1970-12-11

CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table the first report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition of Mr. Angus MacDougall and 12 other persons, signed at Glace Bay, on the Island of Cape Breton, in the province of Nova Scotia, and pertaining to the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act, presented on December 10, 1970, and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Brelon-Easi Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like at this time to express my appreciation for the fact that this petition has been received and found to be in order. I would like some guidance from the Chair in order to enlighten the House as to the proper procedure, and I say that advisedly, Sir, because this is a new Crown corporation set up to deal exclusively with a local problem. The information I have received in reply to a letter I wrote would indicate that the situation is very much misunderstood. For this reason I ask the Chair and the House for guidance on whether it is proper under Standing Order 67 for me to ask that this matter be immediately debated in view of the urgency of the situation.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the proper procedure at this stage is for the hon. member to seek leave of the House to have the petition read. To my knowledge there is no strict or clear provision in the Standing Orders for the reading of a petition, but Citation 343 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition indicates that an hon. member has the right to request that a petition be read by the Clerk of the House and in that way given that measure of publicity. This would require the consent of the House. I ask whether the hon. member, by leave of the House, may have the petition read?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
The Clerk:
To The Honourable The Commons Of Canada In Parliament Assembled
The Humble petition of the undersigned Canadians, resident in the Island of Cape Breton and Province of Nova Scotia, who are persons for whose benefit and the benefit of their dependants your Honourable House intended to provide pension arrangements.
Sheweth:
That Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and your Honourable House, did enact the statute entitled the "Cape Breton Development Corporation Act", chapter 6 of the Statutes of Canada 1967, which said statute came into force, upon proclamation of the Governor in Council, on the 1st day of October 1967;
That section 18 of the said statute provides that the Cape Breton Development Corporation shall, by by-law approved by the Honourable the Treasury Board, establish, manage and administer pension arrangements for the benefit of persons, among whom are your Petitioners, employed or formerly employed in certain coal mining and related works and undertakings on the Island of Cape Breton, and for the benefit of the dependants of such persons:
e (11:10 a.m.)
That the said Corporation, purporting to comply with the said section 18, has put into force and effect a "Pre-Retirement Leave Plan", so-called:
That the Pre-Retirement Leave Plan is an income supplement scheme and is not a pension arrangement; and the benefits paid thereunder are designed and intended to supplement other forms of assistance received or to be received so as to raise the total assistance received to-but not above-certain dollar amounts fixed under the said Plan, with the result that the assistance paid by the Corporation decreases or ceases as other assistance is increased;
That the said Plan specifies that assistance received by way of unemployment insurance benefits is assistance within the meaning of the Plan: and the Plan requires that persons who are on pre-retirement leave under the Plan must use up their full benefit entitlement based upon their unemployment insurance contributions;
That the Government announced on the 3rd December 1970 that, effective the 3rd January 1971, unemployment insurance benefits will be increased by ten per cent;
That your Petitioners and their dependants will not benefit by the said increase in unemployment insurance benefits inasmuch as the Cape Breton Development Corporation will deduct, to its own use and benefit, the amount of such increase from the amount of the supplementary assistance paid by the Corporation within the income ceiling fixed by the Plan;
That this loss to your Petitioners and their dependants will commence on the 3rd January 1971;
That except by petition to your Honourable House no remedy is available to your Petitioners whereby they may obtain relief of this grievance before the 3rd January 1971 or at all;
Wherefore your Petitioners humbly pray that your Honourable House will find means of prevailing upon Her Majesty's Government and the Cape Breton Development Corporation:
1.	To revoke the Pre-Retirement Leave Plan and to substitute therefor pension arrangements based upon pension principles; or alternatively, to provide for improved early retirement benefits for your Petitioners and their dependants based upon the principle already approved by Her Majesty's Government and referred to in the recommendation of His Excellency the Governor General which is printed in the Notice Paper of your Honourable House at page 3, for the 9th December 1970, and which recommends legislation to improve early retirement benefits for certain categories of persons employed in the Public Service; and
2.	To provide an immediate remedy for the present personal grievances of your Petitioners that, commencing the 3rd January 1971, they and their dependants will suffer financial losses not intended by your Honourable House when providing, under section 18 of the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act that pension arrangements must be made by the Cape Breton Devel-

December 11, 1970
Cape Breton Development Corporation
opment Corporation, with the approval of the Treasury Board, for your Petitioners and their dependants; and
3.	To provide such further and other relief in the premises as to your Honourable House seems just and meet.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, now prayeth and will ever pray,
And your Petitioners have, and each of them hath, signed at Glace Bay, on the Island of Cape Breton, in the Province of Nova Scotia, this 6th day of December, in the year of Our Lord One Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy.
The petition is signed by Angus MacDougall and others.


Mr. Speaker:: This is perhaps where we reach the point the hon. member anticipated a moment ago concerning whether a motion pursuant to the petition filed can be entertained at this time. The hon. member has correctly referred to Standing Order 67(8) which reads in part as follows;
-or if it complain of some present personal grievance requiring an immediate remedy, the matter contained therein may be brought into immediate discussion.
As hon. members know, there are very few precedents in modern times of the House having adjourned its business for the purpose of considering a petition. The only precedent I could find, and which I looked at in view of the fact that the matter was brought to the attention of the House yesterday by the hon. member through the filing of the petition, is the Raymond Rodgers case reported in the Journals of the House of Commons for Friday, October 19, 1962. The Journals record that by unanimous consent the petition received the previous day and read to the House be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. I think it is relevant and important that this had been done by unanimous consent of the House.
Should there be unanimity in the House that the petition referred to by the hon. member be referred to a committee of the House, perhaps the hon. member might be invited to indicate to what committee he wishes the petition to be referred. I would think that this is the way in which a petition of this nature should be dealt with rather than by a procedure which is akin or very closely related to either Standing Order 43 or Standing Order 26. Perhaps the hon. member might indicate for the guidance of the Chair and of all hon. members what motion he had in mind to submit to the House in relation to the petition.


Malcolm MacInnis: May I say at the outset that I had no motion in mind and I was relying upon the good will of the House to give unanimous consent under Standing Order 67. I was hoping that, since there is an immediate remedy available, the House would take this opportunity to examine the matter. I have quite a number of copies available of section 18 of Bill C-135.
As I said before, the problem here is that I believe most members of the House are not familiar with this legislation, and I do not say this in a derogatory sense. Here we have a Crown company set up to deal with a
local issue. I do not think hon. members have examined carefully what they passed in the House. Because I believe the matter has not been examined sufficiently I ask that the House give permission for a debate on this matter, and I ask that all members of the House consider whether there is any reason why any Canadian should not receive that which this House voted for in Parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member has made his point clearly and if he agrees with the position suggested then the matter might be considered at this time and debated by unanimous consent, but the House would have to decide whether there is such a desire or whether that the matter should be referred to a committee. I am not sure whether the Government House Leader has a suggestion to make in this regard.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy-Council):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the importance of the subject matter of the petition. I have not an opportunity to examine the petition but I listened to it as carefully as possible. I think it would be unwise to make a final decision this morning as to what process we should follow. Certainly I would be unwilling to suggest that we suspend the normal business to continue on another important measure. Nor would I be willing to agree to send the petition to a standing committee until I have had an opportunity to examine it and to consider it together with the minister responsible for the operation of the corporation. However, I will undertake to carry out that examination and to consider the matter at a later date.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, when I tabled this petition in the House yesterday I did so under Standing Order 67. The petition having been tabled in respect of a matter of vital importance to Cape Bretoners and it being an unusual procedure, I assume that the government and especially the Government House Leader would have interested themselves in the contents of that petition, especially a petition on a matter so close to the House Leader's heart. It is an unusual case and I hope for the good will and the support of the House in this matter. My whole argument rests entirely on the written legislation and on what was provided by the government in the House. I ask for nothing other than what was provided for in the legislation, and I only wish to get it in the most expedient way possible. I will go along with the House Leader's suggestion as to a committee, but I only hope that hon. members will acquaint themselves with what we have given to these people but have not delivered.
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think that perhaps the suggestion made by the House Leader and by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond is a good one. Perhaps the matter might be taken under advisement for consultation later on.
[The Clerk.]
December 11, 1970



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the House for unanimous consent to move a motion under Standing Order 43. The CNR has announced that one of its two daily trains between Toronto and Winnipeg may be withdrawn on January 31, 1971. Therefore I wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House calls upon the government to urge the CNR to halt its proposed stoppage of this vitally important passenger transportation service.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North. Under the terms of Standing Order 43 unanimous consent is required. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent to put the motion at this time.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND DISPUTES INVESTIGATION ACT


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-209, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, the intent of the bill is to permit an employee working in a plant or operation which has a certified bargaining agent or union attached to it to refrain from joining or to cease to be a member of that particular union without risk thereby of losing his employment, provided he pays to the union under the Rand formula concept an amount equal to the regular dues in effect from time to time. It also provides that in any decertification process such employees who opt out pursuant to the provisions of the bill are not to be considered to be taken or taken into account as employees for the purposes of the decertification process.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Inquiries of the Ministry CRIMINAL CODE

Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchesler North) moved: the first reading of Bill S-8 (from the Senate), to amend the Criminal Code.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question relating to unemployment. As it is now indicated by the unemployment figures that perhaps some 77,000 of the unemployed are not receiving unemployment insurance benefits, and in view of the general agreement that it is going to be quite a difficult winter in terms of unemployment, will the Prime Minister not undertake to re-examine the question as to the advisability of some amendment of the laws relating to unemployment insurance to provide, at least on an interim basis, some easing of the qualifications for unemployment insurance assistance this winter?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I am not
aware of these figures, Mr. Speaker. I shall ask the Minister of Labour to look into the matter.



INCREASED UNEMPLOYMENT AMONG YOUNG PEOPLE-INTRODUCTION OF NEW POLICIES

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has had a day to reflect upon the seriousness of the scale of unemployment among Canadian youth and to consider the adequacy of present policies with regard to employment of Canadian youth. Is the Prime Minister now in a position to offer to the unemployed youth of Canada some hope that new approaches will be adopted other than those indicated by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration yesterday?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has had a day to reflect upon my answer. I suggested to him that in our general fiscal and monetary policies it is hard to suggest they should discriminate against the aged people in favour of youth. They apply, of course, to all citizens.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister is genuinely concerned about disaffection amongst Canadian youth and about preventing civil unrest. Will he instruct his ministers to examine this problem and the prospects for Canadian youth in the coming year or so with a view to taking adequate measures to reduce this inhumane and dangerous treatment of our youth?

December 11, 197 0
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that we are concerned about unemployment and unemployed people, not only the youth. I do not know whether the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that we should discriminate against the unemployed who are older in favour of young people.



EXTENT OF UNEMPLOYMENT AMONGST PROFESSIONALS

Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that there are large numbers of unemployed among professional workers in Canada, an indication of the sad state of the Canadian economy, will the Prime Minister take immediate action to publish figures showing the extent of the waste of this most valuable asset?


Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask a supplementary question?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Miller Bell: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to have the Prime Minister answer my question and the one from the hon. member for Calgary North at the same time. It would save him getting up twice.



UNEMPLOYMENT-REQUEST FOR DEPARTMENTAL FORECASTS

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is addressed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration who is also in charge of the Wheat Board. Is the minister prepared now to make available to hon. members the information he has available in his office which supports the position he took yesterday on national television that there will be a substantial increase in unemployment in Canada over and above what was announced yesterday?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that the hon. member is accurately reporting anything that was said. There was an exchange in the House yesterday about figures being available. I have nothing to add to that exchange at this time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You have nothing to add, period.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Finance would be willing to make available to the House the information he has available, and the Minister of Labour as well? I understand there is considerable evidence in the cabinet and in the Department of Manpower and Immigration which indicates that the prognostication as far as unemployment is concerned-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has asked the question.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have no information to make available.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is he prepared to table estimates made for unemployment for 1971, month by month, which have been prepared for the government?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, may 1 refer the hon. member to the exchange which took place in the House yesterday.



INCREASED UNEMPLOYMENT AMONG YOUNG PEOPLE-REPAYMENT OF STUDENT LOANS

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. It is the same question that I directed to the Prime Minister yesterday and he informed me that the Minister of Finance would be in the House today. The question concerns loans to students who are graduating and are unable to meet their liability within the six months. Are the Minister of Finance and the government prepared to extend the time for payment until those students who cannot find work are employed?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, there are provisions under the Canada student loans plan whereby the banks making the loans can extend the repayment period up to ten years and they can also delay the time of the initial payment if they so desire. The period can also be extended beyond ten years upon application to the Department of Finance in special circumstances.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might follow up that matter. The information I have from the students at Calgary University and other universities is that pressure is being brought to bear on them by the banks. Will the minister take to heart the welfare of the students and take them out of the hands of the banks?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the funds were borrowed from the banks. If my hon. friend will give me specific instances, I will be pleased to take them up with the banks.



UNEMPLOYMENT-ALLEGED STATEMENT BY MINISTER OF MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION INDICATING INCREASE

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in connection with some remarks he made on radio and television last night. Does he not admit that he told the Canadian people during the dialogue he had with the press that he expected that there would be an increment in unemployment in the next few months? Did he not say that, or did the media not record his statement correctly?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask him, did he not say that?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. gentleman will no doubt recognize that the question is asked in a

December 11, 1970

form which is hardly acceptable. I hesitate to suggest that he ought to rephrase the question. Perhaps it might be better to allow the minister to reply.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will try to indicate to the right hon. member what I believe I said in answer-


John George Diefenbaker: I want what the minister said, not what he believes he said.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I did not think that the minister would reply in those terms. We have tried to follow the general rule that no question should be asked directly of ministers about statements made outside the House. That is why I thought that the question should be asked directly and not in reference to what the minister might have said outside the House. Perhaps the minister could reply in those terms.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the minister will understand what I have in mind. According to the records that he has and the prognostications and prophesies that have been developed in his department, does he expect there to be a material increase in unemployment during the next two or three months?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the efforts which the government has taken on the fiscal and monetary side are expected to have an impact in favour of a better unemployment picture than would otherwise have been the case.


Some hon. Members:: Better unemployment?


Otto Emil Lang: Of course, one normally expects slightly higher unemployment as the winter deepens. This is, therefore, a factor against which the effective policies of the government are working.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: There will be increased unemployment; that is what the minister is saying.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We ought to export that minister to the Common Market.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister which arises out of the report of the Special Senate Committee on the Mass Media. In view of the findings of the committee that the profits earned by media corporations, that is, by both broadcasters and publishers, are, in their words, extraordinary and astonishing, and in view of the evidence of the growing concentration of power in the hands of fewer and fewer of these media corporations, what action does the government propose to take? Is the government studying the matter? Is any particular
Inquiries of the Ministry
minister or department of the government looking into this matter? Also, will the Prime Minister or one of his ministers fairly soon give the House some indication of what course the government intends to follow?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we have not yet considered the report in cabinet. When we have considered it, we will announce the government's course to the House.



FINANCE


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the very large mass media advertising revenues, which have doubled since 1960 and are expected to increase by another 25 per cent by 1975, is the minister giving any consideration to the possibility of limiting the amount of advertising which can be used as a deductible item for income tax purposes?


Edgar John Benson: Not at this point, Mr. Speaker.



TAX CONCESSIONS TO &quot;TIME&quot; AND &quot;READER'S DIGEST&quot;

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkion-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Since the House of Commons Standing Committee on External Affairs, the Senate Committee on the Mass Media and the Liberal convention have all recommended the discontinuance of the special tax exemptions for Time and Reader's Digest, will the minister now act upon that advice and end these special exemptions?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the question is a repetition of one asked previously. I may be wrong. Perhaps the minister might reply to the question.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, if there are to be any changes in taxation, they will be announced in the House in the usual manner.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the new legislation presented to the National Assembly of Quebec regarding the integration of immigrants into the French-speaking culture, can the minister say what consultations were held between the two levels of government on this matter?
1964

December 11, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations between the officials in the respective departments of immigration in connection with co-operative action which might be taken to improve our immigration practices and procedures and to improve the way in which immigrants are received when they enter Canada.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Can the minister say if this new policy of refusing immigrants admission into 19 medical and technical corporations unless they have a working knowledge of French applies to immigrants coming to Quebec under the auspices of the federal department of immigration?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the problem to which the hon. member refers, but I will be glad to look into it.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a further supplementary question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for a further supplementary question in just a moment. Will the hon. member kindly allow me to suggest to hon. members that I will again seek their co-operation at the beginning of the question period so that we will have no difficulty at the end.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, is the government aware of the comment of the Quebec Minister of Immigration that any interference from Ottawa could lead to confrontation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Since this is not his duty day in the House and as this is an important question, I will direct it to the Prime Minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Is it an important question?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Good morning.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I am waiting for quiet. In view of the breakdown of negotiations in the General Motors labour dispute which occurred yesterday, will the federal government immediately offer its mediation services and any other help which might be useful in order to bring this very long and costly strike, which has resulted in hardship for the families of the strikers and a setback for the economy, to a very rapid end?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing that the Minister of Labour likes more than being helpful in this kind of situation-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -but of course this is a strike under provincial jurisdiction. I do not know if the hon. member is suggesting that we should interfere in the business of the government of Ontario in this strike.


George Harris Hees: I am suggesting that the government should offer any help that might be useful, because this is a matter of national importance and it is of great national importance that this strike should be brought to a quick end.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I understand the suggestion but I imagine it is addressed to the government of Ontario. If it wants our support, we will of course gladly give it.



GENERAL MOTORS-IMPORTATION OF CARS FROM UNITED STATES WHILE CANADIAN EMPLOYEES STILL ON STRIKE

Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: In view of the deadlock in the negotiations to settle the General Motors strike, would the government reassess its decision not to prohibit General Motors from importing automobiles from the United States for the duration of this strike?



BARLEY-PRICE SPREAD BETWEEN DELIVERIES TO COUNTRY ELEVATORS AND FEED MILLS

Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister who is responsible for the Wheat Board. Since western farmers delivering barley to country elevators are receiving 30 cents per bushel less than they would receive for the same product delivered to feed mills, what action is the government taking to ensure that farmers are not financially penalized by placing barley in export position?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I should like to welcome the hon. member to the House. Farmers, of course, may deliver their barley to feed mills to the extent that there is demand for that barley at the prices which are offered. As an alternative, in most cases they deliver their barley to the Wheat Board under the Wheat Board marketing system. I would be interested to know if the hon. member is suggesting that he is opposed to the Wheat Board marketing system.



ABILITY OF FARMERS TO DELIVER TO ELEVATORS

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration who is also

December 11, 1970

responsible for the wheat board. The other day the minister suggested that the wheat board system will take in 250 million bushels, thereby saving the cost of storage under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. Since there is an approximate capacity of 550 million bushels in the country and terminal elevators, under the grain policy announced by the minister is it the case that farmers will not be able to deliver grain even though space is available in the elevators?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, a number of times I have expressed the hope that the elevators be kept from that very full level which prevents them operating efficiently and effectively and that the amount of grain in the system should be the amount required for genuine marketing reasons. There will, of course, be less wheat in the system than there has been for a long time. At the same time, there will be much more need in the system for space for handling the very large quantities of barley and rapeseed moving forward to export markets.


Stanley James Korchinski: As the elevator system will not accommodate 300 million bushels, and taking $1 per bushel as the average price for barley and other grains, what suggestion has the minister to offset this $300 million loss which will affect the total economy of the Prairies?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that the kind of statement he seeks from the minister ought normally be made on motions.


Stanley James Korchinski: Because of the fact there will be a loss of approximately $300 million to the western economy, is the government contemplating any other policy to cover this loss?


Otto Emil Lang: The hon. member's premise is completely wrong, Mr. Speaker. He insists on continuing to forget and ignore barley and rapeseed.



ABOLITION OF TEMPORARY WHEAT RESERVES ACT

Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, December 4, as recorded at page 1755 of Hansard, I directed the following question to the minister in charge of the wheat board:
Mr. Speaker, could the minister advise the House what the estimated savings to the government would be this year by abolishing the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act?
The minister replied.
Not at this point in time but I probably could obtain some figures for the hon. member.
Does the minister now have these figures?


Otto Emil Lang: Not yet. Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS



REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT COMMITMENT RESPECTING PENSIONS TO EXPEDITE HOUSE BUSINESS

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I am asking this question on behalf of the Government House Leader who is anxious to have certain items of business dealt with before the Christmas recess. Is the government considering making a commitment concerning CNR pensions along the lines recommended unanimously by the House?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: In
view of the preamble to the hon. member's question, I presume I ought to discuss this with the House Leader. As the hon. member knows, such a commitment on the part of the government at this time would be inappropriate in view of the fact that the pension issue is among those being discussed by the unions and the railroad in the current bargaining sessions. I stated to the House previously, and I repeat, that I have formally advised Canadian National Railways of the unanimous concurrence of the House in the report. I feel that it would be appropriate to see what changes emerge from the bargaining session now under way.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the government only advised the CNR of the unanimous decision of the House or is it talking to the CNR in plain language?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
* *
*



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker I
should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Since several intermediate bodies would like the federal government to set up a committee made up of members of all parties in the House, in order to determine exactly the causes of the FLQ movement and the troubles which occurred in Quebec, does the government intend to accede to that request?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, such a request has not been referred to me. If it were submitted I would consider it, but I do not see a priori why we should accede to it. The causes of the FLQ come under the police which makes the investigations in that field or under the political and social order. In my opinion, nobody can be better acquainted with the facts than those who have been elected by the people.
1966

December 11, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry



FINANCE


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: I have a question for
the Minister of Finance. In view of the great uncertainty on the part of business and commerce and their plans for future expansion as a result of the white paper on taxation, when does the minister expect to introduce legislation' for tax changes based on that document?


Edgar John Benson: In the spring budget, Mr. Speaker. I might clarify my answer. The spring budget will include tax reform but not necessarily the entire contents of the white paper.



HOUSING

[Stage Direction]
action to increase construction of public housing
__INCENTIVES IN NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Si. Barbe):: have a question for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. Wh11 e statistics indicate progress in housing starts in the low-cost sector, will the minister advise if anything is being done in co-operation with the provinces to step up production in the area of public housing where the needs remain acute in many parts of the country?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: During 1969 and 1970 the federal commitment to public housing will have had the effect of doubling the whole stock of public housing in two years compared with the previous activities of some 25 years. That emphasis will continue into 1971 and beyond. In addition, we have offered to the provinces of participation the idea of acquiring from existing stock through long-term lease accommodation for which we will share in terms of public housing subsidies. In this way, they win be in the position of not having to wait for new building production or provide capital investment.


Jack Marshall: In view of the high cost of construction in the province of Newfoundland, which is causing delays in providing this type of housing, will the minister consider incentives for the construction industry in the province in order to create an impetus to overcome the serious shortage?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, we embarked on that in an exploratory way this year. We will certainly continue discussions with the provincial government of Newfoundland and any members of the industry who are willing to sit down with us to see what can be done in this field.
Mr John Gilberl (Broadview): A supplementary question. Does the minister think that spending 60 cents per capita on public housing is sufficient to meet public housing needs?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



POST OFFICE


Robert Lorne Stanfield: have a question for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the post office. It arises from the emphasis placed upon improved postal services by the Senate committee. Does the minister specifically propose having the post office return to Saturday deliveries in view of the importance attached to this by the Senate committee in connection with a vigorous press in Canada?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, we found the Davey report very interesting. The department is now examining the part of the report that concerns it and, in fact, I think the question is a little premature. We shall be able to reach conclusions once we have studied the matter.



MONTREAL-DISCUSSIONS WITH FORMER EMPLOYEES OF G. LAPALME INCORPORATED

Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Considering the answer the minister gave last week to the effect that the file on the employees of G. Lapalme Inc. had not been shelved, could he say whether there were negotiations in Ottawa this week and whether those former Lapalme employees can still hope to be hired by his department?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: This is a very delicate matter, Mr. Speaker. There have been no meetings with former employees of G. Lapalme Inc. for two weeks when they were offered something for the Christmas season. We hope to meet with them soon.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I wish to address a question to the President of the Treasury Board. Has Treasury Board approved or does it have before it for approval any increase in the cost of construction of the satellite Anik from the bid submitted by Hughes Aircraft which the government accepted in the amount of $30 million?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman perhaps does not appreciate the fact that the construction of and arrangements for the launching of the satellite are carried out by a Crown corporation. Questions regarding changes in cost would have to be directed to, and information obtained from, that corporation.
December 11, 1970


David Lewis: I do not appreciate that the President of the Treasury Board cannot give this kind of information. The matter may not come before Treasury Board, but is the President of the Treasury Board aware of any requested increase?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any increase. As I indicated, the role of the federal government in respect to this matter is to scrutinize and to approve an annual capital budget for the corporation. Control of that budget rests with the corporation. They are the ones who negotiate and agree to, or otherwise, price changes.



NATIONAL SECURITY


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether or not any consideration has been given to or allocation made of the reward which was undertaken to be provided by the federal and provincial governments to anyone giving information in connection with the Cross or Laporte cases. In view of the fact that Mr. Cross' whereabouts were found, is any reward being considered for those who gave the information that led to the discovery of the kidnappers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I must say frankly that I know of no such reward having been paid. May I go on to say that if I did I do not see how the House could expect me to take it into my confidence. Obviously if a reward is paid as a result of information given by some of the associates in the crime, it would be undesirable to have their colleagues in crime know that they had been informed upon, and I doubt whether it would be in the public interest for the government to reveal such information.


John George Diefenbaker: I must say, Mr. Speaker, the argument advanced by the Prime Minister is very ingenious. I am not asking for the identity of the individuals who received the reward; I asked whether or not consideration has been given to making a payment. In view of the evasiveness of the right hon. gentleman's first answer, I am led to ask a second question. Were any other police officers or members of the secret service participants in the search for the whereabouts of Mr. Cross other than members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the provincial police of Quebec or the city police of Montreal?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I know of no other police forces. The armed forces, of course, assisted greatly in various parts of this operation. I must take exception to the hon. member's allegations about my being evasive in answering his previous question. I assure him that I was not evasive. I told him quite frankly not only that I thought it would be against the public interest to say whether or not a reward had been paid but that I felt the
Inquiries of the Ministry
names of the persons to whom a reward might be paid should not be disclosed either.


John George Diefenbaker: What is being hidden now?



FISHERIES


Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In view of the minister's press release yesterday which indicated that it has been determined by the Fisheries Research Board that activity of foreign fleets through overfishing has seriously decimated our fishing stocks, what immediate action is the minister proposing to take to protect our inshore fishermen?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I have outlined several times in the House the steps that we are taking. We are describing what we regard as sound conservation practice, and bilateral discussions are being had with certain countries. We are working through the North Atlantic Fisheries Commission, which is our main hope, and we are preparing a strong submission to the next Law of the Sea Conference sponsored by the United Nations which may be held in 1972.



INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MARINE RESOURCES

John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the minister of external affairs and some members of our Canadian delegation at the United Nations feel that it might take five years for an international Law of the Sea Conference to be held, would the minister be prepared to approach other members of the cabinet in order to try to convene an international conference on marine resources, sponsored by Canada, perhaps within the next year, year and a half or two years?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am not as pessimistic as the hon. member; I believe there will be a Law of the Sea Conference in 1972.


Mr. Janies A. McGrath (St. John's East):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the seriousness of the matter alluded to in the minister's statement, is he prepared to use his initiative to convene an extra special conference of ICNAF to discuss conservation solely?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the next meeting of ICNAF will be in the spring, and we will certainly be stressing the findings of our Fisheries Research Board at that time.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

December 11, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will allow a further supplementary, but I would bring it to the attention of hon. members that I see at least 30 members and there are only five minutes remaining in the question period.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the minister of fisheries. Is the minister giving any thought to implementing the scientific and technical arm of NATO in order to bring this serious problem of overfishing to the attention of member countries in the hope of alleviating this problem?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but I do not think it will have much effect on the Russians, the Poles and the East Germans who are not members of NATO.



INDUSTRY


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Did the government of Ontario consult the federal government before it appointed a royal commission to investigate the problems of the Canadian book publishing industry, and does the federal government intend to take any complementary action relative to this and other recent related developments?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Not me, Mr. Speaker, but the study done by my department on this industry was provided to the Ontario government. We are still looking at this industry and have set up an interdepartmental group to look at ideas that could be developed to help the printing industry. I might add that one of the things that could be done is for the United States to amend its copyright act which would be very helpful to the Canadian industry, and in this regard a number of representations have been made by the government of Canada to the government of the United States.



HOUSING


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for housing and urban affairs. When the minister speaks of giving the citizen the opportunity to choose, does he mean that his department is considering giving more importance to rent subsidization programs? If so, when are such programs to be announced?


Robert Knight Andras: As
I indicated a few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, we have offered to all provinces federal participation in rent supplements, under which they could acquire existing accommodation under a bulk lease or purchase arrangement. This would obviate the necessity for producing new housing accommodation. Rent supplement has been a standing offer for at least the last two years, an offer which has not been taken up by any province to any extent. One of the problems is that adequate housing stock in that general area which would be available to people of a certain income does not exist. So we have to produce stock as well as make the offer of rent supplementation.



AIR CANADA


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay Wesi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Did Air Canada discuss with the transport department the government's policy on sonic booms before it placed orders for a number of very costly supersonic transport planes?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the latter part of the hon. member's question is incorrect; orders have not been placed in that sense of the word. Air Canada has purchased what is known in the industry as a queue position. It has made no firm decision on the purchase of SST's, nor is it likely to do so for some time to come. Therefore the rest of the question is not relevant in that sense. But I will say to the hon. member that Air Canada has held discussions with us regarding the so-called sonic boom problem and, in fact, within approximately the last week has decided to make a contribution, together with the Ministry of Transport, to further research on an international basis on the matter of the sonic boom and related problems.



POLLUTION


Mr. Gaefan J. Serre (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry relating to a question which I asked yesterday concerning the derailment of sulphuric acid tank cars near Sudbury, and the resultant threat from the spilling of this acid into the Pickerel River. Can the minister advise whether the situation is now under control?


John (Jack) Davis: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker, it is under control.
ILater;1


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (Soulh Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to one directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry earlier. In view of the apparent conflict in the reports which have appeared as to the real danger of pollution as a result of the train derailment, can the minister tell the House how long the danger will exist?

December 11, 1970


John (Jack) Davis: The reports I have received from the area indicate that the sulphuric acid is being contained and neutralized. There is no evidence of fish kill. However a diversion of water from the French River is also being arranged to dilute the acid if further escapements should occur.



WHEAT-PAYMENTS UNDER ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM

Mr. A. C. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Will he assure the House today that the cheques for the first and second payments in respect of the LIFT program will be mailed to recipients before Christmas, as this affects many farmers in the west?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not likely that all of the final Lift program payments will be in the mail before Christmas. The office is processing these as quickly as possible but it will certainly be well into the month of January, according to the latest report, before they will be mailed.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has not allowed supplementary questions for the last few minutes. A number of members have been denied this opportunity. Perhaps the question might be pursued on Monday.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry arising from a statement from the Pacific region office of his department regarding the appointment of Blake A. Campbell to the Indian Fishermen's Development Board. In view of the fact it indicates that Mr. Campbell is secretary of a committee investigating wage and price disputes in the fishing industry, I should like to ask whether this body is just a paper tiger, and if not what has it done since November, 1964, when it issued a summary review of information-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question can be placed on the "tiger" order paper.



POLLUTION


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In view
Regional Development Incentives Act of the Reuters report this morning that the Soviet parliament has just approved an anti-pollution measure which provides for criminal proceedings against anyone found guilty of causing pollution, can the minister say whether it will be the policy of the new department of the environment to use the powers of the Criminal Code to enforce new pollution laws?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether this question involves legal opinion. However, I understand that the Criminal Code underlies certain clauses in the Canada Water Act. If that is so, the answer is yes.



FISHERIES


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In view of the assurances the House has received from the minister that certain industries which have been causing mercury pollution in Manitoba waters have now stopped dumping mercury, can he say whether the regulation which prohibited the marketing of certain species of commercial fresh-water fish from these waters will be lifted for this winter's fishing season? If not, when does the minister feel this order can be lifted?


John (Jack) Davis: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker, it will not be lifted.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, December 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Marchand (Langelier) that Bill C-205, to amend the Regional Development Incentives Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development.
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to comment on Bill C-205 because it has a particular effect on my province and especially on my district. I probably should have said that it could have had a particular effect on my district because so far, other than the odd dribble of funds-some $11,000 to a firm to expand a vegetable packing plant, a grant to a hockey stick factory which was later not accepted, and a grant to establish a sawmill operation-there has not been too much economic or employment advantage which I have seen. It is obvious that the serious unemployment situation, which my col-

December 11, 1970
Regional Development Incentives Act league, the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan), brought forcefully to the attention of the House yesterday bears out the fact that the whole program is not having the effect that was so loudly proclaimed by the minister last year.
My main objection to the administration of the regional development incentives plan is the lack of consideration for those people who would benefit by such a plan but who cannot participate. Who knows better what is best for an area or a region than the local people who should benefit? Even though the minister has proclaimed loudly and clearly that the program would not be successful unless every level of government were involved, these people at the grass roots level are being completely ignored.
The over-all regional development plan is not succeeding because both top levels of government, federal and provincial, are dictating what will happen instead of co-ordinating and consulting with the local level of government which knows the particular area and what is best for its development. The regional development plan has discouraged local governments from participating rather than encouraging them to forward their ideas to develop the resources of their regions. The words "participation, involvement" and "dialogue" are empty because this government, and the supposed experts who are charged with formulating a plan, are committing communities, areas and regions on the basis of what comes from a book rather than on the basis of what concerns the human beings who are to be helped.
I have experienced many examples of local firms with the necessary initiative and experience in respect of local needs being turned down for incentive grants, primarily because of technical rules and regulations. It is difficult to imagine that those making the decisions are even human. Sometimes I think there are robots in the regional development incentives branch rather than qualified human beings. This is difficult to understand.
I find it difficult to understand this whole area of government loans and grants. We have the Small Businesses Loans Act. Just try to get a loan under this act in Newfoundland, unless you have enough security to indicate that you do not need a loan of that type. Initiative and experience do not mean anything in my province in the consideration which leads to its granting of loans to small secondary industries which could spring up across the province creating employment opportunities. Outside exploiters can come into the province with guarantees handed out by the provincial government. This only creates a decrease in the morale of small businessmen who could create the lifeline of our economy.
We have the Industrial Development Bank, another government agency which guarantees loans. Do not try to get a loan from this bank unless you are prepared to wait for years of investigation, and even then one has to provide not only his assets as security, but those of his family as well. One also has to accept certain restrictions which tend to destroy his initiative and morale. I feel there is some progress being made in this regard. In last
night's paper I noticed an indication that Newfoundland was obtaining a few more loans, but more impetus must be developed in respect of grants and loans in order to develop the province of Newfoundland which is so badly in need of an incentive grants policy. I believe the industrial incentives grants policy has missed the whole concept of what should be the proper aims and objectives, of such a policy deprived areas. It should provide incentives for those with initiative and business ability. But this government has failed to realize what incentive means, and those to whom these incentives should be directed are not able to contribute to the buildup of the economy of their own area.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
Let me give you some examples, Mr. Speaker, of the weaknesses in both the over-all development process and the incentive grants. One small firm in the city of Corner Brook employs each year between November and May some 200 people in the herring industry. This firm is gradually improving its facilities under great difficulty because of a lack of expansion capital. Last year it applied for an incentives grant and was turned down on the technicality that it had already committed itself to ordering equipment under section 9 (1). The proprietor of the firm wished to expand by installing new, modern equipment which had to be ordered from Germany six months in advance so that it would be available for the herring industry in the Fall. Yet he was refused the grant on the ground that he could have attained his objective without the help of the grant. It is admitted that the applicant was able to find the money elsewhere, but this method of financing restricted him to the point where he was unable to expand to the extent of employing many more people.
May I give another example of frustration? The owner of an electrical firm showed me thousands of dollars worth of orders he had to turn down because of the procrastination of the department in establishing a grant for the expansion of his small plant. I could cite many other examples of businessmen with initiative and business sense who were thwarted in their attempts to establish new industry in line with the province's natural resources because of a lack of flexibility in the act and the hardnosed decisions of the agency which fails to realize that one of the basic concepts necessary for the success of the plan is the encouragement of people to participate in the development of their area.
Let us look at the statistics in respect of Newfoundland for the first year. Out of almost $80 million in grants in Canada, Newfoundland received some $845,000, with a prospective employment figure of 360. This is a projected figure. So, after one year of operation, the plan has not been too effective where the need is greatest. Of the 11 grants to Newfoundland, eight were for the fishing industry, one was for electrical products and another was for the dairy products industry.
I am sure the government cannot brag about this effort. The mechanical application of this program instead of a

December 11, 1970

human and commonsense application points up the failure of the government to comprehend the objectives of an incentives policy. I have said many times in this House and in my province that the establishment of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion was the most important step taken by this government in many years. I had faith in this department because it appeared that the power it had to inject funds into provinces with areas of regional disparity was just what was needed to create job opportunities. More particularly, it was just what was needed to aid the over-all development of the Atlantic regions, specifically the Province of Newfoundland.
Last year, through the co-operation of the regional development committee on request of the Newfoundland members, the members of the committee were able to visit some areas of the province to see the needs at firsthand. Every member on the committee, including those from the other side of the House, agreed that the trip was worthwhile and indicated to the minister responsible their support for development assistance. In my district alone, some 15 briefs were presented because the people hoped the briefs would be considered, that there would be further consultation and that results would be forthcoming. Here, a year later, the many local development organizations and the town and community councils are still in the dark concerning whether or not their ideas and plans will be taken into consideration. I encouraged these organizations to become involved and to submit their ideas and plans for development. I told them to have faith in the department because I had faith in it. But I can tell you now, Mr. Speaker, I am disillusioned just as I know these citizens who want to help the government are disillusioned because the department does not care about the people it should be helping. The words flow easily from the experts, Mr. Speaker-"equality of opportunity"; we want you to become involved"; "we want you to participate"-but they are empty words, because after being in existence for two years the results from this department are negligible.
The only way in which I can see the past mistakes being overcome is by the provision of flexibility. More attention must be paid to the natural resources of the region and a co-operative plan must be thought out, with the participation of the people at the grass roots level, to develop these resources. Such action must be encouraged through grants. The advisory board concept might be the answer, because under the original plan the Atlantic Development Board was much closer to the basic needs of a particular region and produced good results by instilling impetus into the development. I also feel that development incentives should be broadened to include the service industry, small businesses in the retail and wholesale area, and tourism, especially in the Atlantic regions. More scope should be given to the marketing potential of our fishing, agricultural and forest products in the Province of Newfoundland. Each region should be looked at separately with a view to the development of its potential. More infrastructural support must be given to the areas which can be developed through an orderly and commonsense buildup so that they can attain the
Regional Development Incentives Act objectives of both creating employment opportunity for the people in the immediate area and, just as important, improving the living, educational and recreational aspects
of their everyday life.
As my colleague the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) stated yesterday, the members of the regional development committee will closely scrutinize the proposed amendments in Bill C-205. Probably during that phase of the exercise we may be able to impress on the minister and the officials of his department the important factors connected with the granting of regional development incentives which heretofore have been overlooked as a result of the mechanical process adopted. 1 still have some faith in the regional development plan and hope we can overcome the shroud of secrecy which exists between those who are responsible for its implementation and those to whom it is directed. Probably with a meeting of intelligent minds we can come up with a plan which will be to the advantage of the too many unemployed of Canada.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, we are now amending the Regional Development Incentives Act which was passed in 1968-69. This really is a concept which has been with us for a considerable period of time, dating back to the old area development incentives legislation. This is one of the ways in which I think most Members of Parliament believe slow growth, underdeveloped, distressed and high-unemployment areas can be assisted. For this reason, there is considerable interest in this legislation. I think, however, that even the minister would agree that in relation to what has been done, what could be done or what was anticipated would be done, much is left to be desired. I have always been concerned about the fact that the government seems to believe that by holding out a carrot everything will be well. This has been done in many fields. We find that there are periods of high employment and periods of low employment, and when there is a period of low employment or high unemployment the government comes up with instant solutions which really do not turn out to be instant solutions and which in many cases are very costly.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
At the time the original Act was before us, when a similar type of incentive was applied for a period of time, a number of concepts were discussed which I think will have to be reconsidered. For this reason, I do not believe this bill will do very much to improve some of the basic concepts.
It has been mentioned that one of the problems we are facing in Canada is that, in the main, we operate branch plants of U.S. companies. There has probably never been a country-whether it be a colony in various states of development or an independent nation-in which a foreign power has exercised so much economic control as is the case in Canada. In some of the industries foreign control is almost 100 per cent, and only in a few industries is the control of the Canadian government evident. I think that this, in itself, raises a major consid-
2356a-54

December 11, 1970
Regional Development Incentives Act
eration because in many cases this incentive program is being used to further develop U.S. control of our industry and of our economy.
A short time ago, I spoke to a young fellow who had only recently entered the industrial field. He pointed out that the company for which he works is in serious trouble, and he expects it may have to be sold to a U.S. corporation. One of the reasons for this difficulty is that when they make a fairly reasonable profit in Canada and the money is deposited in a bank in Montreal, the parent company in the United States phones up and asks how much money they have in the bank. As soon as the parent company knows how much money there is, it issues a draft. Then, when the company in Canada needs to expand into several industrial fields for which they have the necessary capability, staff and knowledge, they are not able to do so simply because the money is not available. The young fellow asked his manager very naively "why do we not apply for an incentive grant and build a plant?" Right now this company operates a small plant in Ancaster employing 12 or 15 people. I understand the 12 or 15 people will have to be laid off because that operation is closing down as it is in need of modernization and improvement. If it closes down, obviously 15 or 20 people will be out of work. Obviously, this company does not need this type of grant to keep it operating in Ancaster because it has made a fairly sizeable profit over its period of operation. However, because it is controlled by a U.S. company which has decided that the commodity which this plant produces is no longer necessary in Canada, it is going to close down.
It seems to me that if the government is really interested in solving the problem, they should not bend to political direction, as the minister said, but should make a firm decision as to the direction which the Canadian economy should take. There should be an over-all scheme which would accomplish that purpose. I am well aware of the fact that if we enact a regulation that money should not be transferred to U.S. corporations, the result would be as the minister predicted in the committee. If a company wanted to locate in Newfoundland, where there is a great need for industry, and that type of incentive were not given, the company might decide to locate in Toronto. It is time this government made up its mind where they want industry to locate. Certainly, the country cannot afford to have new industry locating in Toronto just because it wants to be close to the market. We will have to make a decision on where industry goes. England has been making such decisions for a long time.
I have used the example of the Ford Company which wanted to build a new factory in Coventry, but the government would not allow them to do this. They were told that there were insufficient schools and municipal facilities in Coventry and a preferable location for the plant would be further north. The government told them "our economy has changed; the textile industry in the suggested area is no longer viable and all the necessary facilities are available, so that is where the industry should go". The government did not give Ford a permit
to build in Coventry. In England they operate on a permit system and you do not pay taxes on undistributed profits but you cannot use this money for expansion without a permit. If you do not locate in the right place to meet the needs of the total economy, you are not granted a permit.
What we have done in this country is to go around holding out a carrot. I come from an area which is desperately in need of secondary industry because, as the years have gone by, our primary industry has changed. I am thinking right now of the small community of Cobalt, which eight or ten months ago had 12 or 14 mines operating. Now, there is only one in that area. There is a smelter in that area which is operating sufficiently competently for the United States to be sending to it boxcar loads of coins for reprocessing into silver ingots. It is one of the most efficient plants of its kind on the continent, and can compete with any other plant of its kind in existence. By-products come to that plant from other mining industries in that area, and some of its production goes to Norway for processing and some of it goes to a U.S. plant somewhere in Montana. The processing could take place here in Canada if the government had some control over industry. The government has always played a role in this particular operation because silver ingots from the plant come directly to the Mint in Ottawa.
This plant has been operating off and on, first in Deloro and now in Cobalt, and it has had its ups and downs. Some of the silver producers have found that they have had to ship to the United States because the product could not always be handled in Canada. Yet, with the co-operation of the provincial and federal governments, the plant could expand very extensively into a smelter operation to process many of the rarer minerals, that are now not reclaimed in any other area in Canada. This could be done fairly easily and would allow a margin for by-products from base metals which presently come from Sudbury, from International Nickel which at present cannot be processed in Canada. We could very easily develop secondary industry to use some of the reclaimable by-products from such a smelter. In fact there are a number of things the government could do, but it seems to me that the minister of regional disparity has done exactly what he said he would not do.
* (12:30 p.m.)
If one reads the committee reports of a year ago, one will find the minister was very much opposed to the idea of the regional development program being used to provide government control. In effect he said, "We are only going to assist certain plants in certain areas, because if we expand the program so it is national in scope and covers everything in the country, this will defeat its purpose." Now, I understand it is intended to include the city of Montreal within the ambit of the program and it, along with cities like Toronto, was one that the minister was very vehement in saying could not be designated because that would defeat the purpose of the program. No one is opposed to incentive grants as such. No one is

December 11, 1970

opposed to the principle of each job that provides employment, particularly new employment having a cost factor. But I think we have been given a lot of malarky over the last five or six years about the development of our industrial incentive program.
Originally, we decided we would designate areas that obviously could benefit greatly from secondary industry. Then, we developed the idea of slow growth areas. Now, we are saying that anyone who wants to build a factory, and who can meet the criteria, even if he is establishing in one of our major cities, will be able to take advantage of the program.
There is another matter that has concerned me with respect to the department. No doubt there have been a lot of personality problems. Originally, we established the Department of Industry, which has become the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, with some of its responsibilities being transferred to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, and during that time we drew together a body of people fully suited for the job that should be done. Many of them, however, have become dissatisfied, and a number of them have quit. There has been much transferring of personnel in both departments. Some of the blame for this should fall on Parliament itself. If we were able to develop the expertise, but were not able to get full value from the program, the value which we anticipated, part of the responsibility must fall on Parliament. For that reason, this kind of amending bill is not satisfactory. Sure, you give $12 million more. So what? Big deal! If we apply the incentive program to Montreal, so what? Big deal! If we apply it to South Shore and Cornwall-big deal! There is no suggestion that they should not get the advantage of it. Maybe every city and town in Canada should get that advantage. Maybe it should apply right across the board.
I am not opposed to that, but I think that as a Parliament we should decide what we want to accomplish.
I think there are two things that people want in regional development. The first is that they wish to decentralize industry. They want to provide something for communities that are in a period of flux, whether they be one-time farm communities, or mining communities where the mining industry is defunct, or industrial areas where because of technological change there is great unemployment. Certainly, the industrial development program should aid such communities but, Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no advantage in moving people from one area to another area in which they will also find themselves unemployed, and where they will be unable to cope with their changed environment. People who are moved leave behind them assets that they and their parents spent a lifetime developing. They may move into a new area where they cannot be assimilated, and where they will incur fantastic expense to develop an equality, in the social amenities comparable with those which they had in the community they left.
Anyone who suggests that our present system, under which young people in the mid-Canada corridor are trained only to go to the city of Toronto to become displaced persons, to become the unemployed and the
23568-54*
Regional Development Incentives Act
disadvantaged, is good must be pretty stupid. Yet that is what we are doing.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, even the Liberal party, undemocratic as it is-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Arnold Peters: Even the Liberal party, as indicated by the resolutions at its recent convention, was of the opinion that we must do something about Canadian ownership and Canadian direction of our industry. I say that is undemocratic, Mr. Speaker, because the convention does not relate to the Liberal cabinet benches. It does not relate to the backbenchers of the party when they stand up and vote, because they will vote as one voice. A backbencher in the Liberal party is only here to vote-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: I say that, Mr. Speaker, knowing full well as I look across at the Liberal benches that those members are just as smart as anybody else in the House; they are just as capable as anybody else in this House. They participate in committees and express the views of their constituents in those committees. They make suggestions in private that express the views of their constituents, but when they stand up in this House they vote exactly the way the cabinet wants them to do. They disregard their own points of view. They disregard the constituents they represent. As a result, Mr. Speaker, we are getting pretty poor legislation. One year ago we passed the main incentives Act. Now, we are amending it in some specifics. Mr. Speaker, we are interested in developing Canadian industry. We are interested in having control of our Canadian economy. I am quite sure most of my colleagues in this party will agree that they do not have all the answers. I do not think anybody has all the answers, but we should put our heads together and decide on ways to regain control of our economy.
This is not something which is held as desirable by one particular party or group. The Canadian public are in favour of achieving this, and they are looking to Parliament in order to get control of Canadian industrial development. One of the ways we can create industry is through the incentives Act. We are providing a carrot to industries to expand, to create employment, and we will provide the carrot almost any place.
The minister used a couple of examples in committee. I would like to refer to one of them, McCain Industries Ltd. The minister pointed out that McCain's does not need money. I am not sure why it does not need money. It is true that its plants and factories are fairly well developed. From my limited knowledge of New Brunswick, I think most of the development there has been by McCain Industries Limited. They have been well treated by that province but they are competent people and have done an excellent job. The company was faced with a decision about whether to move into the Boston market for frozen potato chips and they decided to do it. The government was involved in determining whether the

December 11, 1970
Regional Development Incentives Act plant to produce the potato chips should be established in the United States close to the market or in Canada. In this case, I think the incentive program worked as well as it has in any project. It has been explained that there was no reason why we should have had to pay these people that money because they were capable of getting it themselves, but I am not objecting to that. The resource was already there, so we were helping a secondary industry.
[DOT] (12:40 p.ra.)
How can this minister, who is a provincialist and 1 suppose a nationalist, justify the decision taken in the province of Ontario to provide the maximum grant in two cases to Texas Gulf, an American corporation?


An hon. Member:: Shameful.


William Arnold Peters: This corporation has more money than the government of Canada. If Texas Gulf wanted to buy the government they probably could-in fact, they have and we are paying them for it. The Ontario government, rather belatedly, decided that the smelter was going to be established in Canada, period. They did not go so far as to say it was going to be in Ontario but anyone using their head would not see much sense in moving it to Manitoba-unless Manitoba was going to give an immense grant as well. So, we were going to have that smelter somewhere in Canada because Ontario passed a law which, in effect, said: "If you do not put it in Canada, you are not going to put it any place. This is our mineral and we have the right to make that decision."
We could have used that money for other purposes, Mr. Speaker. This company does not need it. A smelter is not a mine of course, and it is not a resource, but it is certainly related. Here was a wonderful opportunity for the minister to say, "We will participate and build your smelter; never mind the grant. We will build it provided we control it and own it or we will build half of it and get an equity in the plant because we are going to decide what to do with the material."
In Canada, we have control of all the nickel for the world through Sudbury. We have a smelter in Sudbury, and we could control most of the stainless steel of the world if we wished. We could control most of the fabrication involving nickel, which is expensive, in hundreds and hundreds of by-products. We could control this, Mr. Speaker, if we were willing to make the decision.
We will play around with this bill and pass it because the government members will feel that since cabinet introduced it they have to vote for it. Is it not time that we took a look at the over-all problem and decided we are going to put a similar smelter in the town of Cobalt, that it should be sufficiently developed so it can handle platinum and all the raw earth metals. It should be the only one in Canada because the minerals come from that area, then we will no longer need to send part of our raw material to Norway and other countries? Is it not time to make that decision? It is not a big decision that would cost immense amounts of money. I have no objection to

free enterprise operating that plant. I am not particularly interested in extending the civil service into the field of industry but I think it is time we decided where the plant should be, what it should be and, in fact, whether it is going to be.
Until we make these decisions, Mr. Speaker, we are going to chase the donkey all over the country with the carrot. We are going to go to some very odd places and get some odd results, but we are not really deciding we are going to have Canadian industry rather than foreign controlled industries.
In the committee hearings my colleague from Oshawa-Whitby mentioned Turkey and everybody laughed about it. I presume I laughed, too, because I do not know what they are doing in Turkey but he mentioned that country had decided it wanted 49 per cent control of its industry. We were concerned about using Turkey as an example because we are not too familiar with it, so let us take a better example.
In the field of resources, Japan is dealing extensively with this country yet it says that foreign countries going into Japan must be controlled by the Japanese. They must think we are idiots in Canada because we give them full control of any of our natural resources and allow those resources to be taken out of the country and processed in Japan. This creates so many jobs in that country that they require one million more workers. If Canada wanted to export the unemployed for the next year or so, they could go to Japan. I am quite sure they would work out some arrangement with us for such a program because they need the workers. And what would they be working at, Mr. Speaker? At the raw material bought from Canada for almost nothing because we, as Canadians, do not have the brains to decide to develop it in our own country.


Some hon. Members:: Right, right!


William Arnold Peters: We are going to sell all our material to another country and then that country will ask our people to go over there and work in their secondary industries so that they can make a profit.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


An hon. Member:: And sell the product back to us.


William Arnold Peters: Yes, and we will buy back the product. 1 am driving a Japanese car, Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Shame!


William Arnold Peters: They will sell the nuts and bolts and things that we should manufacture.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you buy a Canadian car?


William Arnold Peters: There is no Canadian car, Mr. Speaker. You are stupid enough, Mr. Speaker, to think I should go out and buy a Canadian car-there is no such animal.
December 11, 1970


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. Order. The Chair feels that perhaps the hon. member should rephrase that statement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I agree. You are not that stupid, Mr. Speaker.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I am not referring to you and I am not referring to the hon. member. Maybe it was an unfortunate word, but we do not seem to have the intelligence, Mr. Speaker, to realize that there is no Canadian car. We assemble cars here. The Volvo Company has a plant in the Maritimes. During the last election Liberals and Conservatives alike were screaming at me for driving a foreign car. This government supplied a lot of money for an assembly plant in Dartmouth to produce the Volvo I was driving. There is no such thing as a Canadian car, Mr. Speaker.
We could develop a Canadian car, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about that. Some very small countries have developed cars. We could develop one with a battery three times the size of the one in our cars now, because we need that. We could have the engine closed in at the bottom because of the snow, instead of the car that seems to be designed for Florida where there is no snow. We developed a snowmobile in this country which has proved excellent for recreation purposes. It has been great for industrial development, producing a number of plants employing a large number of people. But we have not produced a car, and yet we are one of the largest countries in the world and have a greater need for transportation. Transportation rates about the same as food and shelter in this country, yet we have not developed a car.
I suggest another bill will be introduced shortly, and I should like to see some major changes made. I should like to see this department abolished and the entire incentives program abolished.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: And the minister, too.


William Arnold Peters: I wish the government would again set up a department of industry. It ought to be divided into a number of subdepartments. The department of industry ought to be responsible at all times for the over-all development of industry in Canada. The subdepartments ought to be concerned about matters such as incentives. There ought to be a minister responsible for the Canadian content of goods manufactured. In that way, we could eventually decide how to regain control of our own industry and economy. Of course, the incentive program would allow us to gain control of our industry. We could introduce programs under which existing companies would carry on certain kinds of development. These companies have large amounts of accumulated capital. By writing in certain provisions into our income tax struc-
Regional Development Incentives Act ture, we could make sure that they spend that money for the development of industry in those areas where that is necessary.
The new department would also exercise some control over transportation, both by road and by rail. I keep hearing that nobody can go ten miles north of Toronto, because the transportation costs are too great. Driving within the city limits of Toronto is quite an experience for me. I do not see how it can be any more expensive when you get ten miles north of Toronto-but that is neither here nor there. Every conference I have attended in northern Ontario has alluded to the problem of transportation. The minister responsible for the new department also ought to have some say in the development of transportation. He ought to control the means of transportation that are available to certain areas and, if necessary, subsidize the operation of that transportation. He should, in so many words, "equalize" it. The T. Eaton Company did this 50 years ago, as did Simpsons. If you live in Moosonee, on James Bay, you can order any item out of the catalogue and pay exactly the same price you would pay in Toronto. Those companies have, in a manner of speaking, equalized their transportation costs. On entering an Eaton store in Toronto, I have often been surprised at not seeing the merchandise advertised in the catalogue. Nevertheless, that company is able to sell merchandise from the catalogue for the same price in different areas. If they can equalize their cost for goods sold from the catalogue, why can we not do something like that?
That sort of thing has not been done elsewhere because every little company has tried to make its own deal with the railroads and the trucking companies. If we had a department of industry such as I suggest, it could look after the interests of all industry in Canada, and perhaps it could work out a formula to equalize distances in this country. Of course, research will have to be done. The department will need to exercise control in this matter and say how this can be done, where it can be done and who is to do it. It will need to do its work through the issuance of licences and the introduction of incentives. It will need to make grants, and perhaps it will need to do. it under the aegis of public ownership. In many instances, the department will need to utilize the services of Crown corporations.
I know that some hon. members here are like a bunch of sheep.


An hon. Member:: Order.


William Arnold Peters: They look on Crown corporations as socialist tools. Let me tell them that there are quite a few Crown corporations in Canada, and we have never had a socialist federal government. Look at Polymer Corporation. When the Conservatives were in power, they tried to give Polymer Corporation away. Why did they do that, Mr. Speaker? Because it was successful and because it was making money. By developing synthetic rubber products in Canada, we were able to create in Canada the expertise that made secondary industries utilizing synthetic rubber possible. All that stemmed from Poly-

December 11, 1970
Regional Development Incentives Act mer Corporation. It has proved its worth. It has not been a costly venture; yet it was a venture that nobody, but nobody, wanted to take over. In my opinion, what it developed would not have been developed by anyone else in Canada. I will not go into the background of what it did for the war effort of Canada and the United Nations. I do not have time.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


William Arnold Peters: The public is aware that Canada is in
serious difficulty in terms of the direction which it should follow. We all know that when one of our companies wanted to sell trucks to Cuba-and we are dealing with Cuba-it could not, because the Canadian automobile manufacturer concerned was told by the directors of the parent company in the United States that there were to be no such sales. And why were there to be no such sales, Mr. Speaker? The parent company in the United States was afraid that if its Canadian subsidiary sold trucks to Cuba, the company would contravene the United States selling to the enemy act. The people of Canada were not fooled by this. They knew that the United States could stop the Ford Motor Company on this side of the border selling cars or trucks to Cuba. It is, therefore, obvious that the United States controls automobile production in Canada. It is true that we assemble and produce some vehicles as a result of the Canada-United States Automobile Agreement. Nevertheless, the important decisions are made in corporate boardrooms on the other side of the border.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, has some merit. It adds some money to the economy and extends the areas to be helped. The minister himself indicated, I think, that in some ways it is detrimental. Nevertheless, unemployment has spread. No longer is it contained in slow growth areas; it has spread to the major cities and we are attempting to fight it. I hope that we shall have an opportunity to examine these major problems when the bill goes to committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I feel a degree of sympathy for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) who is piloting this bill through the House. For a department such as his to be effective, there must be a degree of ministerial discretion. When a department has this discretion, it is subject to a good deal of criticism. The Department of Regional Eco-

nomic Expansion is different from the Department of National Revenue where everything is cut and dried. The Department of National Revenue is subject to legislation and regulations. In the event of an error, this can be easily cleared up by the courts.
I wish to draw some matters to the attention of the minister and the government. Incentives are a necessary part of regional economic expansion. On page two of the minister's news release, he outlines some of the principles he will endeavour to follow. The minister stated that there will be loan guarantees for money to establish new plants, as well as to expand and modernize existing plants in slow growth regions. He further stated that this will include some commercial operations that have not been considered before, such as providing convention, hotel and office facilities. This is all very well. However, with the diverse nature of the problems in this country, possibly too much emphasis is being put on industrialization. I suggest industrialization when necessary, but not necessarily industrialization.
Possibly industrialization incentives in areas such as Montreal, Hull and southeastern Ontario will be of some value, but in many areas of the Atlantic provinces where there is other potential, industry may not necessarily fill the role. The problems of Montreal and the problems of Newfoundland cannot be compared. To attempt to solve the problems of both these areas by industrialization might not work. I remember the time penicillin was discovered. It was certainly a great boon to mankind. It also benefited animals greatly. Although penicillin is very useful and effective when treating pneumonia and other infections, many amateur veterinarians administer penicillin to animals suffering from colic for which it is of no value. By primarily applying industrial incentives in this bill, the minister is acting in a similar manner to those who administer penicillin to treat every kind of problem.
The Minister has stated that Montreal, HuE and southeastern Ontario will become designated areas after the passage of this bill. I agree that these areas do have problems and may require assistance. But it was only a few months ago that a group from my area in Alberta wanted to start a rapeseed crushing plant in their community. God knows, Mr. Speaker, they need the support of additional industry, since people are leaving the farms and the economy is in great difficulty. This group formed an organization to pursue this idea, and it is still being pursued.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
I went to the minister's department to try to get some help for them, and I made what I thought was a legitimate request for assistance. However, I was told that this group could not get any funds because their area had not been designated and there would be no redesignation until 1972. I pointed out to the department that the need was there, and asked them why it was not possible to make a redesignation at this time. The minister's department replied that it was not possible to make a redesignation. As a result I was very disappointed to see that the minister's department has been prepared to redesignate other areas in Canada at will but has totally written off my area in this regard.
December 11, 1970

A great deal has been said about incentives and measures to improve the economy. I suppose this regional development bill can be related to last week's budget which contained measures designed to help certain areas of Canada. However, the government has been responsible for creating a great many deterrents to improving the economy. One of the strongest deterrents is the government's white paper proposals on tax reform published last year. Not much mention is made of it at the present time, and very little mention was made of it in the budget speech.
Public reaction to these proposals across the country is one of the chief reasons for the government now attempting to stimulate the economy through other measures. In a great many areas that have an uncertain business climate, many businesses have alleged that their tax position would be such that they would be unable to operate. If we could eliminate what I might call the threat of a tax disaster hanging over the heads of businessmen today, then many of these measures in regard to regional economic incentives would not be required. The continuing depression of the thirties was not so much the result of a lack of money in the business community as a depressive psychology on the part of the people. I think the same condition exists today, and until we eliminate this depressive psychology all the regional incentives in the world will be of very little value in improving the economy.
A word now about increased incentives and plant capacity. In last week's budget, the mini-budget or whatever it is called, mention was made of improved capital cost allowances. Plant capacity in Canada in many areas is now over-extended, so it is very hard to see how these additional incentives will improve the economy.
One cannot participate in a debate like this without mentioning economies of which the government itself should be more conscious. Many members of the House have suggested that taxation should be reduced. At the same time, they say we should improve our social security measures. The government says we simply cannot have both, and to a degree I think they are right. However, the question of economy in government itself receives insufficient attention. This is something that tends to be ignored, yet it is one of the greatest leaks of taxpayers' money that we have. I suggest that taxes are one of the largest disincentives to business. This may not be a very popular thing to say, but if you do want to stimulate business I suggest that tax cuts at the lower income level are not necessarily the answer. In order to get industry and business moving forward you must grant them tax concessions.
I think another disincentive to business is the current rate of the Canadian dollar. Today we are not in a very good export position, though I do not think we were in a very good position anyway. I feel that if the dollar rate were brought down again, this would do a great deal to stimulate business activity.
It was announced last week that the oil situation in the United States, as far as Canada is concerned, had improved. Much was made of this and of what a terrific
Regional Development Incentives Act bargaining job we had done. However, I think most people realized that it was simply the way the political situation in the Middle East, in North Africa and the Arab countries had developed that brought this about. On the other hand, I think it is almost inevitable that export markets for oil in the United States will improve; that the United States will be willing to take all the energy that we can supply them. Only yesterday I read in the newspaper that some manufacturing plants in the U.S. will have to shut down this winter because the available energy will be required to supply homes with heat and light. As I say, sales of energy to the United States are inevitable, and in this regard we are in a tremendous bargaining position.
If the United States is in trouble in regard to supply of energy, then it is up to us to negotiate with them about bringing manufacturing industries to Canada, and particularly to western Canada where there reside great resources of energy, such as natural gas and coal. It would be far more economical to establish industries in this kind of environment, in areas where they would not compete with homes for energy supplies. This is an area that to date we have not-I do not want to use the word exploited, because I am sure that is not the way most of us think of this-taken our bargaining position in relation to the supply of energy seriously.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
One of the major problems in respect of industry in Canada is low productivity. It seems that labour negotiations will never become simple in this country. We are to be faced with continued labour strikes. Union management consider business management as their enemies, and they feel they must take advantage to the greatest extent possible. I suggest that labour should have a piece of the action because there is nothing more depressing to an individual than to work in a factory at a forge or a punch press for 10 or 20 years. Nothing will result but despair and a revolt against the system.
If we are going to make everyone feel a part of Canada and ready to go ahead, we must incorporate some kind of incentive. This may have to be initiated by the government. Factory workers must have a part of the action. They should have the opportunity to participate in ownership rather than just profit-sharing. Profit-sharing is a good idea, but in order to involve these people I believe they should become shareholders. This is one area of an incentive program the government should not overlook. Perhaps this suggestion does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, but if we intend to continue the free enterprise system we must see that the factory workers, who are inclined to become disenchanted over the years, get part of the action. Otherwise, this system we treasure so much will not last.
Like so many other members, I have been disappointed in the role the agricultural industry has had to play in the development of our economy. There is very little mention of this area of our economy in the white paper on taxation. Certainly, there are no concessions given to

December 11, 1970
Regional Development Incentives Act agriculture. The program outlined by the minister in charge of the Wheat Board indicates there will be some payments made to western farmers and farmers in general. This amounts to some $100 million. There has been some suggestion that part of this money would be made available as a result of the rescinding of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. The minister has said we are not going to be storing as much grain, and that this storage will be reduced to about 250 million bushels. During the question period this morning, it was indicated that this would be about 300 million bushels less than the western storage capability, which is 400 million bushels, plus 150 million bushels in the terminals.
When we calculate this reduction in terms of dollars, we find that the farmers will actually be storing some 300 million bushels that will not be in the elevator system. They will not be paid for the 300 million bushels of grain. This will result in farmers having to borrow from the banks and other financial institutions. There should be some compensation in this regard, otherwise the farmers who are now in almost a bankrupt state will not be able to exist for another year.
The minister has pointed out that this deficiency will be offset to some extent by the production of barley and rapeseed, but this will not begin to fill the gap. The Lift program was supposed to put $140 million into the western economy. The last figures I have indicate that only $27 million has actually been paid to the farmers. Indications are that this will not be increased to any meaningful extent and this will cause a great deal of dissension across the country. The figures published by newspapers throughout Canada have indicated that the agricultural industry in western Canada is receiving $140 million under the Lift program and $100 million as a grant because of the rescinding of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. Most of the people in the country feel that western farmers are receiving a great deal of money, but the actual recipients know that the amount they are receiving is perhaps 25 per cent of the amount publicized in the newspapers. This is a very disappointing and destructive situation to those farmers in the west.
In southern Alberta, we have a designated area which includes Medicine Hat in the riding of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson). Approximately a month ago, the city of Red Deer sent a brief to the minister's office. A supporting brief was received from the town of Stettler. A comparison study was made in relation to the designation of Medicine Hat and the situation existing in Red Deer. The conclusion was that, if anything, Medicine Hat was better off than the undesignated areas. It is painful for me to say this, but I cannot help, but feel there is favouritism in respect of designation.
I do not wish to go on at length, Mr. Speaker, but I must draw attention to the fact that under the Regional Development Incentives Act the program has, as of September 30, 1970, produced an estimated 13,700 jobs at a cost of approximately $80 million. This works out to about $21,000 per job. I do not believe all the jobs created under this program will prove to be permanent. That is a high price to pay for so few jobs. If you relate
the 13,700 to the present number of unemployed people, now in the neighbourhood of 500,000 to the cost under this program so far, we would have to provide another $20 billion in order to have full employment. That huge amount of money would help only about two-thirds of our present unemployed. So, it would be impractical to say that we could really supply jobs and help everyone equitably through this department. I suggest we must look at these other areas which I named and bring about a special climate in which we would alleviate the burden imposed through taxation on the business communities. We should look at incentives from other areas rather than through the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. We should assess the whole scene in this manner, and then I think we might see the economy go ahead.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for South Western Nova.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Merci, monsieur TOrateur.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis-Roland Comeau: I have a couple of friends, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: There are more than two, Louis.


Louis-Roland Comeau: I hope so. Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in this bill because this is really the first opportunity Parliament has had to assess what has taken place in respect of regional development, and the policies and activities of this department within the regions. It is also our first opportunity to analyse the affect the department is having in particular areas of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, some say the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion has been given somewhat excessive powers. When the department was established, it was said that a little too much dictatorial power had been vested in him.
I completely disagree with that assertion. Considering the work he has accomplished since the department was set up two years ago, it can be seen that the minister does not have enough power, since he does not have sufficient authority to tell his colleagues in the Cabinet that some of their projects defeat the purposes of his department.

I think he should have a bit more power, because if he had a little more power he would be in a position to advise the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) in respect of inflation policies. He would be in a position to tell the other departments to stop fiddling around with what he is trying to do. Then, he would really be able to do a job in carrying out the objectives of his department.

December 11, 1970

People ask me what I think of the minister's department. Quite frankly, I do not have too many criticisms, other than the one I have just made. However, I believe it is a valid criticism. I tell people that the department provides a good deal of money to the manufacturing industries, but that really 1 cannot see any real progress being made. This is the complaint I have. The department does provide a good deal of money and does help industries in the sense that it provides loans and so on, but it really has not done its job in respect of some particular regions of Canada. I can speak for the Atlantic region because it is my area. The department really does not do much to help this area. It is my understanding that one objective of the department is to help this particular area.

I take this opportunity to congratulate the minister. He has created jobs, he has helped industry. But the fact remains that his department is much more concerned with lending money to industry than with trying to solve the problems of the various areas of Canada.

I am very pleased to see the clause relating to small businesses, because one complaint has been that small businesses have not been able to borrow money in the amounts they require. While they might have a legitimate reason to borrow, they have not been in a position to obtain, for example, $2,000 or perhaps $5,000. Small businesses sometimes need to be able to obtain a few thousand dollars. Under the present industrial incentives Act, the minimum amount which an older business may borrow for remodelling purposes is $30,000. I do not know, but as I read the minister's statement it would appear that the new act will be of some assistance to the tourist industry. I cite the remarks of the minister as recorded at page 1926 of Hansard for December 10:
We will now be required by the act to define the areas where the establishment or large commercial concerns can contribute considerably to the economic expansion of slow growth areas. For instance, this could mean administration buildings, stores, convention centres and hotels.
I take that to mean that the department is now willing to provide grants and loans to the tourist industry. I compliment the department and the minister upon that decision because the Atlantic provinces particularly- Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and New Brunswick-can really do something in the field of tourism. Therefore, it is important for the department to take into consideration the fact that this is an industry which requires assistance. Assistance in this form would provide employment and help the areas concerned. It is interesting to note that when the present act came into operation a year and a half ago, one of the things we suggested was that tourism was an industry and, therefore, should be helped in the same manner as the manufacturing industry is helped.
The complaint I have about the department is that it does not have a regional policy but appears to have a national development policy. As was pointed out by the
Regional Development Incentives Act hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and others in our party, it is my view that the department should really be concerned about assessing the needs of the various regions. Then, it would be in a position to provide loans and grants to particular regions. In this way, those regions would benefit and become viable.


James Aloysius McGrath: Give us back the Atlantic Development Board.


Louis-Roland Comeau: I will talk about the Atlantic Development Board in a minute. It was a very good thing. The department, so far as I am concerned, is no longer the guardian of the designated areas or of the so-called have-not provinces. It has now become a department which is taking over the job of the finance department by trying to provide a reasonable standard of living in all parts of Canada. The Department of Regional Ecomonic Expansion, as I said in French a while ago, has no control over the spending of other departments. For example, it has no control over what the Department of Finance does. The Department of Finance has created, through its policies, the present economic climate in Canada. It is through the policies of the government that we have this high rate of unemployment at present. Therefore, if there is unemployment in certain areas of the country, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion should bring this to the attention of the Department of Finance and suggest to the latter that certain policies be avoided in the areas which the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is trying to help.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
Again, I want to refer to the Atlantic provinces. I suggest that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion should consider the fishing industry there, and should not merely rely on the Department of Fisheries and Forestry to establish the correct policy for that industry but should advise this department as well as the Department of Public Works on the proper programs to develop that industry. If, for example, the Department of Fisheries and Forestry and the Department of Public Works are not providing the necessary facilities or do not have the right type of policy to promote that industry then, to my mind, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, as guardians of regional development should tell them so. This is what I would like the department to do.
This department should also advise the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources about the Bay of Fundy tides project to which reference has been made previously. If the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) feels that this is a good project, and that it will help out the area, then I think it is his duty to advise the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) to provide the necessary funds for it. I do not think any department should be allowed to cut back on any projects that will help a region which the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is trying to assist.

December 11, 1970
Regional Development Incentives Act
Not too long ago a motion was debated which dealt with the development of marine resources. I spoke on it as did others. The motion was presented by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall). This idea has great potential for helping the development of the Atlantic provinces. There is no reason for us to admit that the only resource we can obtain from the seas around the Atlantic provinces is fish because now we are doing some drilling for oil and gas. Therefore, the department should promote research and exploration of these avenues to make these provinces viable. It is not sufficient for the department to simply say they want to lend some money to industry and thus provide employment. It has to look at what the other departments are doing, assess the situation, and advise other departments what they should do in the different regions in Canada.
There is a specific reason for naming this department the Department of Regional Econom c Expansion. It should assess the situation in the various regions and decide what should be done for them, as well as suggest to other departments of the government what projects should be undertaken in order to help these regions to develop. The Department of Regional Economic Expansion is not just a lending agency to manufacturing industry. To my mind, it should have sufficient expertise to assess the situation in various regions and work out appropriate programs for them.
Let us consider, for example, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce wh:ch is responsible for industry and for all commercial activities in Canada. What has it done for shipbuilding? Of course, the minister will say that he provided some subsidies for shipbuilding. Why is the Department of Regional Econom c Expansion not saying that in the Atlantic provinces and on the west coast we should build ships and establish an effective Canadian merchant marine to operate in our coastal waters? This would provide employment and is what I would like the department to do.
The Department of Regional Economic Expansion should also advise the Department of Transport with regard to the provision of proper transportation facilities in certain areas which lack them, because transportation is probably the most important single factor in the development of our regions. The Department of Regional Economic Expansion should be able to tell the Department of Transport that proper transportation facilities at competitive rates are absolutely necessary if a region is to be helped.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis-Roland Comeau: I am sorry to be referring continuously to the Atlantic area but that is the area I know best. At one time we had the Atlantic Development Board. Although it did not do marvels, after this department was established it should have taken advantage of the expertise which the board had developed over a period of time. The Atlantic Development Board did not have the answers to all questions, but the Department of Regional Economic Expansion should have provided some policies to replace those of the board which was designed to help those provinces.

Some regions used to be able to obtain grants for such projects as highway construction, sewerage, and so on. The Department of Regional Economic Expansion was supposed to carry out projects which the Atlantic Development Board, ARDA and other agencies had recommended. I honestly believe that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has given up completely on the Atlantic Provinces. I think he knows that there are 25 seats out of 32 which are held by Progressive Conservatives, and he does not see how he is going to change that. Therefore, he has given up completely on that region.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Mr. Perrault:: That is not true. This is a non-partisan government.


Louis-Roland Comeau: What else can I believe? The Department of Regional Economic Expansion was supposed to do the job. How did this department come to be established? During the 1968 election campaign, the Prime Minister made a promise to the Atlantic area that he had all the answers, and after a few months this department was established.
Still, Mr. Speaker, I am not against the department. As I have said, I have some reservations about certain things in connection with it, but really it is not doing anything for the Atlantic provinces which it is not doing for other regions. The minister is shaking his head. It is absolutely true, Mr. Speaker. A little time ago I complimen ed him, but he was reading something and did not hear me. I did say that his department, by providing money-


Raymond J. Perrault: Hear, hear.


Louis-Roland Comeau: -was trying to create jobs, but that really I had expected something great from the department. A bank can lend money. Any financial institution can lend money. I thought that with the Kents, and all these other great gentlemen, they were going to come up with something special for particular areas.


Raymond J. Perrault: You just wait.


Louis-Roland Comeau: The hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault) says wait.


James Aloysius McGrath: Why isn't Vancouver designated?


Louis-Roland Comeau: It may not be too long before British Columbia is also designated. In effect, that is what the hon. member is saying. If you have a department that is supposed to look after regional disparities, and it does not provide the necessary incentives for a particular region, then there is no use in having that department. I am not against designating Montreal or Toronto, but if you provide the same incentives to Montreal as to Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, then holy smoke, Mr. Speaker, where do you think industry is going to go? I admit that there is a difference in the level of incentives, and I think the minister is to be congratulated in that respect. The incentives in these two cases are not exactly the same.
December 11, 1970

but the question must be asked, is the difference in the incentives really large enough to attract industry to certain parts of the country as compared with, let us say, Montreal?
As I stated before, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is not looking at other departments and telling them exactly-


Raymond J. Perrault: The way it is.


Louis-Roland Comeau: -the way it is. I thank the hon. member. It should tell them, "What you are doing is not right. You should look at things this way." It should do this with the Department of Transport, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Department of Fisheries and the Department of Public Works.
With respect to the Department of Public Works, we have been trying to have a little wharf built in my area at a cost of $60,000, but that department tells me it is not economically feasible. For what more can the people living there ask? They don't need a cotton factory or a car factory; they need a wharf. If the Department of Regional Economic Expansion does not tell the Department of Public Works that a wharf is needed in the area, then we will not get it. I have written to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion several times requesting it to impress on other departments what they should do.
What about the relationship of this department with the Department of Manpower? That department says it is going to retrain people. What is the use of training people if you don't have jobs for them after they are trained?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Louis-Roland Comeau: The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion was supposed to be the minister with the greatest power in the country. It was said that he was really in charge of things. He is not really in charge of things because he has not been dealing with the other departments, at least to my satisfaction.


Raymond J. Perrault: You're hard to satisfy.


Louis-Roland Comeau: This amending bill will not hinder anything, but the minister should look again at the title of his department. He ought to apply regional policies to particular regions of Canada.


Mr. Allen B. Sulatycky (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to assure the minister that I am not going to ask for any wharves in Alberta. However, I do have some experience with the regional economic expansion program. In my riding we have a portion of the designated area in Alberta, and a portion of the special area in Alberta, as well as a large ARDA area. I have also had experience with the former AIDA program, because two of the areas designated under that program were in my riding. So, over the last two and a half years I have gained some knowledge of how the incentive programs have functioned and the effect which they have had.
Regional Development Incentives Act
I was not present to hear all of the speech of the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Downey), but I would like to start mine by congratulating the minister on the very large grant announced yesterday for the province of Alberta, one of the largest to date in Canada, some $12 million for the construction of a pulp mill, Alberta's second pulp mill, near the city of Grand Prairie. This is a very clear indication of the fact that the department is cognizant of the needs of the various areas of the country.
I am not about to criticize the amendments to the act proposed in this bill. I recognize that basically they are designed to deal with the serious problem of unemployment, and that all regions are not going to benefit equally from them. I am heartened to see that the greatest benefits will go to the areas of highest unemployment, and that is exactly as it should be.
It would be unreasonable, unfair and downright foolish of us to expect that every area should benefit equally, and that those areas which have the least problem with unemployment should get as much as those that have bigger unemployment problems. I understand that under the amendments Alberta may not get as much as the Maritime provinces or Quebec, but the fact that a $12 million grant was announced for Alberta within the last few hours shows the department makes no differentiation between the areas getting grants.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
I want to deal briefly with the way in which the incentives program has operated in Canada during the last few years. In concluding I should like to make three points regarding this system and the way it should operate in the future, suggesting a changed system which in my opinion would be more effective and much better in the long run. In the Crowsnest pass area of my riding certain industries were given grants as well as tax concessions and tax holidays. As a result of these considerations, industries established in areas which were depressed at that time, were there was a high rate of unemployment and were there may have been a very low, non-farm income.
When coal was "king" this was a very bustling area of Albeila, supplying the railways with fuel. However, with the demise of the coal industry the Crowsnest pass area suffered very serious unemployment and was designated. As a result, a number of industries received grants and tax concessions enabling them to establish manufacturing plants in the area. Because housing was scarce and the infrastructure required for industry was not adequate, these industries ran into difficulties. In the last few months one industry has terminated its operation and is moving its plant to Calgary.
The net result of this, Mr. Speaker, is that the expenditure of the taxpayers' money on this particular industry was unwise and unprofitable. It may have employed a few people but it did not provide any rejuvenation of the economy.
The only rejuvenation that did take place was through the revival of the coal industry and not because a few

December 11, 1970
Regional Development Incentives Act
industries were enticed into the area under the incentives program. This is a good indication of why the program was changed about a year ago and why the tax concession provisions were removed and the outright grants provisions made more generous. Rather than getting a maximum of $5 million, today an industry can get as much as $12 million for establishing a plant in a designated or special area.
Under the new system it is possible for the government to provide for the creation of the infrastructure necessary to support industry. If this infrastructure is properly created, then naturally the industries established are more likely to survive and be of long-term benefit to the community. I believe that areas such as the Crowsnest pass which have received assistance only to find that industry could not survive because of lack of infrastructure should be looked at again and redesignated as special areas. In this way they could qualify for assistance in the development of the infrastructure-municipal services, road construction, housing and anything that is necessary to ensure that a labour force will be available.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the Crowsnest pass area should be reconsidered and redesignated as a special area so that existing industries can function smoothly and new industry be encouraged. Since the area was again designated about a year and a half ago, not a single new industry has been established, and I do not know of any that have made inquiries. It is not grants or incentives alone which encourage an industry to establish in an area: I believe infrastructure is necessary to ensure that industry will establish itself in areas where it is required.
Another aspect of the regional development program is that it is a remedial measure. We have not taken steps to ensure adequate employment in all areas of Canada. We have not taken steps to ensure sufficient diversification of industry. It is sufficient in Toronto, Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver and Montreal-but these are not problem areas. The problem areas are smaller communities, communities in the Maritime provinces. One thing that these communities have in common is their dependence upon a natural resource. They are usually dependent upon only one large plant or perhaps several plants which depend on the same natural resource.
If this resource is depleted or there is not sufficient demand for it, the area goes into a depression and unemployment results. The government then has to come along and patch up the wounded area, so it becomes a remedial action. Rather than allowing this cycle of prosperity and depression to repeat itself, I suggest that we should take preventive steps. If we could ensure diversification, if one area of the economy is depressed perhaps other areas could take up the slack.
One of the best examples, Mr. Speaker, is the area I represent. There are two great coal mining areas in Canada, one in Nova Scotia and the other in the riding of Rocky Mountain. Alberta has 50.7 per cent of the nations coal reserves, and 25 to 30 per cent of these are in the Rocky Mountain region. For many years the Crowsnest pass area southwest of Edson provided a large portion of the coal in western Canada and many thriving communities were established. Miners from all over the world came to work in the mines, and we have communities where the population was drawn from 50 or 60 nations. The coal mining industry, as I have said, went into a depression. Then other industries were given incentives to establish in the area and improve employment opportunities. That was done with some degree of success.
e (3:10 p.m.)
The coal industry has now revived and it is apparent that we did not need to take some of the steps that were taken a few years ago. Instead of allowing areas such as this one 25 years ago to remain totally dependent upon the coal industry, it would have been better had we provided incentives for other industries to establish there. The same remarks apply equally to Cape Breton. If 20 or 25 years ago secondary industry had been established there, that area would not have suffered the difficulties it has suffered during intervening years.
I have looked with interest at a study concerning new Canadian towns on what is termed "Canada's resource frontier." These are communities which depend upon one resource for their livelihood. They are to be found in all provinces. As a matter of fact, 148 such communities are listed. They include places like Corner Brook, Glace Bay, New Waterford, Sydney Mines, Elliot Lake, Uranium City, Lynn Lake, Sherridon, Powell River, Ocean Falls and Port Alice, each of which relies upon a single industry. Some of these towns that were tied to a single industry are either dead or dying: the others will suffer the same fate unless we make our regional incentives program preventive rather than remedial in nature. If that is done, some of these communities may be saved. If it is not done, we shall go through the same process of giving industries incentives to establish in certain areas because those areas will be suffering from a depression brought on because resource industries in the area have gone out of business.
In my riding there are several new communities. The outstanding new community is the town of Grande Cache. It was established to serve the coal mines recently opened by Mclntyre-Porcupine. That company is supplying millions of tons of coal each year to the Japanese steel industry. There are about 4,000 people in this area. Three years ago there was nothing there; it was wilderness. The town depends totally on the one coal mine. It is a very beautiful town, beautifully situated, and its people have invested a great deal of money in it. It contains many progressive businesses and has some fine public buildings. There are adequate recreational facilities.
All the same, it is certain that if this town is allowed to depend solely upon the coal mining industry, sooner or later we shall need to establish some sort of incentive program to bring new industry into the town, because the coal industry will by then be either dead or dying. I think this illustrates the sort of approach we should be taking to regional expansion in Canada. Such an approach will perhaps require a period of evolution. We have begun with a different approach, but I hope that eventually we shall look upon our regional economic expansion program as preventive rather than remedial.

December 11, 1970

I suggest that the best way of doing this is not by introducing a system of incentives but by introducing a system of disincentives. We should determine the areas in which we wish industry to locate and we should designate those areas in which we wish to discourage the location of industry. I suppose the best way of doing this would be through a form of punitive taxation; we should penalize industries which locate in areas where we believe there is an overconcentration of industry, areas such as those in and around the Great Lakes. We should impose punitive taxes to make sure that industries do not establish in areas where we do not want them. There should be a scale of punitive taxes which would encourage industries to locate in areas where taxes are lower. The result would be that industry would tend to locate in areas of lower taxation. The industry concerned would itself make the choice. For example, if there were a disincentive for industry to locate in and around the Great Lakes, industry might go to Montreal, Vancouver or somewhere else. The industry itself would make the choice; we should not tell it where to go. Thereby, the areas which are most suitable for development would be developed.
I sympathize deeply with my colleagues who insist that we are not doing enough in the Atlantic provinces, for example. But perhaps not much more could be done. If we had a program of disincentives and allowed industry to choose whether it should establish in Alberta or Nova Scotia, and if under such a program an industry chose Alberta, it would be evident that Alberta was the more logical location for the industry because it had made the choice itself and had not been forced to go there.
Tied in with such a program there would have to be a more sophisticated and generous program involving the mobility of labour. No doubt there are areas to which industries just will not go. The result is that the people in those areas will be unemployed; there will be no work for them. We shall therefore have to make sure that the people move. As a result, in those cases we must provide allowances which are much more generous than those now provided. Of course, after people have moved and become acclimatized to new areas, we will hear fewer demands of the sort now being made by many people who find themselves in economically depressed regions.
The immobility of labour is a very real problem and adds to our unemployment. Recently I was talking to a number of mine managers in my riding. I discussed with them the possibility of shipping coal from Alberta and eastern British Columbia to eastern Canada. At present most of the coal used in eastern Canada comes from the eastern United States. I was also talking about shipping coal to Europe, because Europe is facing a coal shortage. The steel mills of Europe want our coal and without doubt they will buy it in future.
I said to these people who manage a number of mines, "Are you doing anything about selling coal in Europe and eastern Canada?" They said, "We would like to, but we cannot. We cannot mine enough coal; we do not have enough miners." In that area there is a shortage of miners; the mines have had to obtain people from Korea,
Regional Development Incentives Act
Japan, Czechoslovakia, Britain and other parts of the world. This has been necessary because we cannot get Canadian miners to work there, despite very good conditions and the highest wage rate paid in Canadian coal mines. This indicates that we must re-think our position with regard to mobility of labour and regional incentives. We must rationalize the whole structure to make sure that we do not create a continuous cycle of depressed and distressed areas which require federal and provincial assistance through programs such as we are studying today. I hope that eventually our regional economic expansion program will evolve to this point.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Mr. McBride:: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member permit a question? Will the hon. member tell the House whether in his opinion the information as to the need for additional workers in his area is well known in the rest of Canada-for instance, in eastern Ontario?


Allen B. Sulatycky: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the
need for workers is well known. There is a crying need for experienced underground miners. I presume that Canada Manpower centres are seeking people for areas in which there is underground mining activity. In eastern Ontario there is not that kind of activity and perhaps the need may not be known.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Balileford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the question asked by the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. McBride), I think it would be wiser if the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Sulatycky) did not take anything for granted. He should contact the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) to make sure that he knows about this problem. In a country as large and as varied as Canada, the minister may not know all the problems. In this case I suggest that the member contact the minister directly. This morning the Minister of Manpower and Immigration dealt with the matter of unemployment. He referred to a "better unemployment picture." The only better picture would be that of no unemployment. Perhaps the minister has coined a new phrase. Most unemployment is of the worst kind and I suggest the minister should consider it in this sense.
The problem of unemployment in Saskatchewan is very bad. In this morning's Globe and Mail I read an article dealing with Christmas shopping. The article stated that most of Canada would be in the same position as last year with regard to Christmas shopping but that Saskatchewan retail sales would decrease by 5 per cent. I think this indicates the situation in that province with regard to unemployment and the tightness of cash. I suggest that Saskatchewan suffers the worst kind of unemployment.
I wish to point out to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) that if some of the problems of the basic industries in this country were solved, the problem of unemployment would automatically be solved. In this way there would not be such a strain upon

December 11, 1970
Regional Development Incentives Act the minister and his department. I suggest that he get together with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and the minister responsible for the Wheat Board in order to solve some of our basic problems. If some of these problems were solved, there would not be as much unemployment nor as great a need for regional development in the province of Saskatchewan.
I am not sure why the area I represent does not qualify for aid under the regional development program. Geography alone should not determine whether an area is in need. A town, community or industry within a geographic area may have a very definite need for assistance or incentive program. The constituency of Battleford-Kind-ersley does not qualify for assistance because it is not in the region of the minister; we have to deal with our problems on another basis. There was the possibility of a vegetable-oil plant being built by a co-operative in North Battleford. When discussing this matter with the director of the co-operative, he informed me that a regional development or incentive grant would be of importance and would have a bearing on where the plant was built. I do not think that Saskatoon has a greater employment need than North Battleford. Is it suggested that people in North Battleford who are seeking employment should move to Saskatoon because it has been designated under the regional incentives program? I do not think that makes good sense.
If an industry wishes to settle in a particular area because of its proximity to the market or something of that nature, it should be given consideration. It take issue with the section of the regional development plan which deals with this matter. The minister has already changed his mind with regard to some areas. Saskatoon and Regina are now designated areas. There has been no change with regard to the area that I represent. Perhaps politically we are not important enough, or the industry in that area is not important. Perhaps as a Member of Parliament I have not been making enough noise. If this is the case, my constituents have reason to complain.
I do not think the approach to solving these problems is adequate. I intend to deal with some aspects of the bill. It refers to the fact that those involved in the tourist industry may borrow money for that purpose. This does not apply to my area because it is not included in the regional incentives program. I do not think there is too much need for the government to erect buildings for tourists. If we had enough tourists in that area we could build the necessary hotels and motels. The primary reason for the slump in the tourist industry in the Prairies is the economy. This is an industry that should be considered for regional development. Frequently the areas that do not have industry are able to attract tourists.
I recall visiting the constituency of the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) south of Quebec City. The hon. member stated that a park should be built in the hills and mountains. It appeared that part of his riding would not be good for anything else. All the cattle were getting was exercise because there was not enough grass

on the land. As a person travelling in that constituency, I felt it was a fair tourist attraction. This is true of other areas that are not rich in industry.
The rural area of my constituency has some of the best farmland in Saskatchewan. In addition, there are two oil fields. Many city dwellers have not seen farming country and oil fields. This would be of interest to them. Promotion of the tourist industry in this area should be encouraged. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce should promote a program to see Canada first, or at least part of it. I have talked to many people in Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal who hardly know that Western Canada exists, let alone having seen it. I suggest there is much to see in western Canada.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I further suggest that the federal government, and particularly the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, promote the tourist industry throughout Canada much more than they have hitherto, in the interest of national unity if for no other reason. In newspapers like the Globe and Mail and other rich metropolitan dailies you see ads saying, "Come to the Caribbean", "Come to Miami", "Come to Europe". These ads are placed by Air Canada and declare, "Come fly away with us'. A package price is quoted for a tour. I should like to know whether Air Canada realize, when they encourage people to see things in Europe, that in fact they are importing unemployment. If they were to encourage residents of Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa to fly to British Columbia or somewhere else in western Canada, not only would Air Canada receive the air fare but they would put a few dollars in the pockets of Canadian tourist operators.
In this House there are several B.C. members who are very definitely tourist promoters. I observe the two hon. members across the way who have reached the ultimate in tourist promotion because I have heard them talk of the glories of B.C. But what have the departments of tourism of the governments of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia done to advertise the virtues of their respective provinces and to attract well-to-do tourists in eastern Canada who now holiday in Europe or some other country? I am not "knocking" a trip to Europe; indeed I would not mind one myself. But I suggest that many people who now go to Europe would visit western Canada if it were drawn to their attention that there were worth-while things to see there. I would challenge the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault and the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle) to-


Mr. Pringle:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question at this point?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member might permit a question, but the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle) would have to ask it while in his seat.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: I shall talk for a moment or two more to give the hon. member time to resume his seat, when I should be happy to receive his question.
December 11, 1970


Raymond J. Perrault: Would the hon. member permit one question?


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Yes.


Raymond J. Perrault: Has the hon. member been out to beautiful British Columbia?


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Yes, several times.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Furthermore, I hope to go again. There is quite a bit of B.C. that I have not yet seen, but what I have seen as a tourist I would recommend to anyone in the city of Ottawa, in eastern Canada or wherever it may be. I would also recommend the virtues of the Prairie provinces which are distinctly different from those of this area. As I say, I think the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce should do a little more to promote tourism in Canada. May I make just a few comments about the responsibility of the Prairie governments in this regard. Such bodies as boards of trade and the tourist operators in the four western provinces have not done as much to promote tourism as they could. After all, why should the federal government be solely responsible for tourist promotion when, hopefully, these people themselves stand to gain from such promotion?
I have also been astounded at the ease with which some of the people who work in the House of Commons make the decision to go to Europe on holiday, or fly to Spain. Secretaries who work in this House, and wives of members go; and, if they are not too busy, even members occasionally go. Clerks, nurses, civil servants and all kinds of people in Ottawa fly on holiday to Europe. I think a great many of them could afford to see Canada first.
I should just like to make one last point. I see that the minister in charge of northern affairs is in the House. I recommend to him that in the interest of the people in the Yukon and Northwest Territories he promote tourism in the north. I have travelled in some northern areas and have been quite fascinated by some of the things I have seen there. It may be that in some of these areas a more hardy type of tourist is called for; but those who have never seen the north will find it very interesting, with its icebergs, polar bears, seals on ice and some 10,000 lakes. I do not think most of us realize how much there is to see.
I suggest it is high time we explored this idea. By doing so, hopefully we might solve the problems of some of those who live in outlying areas who do not benefit from employment or industry yet need the means to make a living. They could at least make some sort of living out of a tourist industry.


Mr. Walker:: May I put a question to the hon. member?


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Yes.


James Edgar Walker: Does the hon. member feel it would be helpful, in order to achieve some of the objectives to
Regional Development Incentives Act which he has referred today, if a publicly-owned railway had special rates for Canadians who travelled at least to provinces beyond their own in order to see Canada?


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: I would not like to say at this point. But whether it be a publicly-owned railroad, a privately-owned railroad, Air Canada, CP Air, or what-have-you, there should be more tourist promotion in Canada and the people of Canada should be told of the things to be seen and enjoyed in this country. There is much to be seen in Canada. I thank the hon. member for his suggestion.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add a few words to the debate on this bill dealing with regional development incentives. My area is vitally
involved with the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and already in my constituency two or three incentive grants have been made. Having listened to the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson) I thought we were debating the estimates of the department of tourism until I realized there is no such department in the federal government. However, let me tell him that I hope he will not sell the province of Saskatchewan short, because it is a great province. I lived there for a few years. I think everyone should see the Prairies and the western provinces, especially at harvest time when that part of the country is unsurpassed for beauty; and the people there make it that much better.
The special incentives in this bill are a temporary measure and affect the southwestern part of the province of Quebec and the southeastern part of Ontario. The incentives in these areas are at a lower level than those in the rest of the country, which I think is in keeping with the need to bring industry into this area. Industry tends to establish itself in the Montreal area and along the St. Lawrence because the sales potential there is large. One important feature of this legislation is that the department is developing a certain flexibility. It is bringing in legislation as needed and the legislation the department does have on the books is becoming more flexible. The criticism we always hear in northern Ontario when grants under the Regional Development Incentives Act are compared with those under the Ontario Development Corporation is that incentives are available primarily to manufacturing industries and not to processing and other industries such as mining and tourism.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Of course, this bill does not provide for incentives or assistance to the mining industry but it does provide for a broadened system of loan guarantees which would be available to projects such as convention centres, hospitals, office buildings, company headquarters and shopping facilities. In northern Ontario we will consider this a benefit because we have some of the best tourist areas in the country and the development of facilities to accommodate tourists is sadly lacking but highly desirable.
Where there is a narrow economic base of industry concentrated around the products of mining and forestry, a broadened tourist industry is highly desirable. The bill

December 11, 1970
Regional Development Incentives Act before us this afternoon will provide guarantees for loans to this type of industry. Another important aspect is that loan guarantees will be available to manufacturing industries. This is very important. Even when a company is establishing in one of the designated areas and is able to raise the required 20 per cent equity, the federal government will able to make a grant of up to 15 per cent, 20 per cent or 25 per cent of the capital required but there is still a problem in obtaining the rest of the funds. This has to be done through the Industrial Development Bank or other lenders, including commercial banks. The bill before us will give the Department of Regional Economic Expansion the power to guarantee loans. I understand it will be able to guarantee half of the equity which now must be raised by commercial loans.
Another aspect of this program which is particularly interesting is that the ceiling will be removed in respect of grants made by the department. At the present time the ceiling is $12 million. Some people might ask why it is necessary to remove the ceiling when grants up to $12 million are now available. We are trying to encourage the pulp and paper industry to establish mills in various areas. A very large mill capable of producing 1,000 tons of pulp per day would employ 600 or 700 people. Under the existing legislation there is provision to make grants only in respect of industries employing up to 400 people. The maximum figure of $30,000 per job created means that an industry which otherwise might qualify for $15 million or $18 million, because of the magnitude of the expenditure, perhaps up to $100 million, would not receive a loan. The present ceiling prevents such a company receiving what it might be eligible to receive if it were a smaller company.
I understand this bill will extend to 18 months the time limit in which the companies have to bring the enterprise into production. I know of one case where a company took almost a year to line up the necessary capital and had difficulty getting within the 12-month limit which now exists. The extension of the time limit to 18 months will be of great benefit. I believe the department should extend the benefits and grants to pulp and paper companies. In many areas of the country where we are trying to encourage secondary industry we are not as successful as we might be. The pulp and paper industry provides good jobs with good wages, and in many cases it is possible to increase employment. If we extended grants for new plants and for expansion of existing plants in the pulp and paper industry, we would create hundreds of new jobs in many areas of northern Ontario. I hope the government will consider making these grants available in this way.
I understand that the existing legislation for the designation of special areas can accommodate this type of guarantee, but it is very difficult for large companies planning huge expenditures to guess whether the department is going to declare an area to be a special area. At a later stage there should be provision for the department to extend the program to cover the infra-structure of gas pipeline companies. In many areas we have difficulty attracting secondary industry because we do not

have utilities such as natural gas. Certain types of industries such as the pulp and paper industry, plywood mills and mining companies, will not establish in areas where there is not natural gas.
Although this bill does not contain all the provisions I would like, it is a good measure. It has certain features which I believe will encourage the establishment of small Canadian companies with limited financial ability. As the title suggests, it broadens and strengthens the incentives to regional development in Canada.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Sula-tycky) and other members of the government for taking part in this debate. I suppose members of the House will be looking forward to hearing from the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault), who was here a few minutes ago, and other hon. members from the great province of British Columbia which is experiencing tremendous unemployment problems. Undoubtedly the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour will have recommendations to make in respect of the designation of Vancouver and other urban parts of British Columbia, perhaps the entire province, which are suffering the second highest unemployment rate in Canada-8.6 per cent, compared with November of 1969 when the figure was 5.6 per cent. This is an increase of 3 per cent in one year. British Columbia has an unemployment rate second only to the east coast province of Newfoundland. Surely after making that remark the hon. member will want to ask me a question.


Raymond J. Perrault: Does the hon. member suggest that the unemployed in British Columbia are all British Columbians? The hon. member should be aware that thousands of our unemployed came from other parts of Canada. That is why we have to fight unemployment on a national basis, as the minister is doing so very well.


John Howard Lundrigan: The hon. member is suggesting that we should export from British Columbia all the people who were not born in that province. In that case perhaps we should send the Premier back east where he came from. If that is the suggestion, I would be delighted to entertain it.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I am also looking forward to hearing from the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. McBride) who made a few remarks when the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Sulatycky) was speaking and wondered whether the mines of Rocky Mountain could support the unemployed in his region. I am sure he would be dedicated to the idea of exporting some of his people from the Ottawa Valley. I am sure many members will take part in the debate so that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion can re-think its whole philosophy about regional development. A little more than a year ago the Department of Regional Economic Expansion came into existence when the bill set-
December 11, 1970

ting up the department gave the minister greater power than any other minister of the government. We were delighted when the minister was given this authority because, as the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) indicated, we hoped that departments of government such as the Department of Public Works, the Department of Fisheries, the Department of Manpower and Immigration and others would work together in a co-ordinated effort to attack regional disparity as a government operation and not simply as a departmental operation.
i can do no better than reinforce the remarks of the hon. member for South Western Nova who today forcibly brought to the attention of the House of Commons exactly the position I wish to take. In that respect I suppose some hon. members across the way would ask me why I do not put an exclamation mark against his remarks and then resume my seat. I should do that, because I sincerely endorse his observations about regional disparity as it exists in the Atlantic region and the way he would like to see the minister and the government respond to our needs, rather than simply through the theoretical formulations of a number of experts who with good intentions have designed some of the programs for various parts of Canada.
What have we done in the last year in respect of regional economic development in Canada? As I see it, we have done two things. We have instituted a system of incentives which basically, on principle, is a very good move. Certa'nly it is. No one criticizes that system, because we need incentives to industry. As a matter of fact, it should be the aim of every member and of the government to provide incentives to industrial regional development in Canada as a whole and to specific parts of Canada in particular. Secondly, we have had a number of development programs such as those in Prince Edward Island and in our province which are aimed at providing an infrastructure, which is now the "in" word in regard to economic development, to encourage economic expansion in particular regions of Canada. I understand several parts of my province have been designated as special areas for receiving grants and loans to help provide an infrastructure for basic services in order to encourage the establishment of industry.
On princ ple, these moves are indisputably good so far as the benefits are concerned. But what have we lost since the Department of Regional Economic Expansion came into existence? We gave up the Atlantic Development Board, which was never a really well co-ordinated effort but it did provide a kind of on-the-spot response to industrial requests from the Atlantic region. It provided an on-the-spot response in a spasmodic and spurious manner. Perhaps it was not well co-ordinated, but it did provide many studies which I believe form the basis of some of the response by the department to the Atlantic region.
We gave up the ARDA program. In March, 1970, our province came under the agreements in the ARDA program. This program was brought into being by the former Prime Minister to give stimulus to rural Canada. This program might have been designed originally to
Business of the House
help solve the rural, agricultural problems of western Canada but it became a very fundamental program for our part of Canada. We had the coming into existence of a new department and the bringing to the fore of a couple of programs on the positive side. But on the negative side we lost the old programs which in some ways were not well co-ordinated but were on the spot.
Now we are asked to support Bill C-205, which asks us to establish a loans program which is already in existence under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, the Farm Improvement Loans Act and the Small Businesses Loans Act. Really, we are being asked to extend the jurisdiction of these loans to tertiary and service industries and the like in various parts of Canada. In my opinion, the minister has carefully avoided making reference to these loans. This bill could have been brought in as a fourth government loans act. I have checked with knowledgeable members, who indicate to me that this special loans program is really only an extension of previous loan programs which are not now functioning and which are a complete waste of time and energy. I will prove that before I finish speaking.
Second, we are asked to spread the industrial incentives program to Montreal, southeastern Ontario and other special areas. Basically, this is what we are asked to do. The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), who very responsibly outlined our position in the House of Commons, and the hon. member for South Western Nova who again today reinforced some aspects of our position, have shown that what we are asked to do is dilute regional disparity to such an extent that the government is asking this department to assume the role of offering a cure-all, a panacea for all the economic ills of the nation.
Some people might say I am criticizing our including southeastern Ontario and Montreal as designated areas. This is not the problem. I could suggest that we even go into British Columbia in respect of special programs for areas where there is a problem of high unemployment. When I continue the debate on Monday I will show that what we are now doing is giving up the fight against regional disparity. I shall also discuss what we are losing by supporting this bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being four o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, namely, public bills.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. McCutcheon:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the excellent progress made today, I wonder whether someone on the government side would advise the House what our menu will be on Monday. Perhaps I might direct the question to the government whip.


Mr. Francis:: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that we will continue with the item which is presently before the House and that, hopefully, we will be able to conclude this debate and send the bill to the committee. Then we would proceed with the government reorganization measure.

December 11, 1970
National Trade Mark and True Labelling Act



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Because of the modesty of the acting government whip, I wonder whether I might point out that I believe there is general agreement to let the first eight items stand and proceed with Order No. 9, a bill in the name of the acting government whip.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that the first eight items stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is so ordered. Orders 1 to 8 inclusive stand.

[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)



NATIONAL TRADE MARK AND TRUE LABELLING ACT


Cyril Lloyd Francis: that Bill C-26, to amend the National Trade Mark and True Labelling Act (octane rating of gasoline), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be brief. Like many consumers, I buy gasoline. The car that I own is a 1969 Ford.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No commercials, please.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I have purchased gasoline in many parts of Canada and I have found a wide discrepancy in the quality of the product that goes into our gas tanks. I have on occasion purchased what is supposed to be a superior brand with a higher octane rating and the performance of my motor has been very different from when I have filled my tank with other gasolines. Last summer I made a holiday trip to the fine province of New Brunswick, so ably represented by members in the House, and when I purchased gasoline there I noticed that in every gas station the octane rating of gasoline was conspicuously displayed. Apparently there is a law in New Brunswick which compels the octane rating to be displayed. I submit through you, Mr. Speaker, to hon. members that the existence of such a law demonstrates the feasibility of complying with the recommendation in the bill which I have the honour to present this afternoon.
The purpose of the bill is very simple. It is that at every retail gasoline pump there shall be displayed, in accordance with standards prescribed by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford), the octane rating of the product which the consumer is buying. In this way it should be possible to eliminate the deception that takes place when consumers buy gasoline. I have had the experience of buying what was supposed to be a higher grade gasoline in the city and I have
known from the performance of my motor that it did not come up to the standard I expected.
Therefore, I move second reading of this bill which has as its very simple purpose the display, in technical terms to be prescribed by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, by vendors of the rating of gasoline on gasoline pumps. I urge hon. members to support the bill.


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker,
I rise not to oppose the excellent bill put forward by the acting government whip, which for the first time in my memory at one of these afternoon sessions seems likely to proceed to a vote, but simply to point out that while we are on the subject of what should be displayed and what the public should know about the gasoline that we buy, we should know that the octane rating is a relatively minor factor among all the others which at least should be known to the public.
There is, of course, no doubt that unscrupulous dealers-and certain discount dealers might be in that category: I am not suggesting that my hon. friends are always searching out the cheapest retailers of gasoline- might be substituting a low octane gasoline for a higher octane gasoline and thus defrauding the public. In that case, I think the bill is a good one in that it would permit testing to take place very quickly and easily. If someone is advertising gasoline with a high octane reading and it turns out to have a lower octane reading, then prosecution should be possible.
When gasoline is simply rated top-line, medium range and low octane, it might not be possible to start the same type of prosecution to prevent the type of activity mentioned by my hon. friend. However, I feel that a great deal more should be said on the subject of gasoline. Gasoline is not a simple product. If I may mention another product with which one or two hon. members at least are also familiar, gasoline is rather like whisky. Whiskies may have the same octane rating or potency, but there may be a great variation in their effects as well as, perhaps, in their after-effects about which we would wish to know before proceeding.
Fortunately, with gasoline the results are not immediately damaging to the individual, but 1 feel that such factors as the lead content of gasoline should be known. Also, there are many aromatics which are added to gasoline and which vary greatly in different types of gasoline and have serious pollution effects. I think this, also, is a matter that should be considered in much the same manner as the octane rating. I stress this because we tend to drive up to a gas station, thinking we will get much the same type of gasoline regardless of the gasoline company or where we are. This is not so. There are many additives which, we are told by scientists, are highly dangerous to our environment from the point of view of pollution. Most hon. members are concerned about pollution and about buying a product which would do the least damage, but nevertheless are unable to do so because we simply do not know the true facts about gasoline and what we are buying.
I do not wish to suggest that the detailed content of gasoline must be listed, because obviously a member of

December 11, 1970

the public such as myself would be unable to judge it. But I think it is important that a great deal more research be done, perhaps by consumer associations, perhaps by groups concerned with pollution and environment or by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, to evaluate the various products we use.
I said a moment ago that some gasolines have a much higher lead content than others. I have before me a publication which indicates that this is something of a fraud on the public and that advertisements stating that low lead gasolines reduce pollution may not be as honest as they should be and are perhaps inaccurate. A company in Canada embarked upon a major advertising campaign, saying that they could produce a low lead gasoline. Nevertheless, they are not doing so because it is a fraud on the public in that this gasoline does not reduce pollution; the aromatics which would have to be added to replace lead are worse pollutants.
This type of thing makes me cautious with regard to the hon. member's bill. I think we must have more testing by specialists who would inform us of the over-all effect of a product such as this. While it may be helpful for us to know the octane rating of gasoline, perhaps the performance of the car is affected more by aromatics and other additives than by octane. Wh;le bills such as this may be good in achieving their objective-and I support the bill

nevertheless they will not do enough.
I have no wish to talk out this bill. It is one that I think all members of the House will be happy to support. I merely wish to put on the record my reservations regarding a too simplistic type of information which might indeed lead members of the public into making mistakes because of lack of knowledge of the effects of gasoline.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. I take part in the debate this afternoon only because I am interested in one aspect that other hon. members have mentioned on previous occasions, that is, the use of different types of fuel in aircraft. It is evidently the case that less inflammable and less dangerous fuel is used on VIP flights than is used on airplanes which have as their main purpose the transportation of the general public. This fact is just brought to my mind. I intended to ask a question about it in the House. I mention it in this debate, and if anybody in the chamber knows anything about the subject I would appreciate a reply. In the Ottawa Citizen of December 5, just a few days ago, K. O. Bardwell of Ottawa, whom I understand is knowledgeable on this subject and is a technical civil servant, had published a letter on the labelling of gas as follows:
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
In the early days of jet airliners, Lord Brabazon of Tara, air pioneer and safety advocate, warned that planes using JP-4 fuel could easily become flying torches. The airlines who are concerned with costs have ignored his warning but British and American VIP flights use safer fuels.
If this fuel is not safe enough in planes transporting royalty and VIP's abroad, it isn't safe enough for public carriers either.
National Trade Mark and True Labelling Act
I believe this matter has been raised in earlier questions. It is an important subject. I agree with the contention of this letter writer, that what is good for VIPs, whether they be in Canada or elsewhere, should be good for the general public. I hope that this measure sponsored by the acting, but yet not quite permanent, government whip-and we hope that his appointment is confirmed- will bring about a greater appreciation of the necessity for having the same type of fuel used in all planes, no matter what passengers they carry. This may not be quite pertinent in terms of the bill, but I would like information on whether VIPs who fly in Canada-some of them may even be in this House-are getting special treatment, because through the years I have advocated that what is good enough for frontbenchers is good enough for backbenchers. This principle applies to every conceivable type of benefit brought into this House, whether it be today, next week or next Christmas.


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to intervene for just a moment in this debate because I think the hon. member has brought to the House a measure very well worth referring to the finance committee. I suspect that there may be some problems to be discussed with the law officers of the Crown in terms of the constitutional right of the federal government to do what he proposes, but this does not detract from the fact that the idea of the bill is excellent.
I think, also, that companies which market petroleum products will appreciate the opportunity to come before the committee and give their views on the bill. I see no earthly reason why they should object to complying with such a requirement, because the terminology you see on fuel pumps today, "regular" and "premium", does not mean very much, except that one costs more than the other to the average consumer. If there is indeed anything in octane ratings, the public has a right to have it explained.
In this connection, Mr. Speaker, about a year ago there were a couple of price increases. The price of nickel was increased by about 24.3 per cent, and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) characterized the increase as quite small, an idea related no doubt to the fact that 96 per cent of our nickel was marketed outside Canada and so the price increase did not have much domestic impact. At the same time there was a boost in gasoline prices at the pumps in Ontario-seven-tenths of one cent per gallon. There was a great hue and cry about that increase, although it only added about $3.50 a year to the motoring costs of the average Ontario automobile operator.
The price of mailing a first-class letter was jumped about 1 cent just about a year ago. That was an increase of 20 per cent. At that time I do not recall anybody demanding an investigation of the Post Office for the purpose of determining whether the cost increase was justified. The Post Office had simply found its operating costs had risen and that, if it was to operate in a prudent business fashion, it had to collect more money

December 11, 1970
National Trade Mark and True Labelling Act for its services. However, we should not be too surprised to learn that it cost the Post Office an extra cent to move a 2-ounce letter around Canada-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Would the Parliamentary Secretary resume his seat? The Chair realizes that it may be the wish of hon. members that the debate be wider than usual during discussion of this bill, and I am sure all hon. members were pleased that the Chair gave the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell) considerable latitude in his remarks. The Chair would do the same for the Parliamentary Secretary if this were the general feeling of the House. But because of our practices and procedures, it seems to me that we should note the fact on the record if we agree that the debate should range somewhat far from the subject under discussion.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I think this bill is directed to ensuring that consumers have an opportunity of assessing whether they are getting their money's worth when they buy gasoline. The point I was making is that if a year ago the Post Office Department determined that it cost an extra penny to move a 2-ounce letter around Canada it should not be too surprising to learn that the oil companies found it cost an extra seven-tenths of one cent to move an extra 7 pounds of gasoline around, which was the price increase it then announced.
I think all of this really relates to the fact that the retail price of gasoline, excluding taxes, in Toronto, for example has risen 1.7 cents per gallon or 6 per cent during the past 15 years while the general price index in Canada had risen 40 per cent. This factor has generally been overlooked. Gasoline prices have in fact been kept down very well by the marketing practices of this great industry. I only wanted to make that point in endorsing this bill which will enable the public better to assure itself that it is getting its money's worth when it buys gasoline.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Mr. Speaker, I join those who have paid tribute to my good friend from Ottawa for his foresight in introducing the measure that is before the House. Like one of the previous speakers, I reiterate that octane rating in gasoline is obviously not the whole story. It is a technical term that is used by the refiners, but with regard to the performance of the automobile the octane rating does not count very much.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
However, I would say to my friend who moved this motion that I have driven a great number of miles and have never experienced any difficulty with gasoline purchased in any province of the Dominion of Canada. I have not had that experience anywhere else. I do not ever recall receiving bad gasoline in Canada. I assure hon. members that I kept my automobile in top shape and, of course, this may be the key. As an earlier speaker said, much of our gasoline contains lead.


An hon. Member:: You cannot get the lead out.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Yes. And some even have perfume added. I suggest that our gas expert from British Columbia should take into consideration the fact that people often get into difficulty through buying aged fuel. Sometimes the refineries overproduce and are left with large volumes of first-class fuel. When it becomes aged, they sell it to discount outlets. I would therefore recommend to my hon. friend that he stay away from discount gasoline bars and buy only from reputable gas stations.


An hon. Member:: But he is a real cheapskate.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: I commend the suggestion of an analysis or a test to determine the purity of gasoline. At the moment the weights and measures branch inspects gasoline pumps, but all that that assures us is that when we buy four quarts we get four quarts: there is no real test of the quality of the product. While I am on my feet I would like to say that I take the greatest exception to advertising which uses the low lead content of gasoline as an excuse to raise the price. I do not think that my hon. friend included that matter in his motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: I think that automobile manufacturers intend to go a long way toward correcting the problem to which my hon. friend referred. Most of the 1971 cars do not require premium fuel, as do the 1969 models. If you take a high-compression motor which requires premium fuel to a discount gas bar and get No. 2 gasoline, you are not likely to get good performance. With this brief interjection, Mr. Speaker, I hope this matter can immediately come to the vote. I do not want to hold it up because I think it is an extremely worth-while proposition.


Mr. Rose:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask a question. The hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. McCutcheon) has spoken of ancient, or old, gas. Stemming from that would he agree with the old saying, "There is no fuel like an 'oil fuel' "?


An hon. Member:: Correct your blues.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to unduly delay discussions on this bill and its referral to the appropriate committee.
I am always a trifle surprised to hear people talk about octane, octane rating, information to octane consumers and yet nobody could come up with a definition. It would have been extremely important that members enlighten us on the matter.
I have some smattering of chemistry which the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) could perhaps complete since he is an authority on the subject.
December 11, 1970

Octane cannot be measured, Mr. Speaker, it is simply a saturated hydrocarbon whose formula is C8 Hls that I do remember. Besides the octane rating is used only to measure anti-knock value. Instead of listening to our distinguished colleagues who seem to be omniscient, perhaps someone could have given more precise indications. In fact, the other day when I was watching television I heard the president of a major oil company give interesting facts on the subject of lead and octane in gasoline.
My colleague from Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) knows a great deal about that, but we have to admit that the business of the House is so well organized that we were taken by surprise with this matter. So we are discussing pointlessly, mainly to confess our ignorance.
It would be important, I suggest, to talk instead about something we know.
That is why I would not want to take up much more time of the House. I do not know very much about this subject.
I remember with pleasure what I have learned at university, but unfortunately my recollections are beginning to wear off. I would like an expert to inform us on this important question when the bill reaches the committee stage.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that perhaps this bill is more important than some members realize. I come from an area where there is an international airport, and I believe that the quality of gas and various types of fuel is very important. I am told that the octane rating is a fundamental factor in considering gasoline. I wonder whether the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) had in mind the discrepancy in price between various octane ratings. The consumer is not in a position to assess whether an extra five cents per gallon guarantees him an extra five cents or only an extra cent in value. This was probably in the mind of the capable Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mahoney) when he made his observations.
I support the bill, Mr. Speaker. I also recommend that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) add to his not so busy schedule-and Dr. Young, now paid but unemployed, with his staff of 120-an investigation of the discrepancy in the price charged for gasolines with various octane ratings.


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
A short while ago, I thought I heard the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Isabelle) referring to the fact that the business of the House seemed to be more or less well planned at this hour of the day on Fridays. In my opinion, it is appropriate that this House and the hon. Parliamentary Secretary know that the government members were very well prepared to discuss items 1 and 2 on today's order
National Trade Mark and True Labelling Act
paper, meaning the bills introduced by the House leader of the official opposition, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), and the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) which deal with amendments to the British North America Act and abolition of corporal punishment, respectively.
Had it not been for the absence of some of the official opposition members, we might have been able to proceed with consideration of the bills which were at the top of the list.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


James Edgar Walker: Mr. Speaker, I believe that many of the comments which have been made go far beyond the purpose of this bill, which is framed in a very narrow context. I would have some difficulty in agreeing that the bill should go to committee on the basis of some of those speeches which have been made. If it went to the committee, on the basis of some of those speeches, one might think it was being sent there to enable the Standing Committee to conduct a full-scale investigation of the entire gasoline retailing industry. That is not the purpose of the bill. I shall read the explanatory note, which is very clear:
The intent of this bill is to require that all gasoline which is sold to the public shall have conspicuously displayed at such place of sale the octane rating according to a recognized standard to be prescribed by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
This is a narrow subject, and if the bill goes to committee that is the subject that will be discussed. I think it is time to bring our consideration of this bill into perspective and to consider what the mover of the motion had in mind. When I drive to a gasoline pump and ask the attendant to fill the tank of my car, even if I see a sign showing the octane rating of the gas I do not know what it means. I do not know what an octane rating is. For all I know, it could be a three-legged spider.
I remind the House that the purpose of the bill is very narrow. It has to do with the display of a sign on gas pumps to advise the sophisticated few who know what an octane rating is of the octane rating of the gasoline they are buying. I see that the sponsor of the bill is nodding his head. Bearing that narrow context of the bill in mind, it might be a good measure to send to committee for investigation-but only in that very narrow context. I am not sure what the mover of the motion had in mind, nor what enlightenment he felt the bill would give the public. He must know what an octane rating is. I suggest that gasoline companies could give a great deal of information to the public about the meaning of an octane rating.
I wanted to bring to the attention of the House the fact that this bill is framed in a very narrow context. An octane rating may or may not mean anything to the public; however, the mover of the bill thinks it will mean something. I hope the committee to which this bill is referred will not go beyond the narrow context of the bill and that the discussion will not lead to a wide,

December 11, 1970
National Trade Mark and True Labelling Act public discussion or investigation into the gasoline retailing industry in this country.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Amen!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise simply to join in the unanimous support for this bill. I thought all those who were going to speak had done so, but I see that there are two others. I hope they can be persuaded to make their speeches on some other bill and to let this one go through.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are some members, Mr. Speaker, who think there should be more in the bill; nobody has said that there should be less in it. Indeed, there could not be much less. It has one point, and we all agree with it. There is no rule in the book that says that whatever is before the House on a Friday afternoon has to be talked out. I am afraid that the Liberal members are so used to doing that with our bills that they have forgotten that this bill is sponsored by a Liberal.


An hon. Member:: We can discern.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May 1
introduce to the Liberal members of the House the acting chief government whip, the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis). It is his bill that we want to vote on. If we pass it now, we can adjourn 20 minutes early. So why do we not pass the bill? It will not be given third reading and sent to the Senate; we shall merely send it to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and I assure the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Walker) that the chairman of that committee will see to it that the bill is dealt with properly.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lambion):: Mr. Speaker, I join the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Walker) in saying that the debate on this bill has been too wide-ranging. I am pleased to inform the House that neither my car nor the car of my colleague the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. McCutcheon) has ever stalled as a result of bad gas. He and I both come from the chemical valley and we have nothing to fear from this bill.
Earlier, the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson) talked about tourist promotion. I invite him and other hon. members to come to Sarnia and tour our refineries which are the finest in the world. If any hon. member with a 1969 car is having trouble, it is clear that he spent too much money on the car and too little on gas. Such difficulties could never be attributed to gas that comes from the chemical valley.
I do not think we need worry about octane ratings. Nevertheless, I support the principle of the bill. The high quality of the gasoline that is produced by our refineries, and the high quality of the workmanship that has gone into the building of those refineries, leads me to say that we have nothing to fear and that we would welcome this measure. It would have the effect of taking away business from those two-bit businesses which try to sell what people call gasoline of a low octane rating. When we buy that sort of gas we have reason to complain. I therefore say on my own behalf and, no doubt, on behalf of the hon. member for Lambton-Kent that we who come from the chemical valley welcome this measure. I think we are all united in our views in Sarnia and the Lambton area generally. We have nothing to fear from octane ratings being shown at gasoline stations or on gas pumps.


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to prolong this debate. I was surprised to hear the House Leader of the New Democratic Party suggest that government supporters do not have a keen interest in this subject.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is too keen; that's the trouble.


Raymond J. Perrault: I for one think that every right should be extended to government supporters to speak on this subject. In many ways this has been a pretty high-octane debate. I think we have pumped the subject dry and I think it is time to get the lead out and refer the bill to the appropriate committee.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask a question. Is the government planning to establish a ministry of gas, and is consideration being given to appointing the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault) as its head?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I should like to assure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that we on this side of the House are quite aware of the vast powers of the chief government whip, and therefore we would not exercise any rights we might have to talk out this bill.
I think the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Frances) is very worthwhile. It would be in the best interests of the public if we could see such octane ratings. I am not as familiar with the process involved as the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen). I do not know whether it is possible to list the octane rating of gasoline at a gas pump. If it were possible to do so, I think it ought to be done because it would increase the efficiency and effectiveness of retailing gasoline to the general public.
The hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Walker) has suggested that because the parameters of the bill are

December 11. 1970

very narrow it should not be a vehicle for launching a full-scale investigation into the gasoline industry. On the other hand, I believe there is need for a full-scale investigation into the price of gas; in one part of Ottawa you may pay 44 cents per gallon, whereas only a few blocks away you may pay between 50 and 55 cents per gallon for the same type of gas. We all know that these cut-rate outlets purchase their gasoline from the same bulk tanks. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) should look into this situation.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson) spoke about the problem of pollution. Some hon. members may feel there is a problem of gas pollution in this chamber this afternoon. There is certainly a problem with regard to the amount of lead in gasoline; in fact, it is a potential health problem. Some research has been carried out on animals pastured close to heavily-travelled, public thoroughfares. When testing the serum they are able to determine which animals are pastured near heavily-travelled, public thoroughfares by reason of the amount of lead in the animals' blood.
The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the general public should be assured that higher prices are not being charged for gasoline which, although it is more expensive to produce, does not have more value. I do not want to talk out this bill or to do anything to prevent its passage.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau).


An hon. Member:: Don't be a Liberal.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says, "Don't be a Liberal". In the two years that I have been here the only private members' bills that have been sent to committee have been those introduced by Liberal members.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that at this stage he should discuss this bill and not bills which may have been considered in different ways in the past. I suggest that at this stage his contribution should be limited to the bill before the House.


Louis-Roland Comeau: I agree with what Your Honour has just said. I made that remark because I feel it is important. The bill simply requires that gas stations post signs on their gas tanks to indicate whether they are selling low, regular or high-test gas and also the octane content. What will happen?


Mr. Borrie:: Nothing.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Exactly. I have had seven years of university training as a physicist. I have done some chemistry. The word "octane" does not mean very much to me. Holy smoke, Mr. Speaker-
National Trade Mark and True Labelling Act


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is right. It means "holy smoke."


Louis-Roland Comeau: -what good will it do to post the octane content on gasoline tanks? Will Joe Smith from Yarmouth understand how it affects him? He is really only concerned about the price of gasoline. If the government requires gas stations to post these signs, the gas companies will have to hire men to do this work and the price of the gas will be increased another cent per gallon. I am opposed to this bill. I do not think it will do anything good. The gas companies will say that they must increase the price because of the cost of installing these signs.
I think it is very important to have a high octane ratio in gasoline. I think this should be checked by the distributors who supply the gas stations. This matter could be handled by the gasoline inspectors in the provinces. If the gasoline inspectors are doing their job, they can assure consumers that they are receiving the proper grade of gasoline. If it is not up to standard, we should be so informed by the inspectors. I do not see how the consumers will benefit from information that the gasoline they purchase contains a certain amount of octane. If the situation needs correcting, the inspectors should investigate the gas being delivered by the distributors. I cannot see that this bill will help the consumer other than-


An hon. Member:: Nine minutes to go.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is the
message?


Louis-Roland Comeau: It is a joke between the whip and I. This bill is not very elaborate; it contains only one paragraph. I am not going to speak at length on it because I believe that merely posting a sign will not benefit the consumer. The inspectors must provide the necessary checks to ensure that the gas has the proper octane content. The hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) and other hon. members may have purchased gasoline which does not give their automobiles the usual amount of pep. By posting a sign, the problem will not be remedied. We should make sure that the gas is properly inspected and brought up to the required standard. I think other hon. members want to speak in this debate, so I will resume my seat.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Thomas Miller Bell: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Louis-Roland Comeau: Yes.


Thomas Miller Bell: As one who I know has watched provincial rights quite jealously, coming as he does from Nova Scotia, would the hon. member agree with the contention put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary a few minutes ago that this bill is really an infringement on provincial matters and, therefore, we should not let it pass this afternoon before finding out a little more about the jurisdictional problem that might be created if the bill were passed?

December 11, 1970
National Trade Mark and True Labelling Act


Louis-Roland Comeau: This point is probably valid, Mr. Speaker. The government often refers matters to the courts, and perhaps we should make a positive determination here. The government is very conscious of the fact that we should not infringe provincial rights, and therefore we should be very careful in this field too.


Mr. H. W. Danforih (Kenl-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise to support this bill. I have no doubt that this bill is of prime concern to the hon. member who introduced it, and I have no objection to a bill of this nature being introduced. But I feel that many of these bills deal with issues that are too narrow in scope. This is a prime example, because we are dealing with but one aspect of the sale of gasoline.
The hon. member who preceded me stated very emphatically that the bill should go through quickly because it was narrow in scope and dealt only with octane rating. He suggested we should let the committee make a decision on the bill. My objection is that this bill is not broad enough in scope, that we are dealing only with one small aspect of the entire problem, namely, the octane rating and the difference it makes to the price of gasoline. If we are going to ask the committee to spend not only valuable parliamentary time but the valuable time of its members considering this bill, it should consider the whole subject and not only one little segment of it.
I am concerned about the bill restricting itself to octane content. I find it strange indeed that a bill of this nature was not introduced years ago rather than today when the whole question of automobile propulsion is in a state of flux. Although the octane content of gasoline may be of prime quality today, a year or two from now it could be a very insignificant factor indeed. We are here seized with the proposition that we should pass a bill to make it mandatory for gasoline companies and those who distribute gasoline to acknowledge in a very concrete fashion the one provision of the bill.
There are indications from all across North America, the home of the automobile, that air pollution is a very
considerable factor in automobile propulsion. Many companies and people are seized with the problem of fuel pollution, and no doubt octane reading in gasolines is part of their over-all consideration. But we do not want our parliamentary procedures to be tied to the contemplation of a bill which, even before it gets to committee, may have its provisions made obsolete. This is why I am concerned with this measure, though it is to the credit of a private member to bring in a bill of this nature. Indeed, he has every right to do so and I have no quarrel with him on that score. We know he has a valid and good reason for bringing in this measure. But as I say, I am concerned, as I know you are, Mr. Speaker, with the whole question of the introduction of private members' bills. We have so many of them to deal with and in such a limited time. A bill of this kind has to be dealt with in a period of one hour, and it embraces a subject of complexity and one of interest not only to consumers but to the oil industry at large.
We may think that in bringing in a regulation controlling the sale of fuel only we are not affecting many people. But this regulation would affect not only consumers of gasoline but the entire oil industry, an industry that should be given ample opportunity to examine the ramifications of the bill and to inform itself about it. It is said that this bill should be dealt with by the committee. I am not prepared to let the bill go to committee. Indeed, I am prepared to assume responsibility for talking it out. We have to take a stand somewhere in regard to the way we deal with public bills. I am very incensed because the government puts the emphasis on propelling their members' bills through to committee but-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hour assigned to the consideration of private members' business has now expired. The House stands adjourned until Monday at two o'clock in the afternoon.
At five o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, December 14, 1970