shipping port. Trains can be made longer if needed and can go to a maximum of 115 cars. These longer trains would still fit the siding capacities and the facilities at both ends, because the loading and unloading has been designed to handle 150 cars if needed, together with the motor power. This additional available capacity of 10 cars per train would add a further safety factor as far as delays and interruptions are concerned.
3180	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
In addition, we have an alternate route over the Kettle Valley line which serves my own constituency. There are also several interchanges where Canadian Pacific Railway trains can transfer to Canadian National Railways' tracks in the event of trouble. There is even an interchange near Grand Forks, British Columbia, where trains could transfer to the Great Northern if a real and lengthy emergency occurred.
The picture is clear to me, Mr. Speaker. I feel that CPR has the equipment or can obtain it. It has the line capacity. It has Canadian workmen using mostly Canadian-produced equipment. If CPR is anywhere near competitive in freight rates, and apparently it is, there should be no hesitation in the Canadian government insisting that these Canadian resources should be hauled to Canadian ports via an all-Canadian route.


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) on his plea to have coal transported through his province by Canadian railway companies rather than United States companies. Surely the hon. member wishes me to reply to the question he asked on December 3. I will attempt to inform him what has occurred since that time.
The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows with respect to the status of applications received in the matter of the Kootenay & Elk Railway Company. The Railway Transport Committee of the commission received on November 28, 1969, the following applications:
1.	Application under section 255 and other applicable sections of the Railway Act to join the proposed line of the Kootenay & Elk Company with the line of Great Northern Railway Company at or near the border between British Columbia and the state of Montana, near Rooseville West.
2.	An application under section 255 of the Railway Act to cross the railway of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company near Hosmer in British Columbia, with the proposed line of Kootenay & Elk Railway.
3.	An application under the Crowsnest Pass Agreement, chapter 5 of the Statutes of Canada, 1896-97, for running rights over the line of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company between Natal and Elko in the province of British Columbia.
Applications two and three are said to be alternative applications and the applicant

DEBATES	February 3, 1970
states that if its application for running rights under the Crowsnest Pass Agreement is granted, the application to cross the Canadian Pacific Railway Company's line north of Hosmer will be withdrawn. The three applications were served on the Minister of Commercial Transport for the province of British Columbia, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, the Attorney General of Canada and the Attorney General for the province of British Columbia.
Since November 28, two interventions have been received, one from the regional district of Kootenay Boundary and the other from the corporation of the city of Grand Forks, both of which have been circulated to the parties of record. It should also be pointed out that solicitors for Kootenay & Elk Railway Company have since asked for an early hearing on the question of whether the Canadian Transport Commission has the power to make the order sought.
I am informed that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company was given notice to file an answer to the applications within 30 days. The CPR applied for and were granted an extension of the time to answer. Before the expiration of this time, CPR filed with the Canadian Transport Commission a motion for an order seeking particulars on the applications, and for a stay in the proceedings until they had an opportunity to study such information. This is now being considered by the commission.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, my purpose in bringing forth this matter this evening was prompted by the questions I posed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) a few days ago concerning the recently announced ban on cyclamates and the resultant hardships created as a result in the dietary planning of those afflicted with diabetes.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
The questions, as recorded in Hansard at page 2969, were as follows:
In view of the recent ban on cyclamates and subsequent representations made to the minister by the Canadian Diabetic Association indicating that as a result severe hardship has been imposed upon those inflicted with diabetes, is any consideration being given to making available a substitute in order that diabetics may acquire some relief?
February 3, 1970	COMMONS
To which the minister answered: "Yes, Mr. Speaker." The exchange continued:
In the meantime, is the minister giving any consideration to permitting the use of controlled amounts of cyclamates by those afflicted with diabetes?


Mr. Munro:: Depending on what is meant by controlled, yes, Mr. Speaker.
I had hoped to extract more detail than that, Mr. Speaker; frankly, I found the minister's answer somewhat vague. I trust that tonight the House and the country will be given an opportunity to learn exactly what steps are being taken to overcome the confusion which presently faces doctors and patients who are finding difficulty controlling their diets following the ban.
I realize that the minister is not able to be present this evening, but I am sure his parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz), himself a medical practitioner, can provide us with some of the details.
According to a newsletter issued on October 21 by the department, dietetic canned fruit containing cyclamates is to be banned on September 1, 1970. I am told that wholesalers in many areas have informed retailers, distributors and hospitals that they will no longer be able to supply these canned fruits after February 1. I am advised that this raises a difficult problem for diabetics in formulating a proper diet, particularly in areas where fresh fruits are not always readily available.
I am not a medical man, so, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from a letter which I received from a medical doctor who has some misgivings about the way in which the question of cyclamates is at present being handled. He writes:
I have found that statements made concerning cyclamates have been very confusing to the many diabetic patients that I have to see. The one thing which I think might help would be the issuing of some statement as to the amount of cyclamates which could safely be taken each day. I am also wondering if it would be possible to have the amount of cyclamates present in the various diabetic foods stated clearly on the food labels. I think if this information were available it might not be necessary to take these foods off the market; I believe that such action is likely to impose real hardship on the many diabetics who attempt to keep good control of their disease.
The letter goes on to say:
I also wonder whether the labels on the diet foods for diabetics could be printed so they would show the food exchange value. All diabetics understand how to use these food exchanges which
DEBATES	3181
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion are listed in the meal planning booklet put out by the Canadian Diabetic Association.
Again referring to the newsletter of October 21, issued by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the following is stated: -we have no scientific evidence at this point to indicate that cyclamates have caused cancer or any other harmful effects in humans.
The newsletter also states that while there was evidence of cancer in rats, it was prevalent after extremely high dosage, 50 times higher than that accepted as that being safe for adults as prescribed by the World Health Organization. The newsletter goes on to say on behalf of the minister:
Let me repeat and emphasize the fact that there is no evidence that cyclamates have caused cancer or any other disease in humans.
The newsletter states further:
Four days ago, however, new evidence appeared that cyclamates produced tumours when fed to rats-at very high levels for long periods of time.
Further on it says that no tumours developed in rats given cyclamates at doses equivalent on a body-weight basis to that of 200 bottles of soft drinks per day throughout the lifetime of a 150-pound man. The newsletter continues:
It is obvious, therefore, that the danger to humans from cyclamates is undoubtedly very small.
I am sure most Canadians have no objection to the banning of cyclamates if sufficient evidence can be produced that the product is potentially capable of producing harmful side-effects. However, if harmful effects have not occurred until exorbitant amounts are consumed and this seems to be backed by many members of the medical profession they would be acceptable.
Perhaps if a standard could be issued dealing with safe amounts of cyclamates or the tolerant factor, indicating the amount which could be consumed without causing harmful effects, this would go a long way in assisting those who must practice dietary control. It is also my understanding that the United States has modified the ban on cyclamates and permits the sale of foods containing cyclamates, but it will maintain its ban in respect of beverages. I think this fact does have significance, and I hope the minister will undertake to take steps so that diabetics in Canada may once again look forward to leading normal lives.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and 'Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, on October 21, 1969, the-
3182	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) made a statement on the restricted use of cyclamates in Canada after having decided it was a course of action that afforded the greatest protection to the health of the Canadian public.
The minister is also well aware of the problems of diabetics in Canada. Officers of the Food and Drugs Directorate have had discussions with the Dietetic Counselling Commission of the Canadian Diabetic Association on the subject of cyclamates. They have also discussed the matter in some detail with representatives of the various industry groups concerned.
As a result of these latter discussions we know that it is possible to produce dietetic beverages, spreads and foods, without the use of cyclamates. This is accomplished by modifying the formulas and the use of permitted flavours along with a sweetening agent
DEBATES	February 3, 1970
known as saccharin. The use of these new foods should permit diabetics to have a suitable variety of diet without running the risk of using cyclamates.
I would also remind the hon. member that my minister has never at any time questioned the need of diabetics for sweetening preparations for home use. These products will continue to be available under special labelling, the details of which have not yet been fully determined. It is anticipated, however, that their labels would carry a warning to the effect that they should be used only on the advice of a physician. With these measures being taken, my minister believes that Canadian diabetics should have no cause for concern over the ban of cyclamates in special dietary foods.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.20 p.m.

Wednesday, February 4, 1970