1970-11-18

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a statement with regard to Hansard. I would ask your indulgence for a moment because there have been a number of instances in the past few weeks in which the Prime Minister has given the impression that the official opposition is in collusion with the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not believe that according to the rules the Leader of the Opposition is entitled to make such a statement on motions. I suppose he could make a statement at this time on a question of privilege or perhaps on a point of order, but certainly he cannot make a statement on motions unless it is under one or the other guise or under Standing Order 43.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, it is a question of privilege relating to a statement made by a minister as reported in Hansard on which I would like to speak.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This would require the unanimous consent of the House. The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting a procedure which is entirely unknown to me and entirely new in so far as the rules are concerned. I doubt very much whether we should get the House involved in any procedure whereby every member, including the Leader of the Opposition, can rise on motions and make a statement about something in Hansard with which he disagrees. If the Leader of the Opposition has a question of privilege, he knows much better than I do what the rules are. He is required to give notice to the Chair. At the same time the Leader of the Opposition, because of his office, enjoys a special position in this chamber, and I would think there might be agreement to allow the Leader of the Opposition to indicate what his statement is. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, it relates to a statement in Hansard by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council replying to a question put by my colleague, the right hon. member for Prince Albert, regarding the removal of the coat of arms from departmental and ministerial stationery. It is recorded at page 1173 of Hansard. In replying to the question the Parliamentary Secretary refers to a statement of policy made
in the House on October 23. In the House the Parliamentary Secretary attributed the policy statement to the Hon. Robert Stanbury, and I do not object to that, but I do take exception to the Hansard account which indicates the Parliamentary Secretary as saying that the October 23 policy statement was made by the Hon. Robert L. Stanfield. Surely, Mr. Speaker, I would have said something quite different with regard to the removing of the Coat of Arms from government stationery, but in defence of the author of the error I suppose I should be prepared to admit that the statements I have made about the government's stationary policy and stationary attitude on many issues may have contributed to this peculiar error.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)



TERRITORIAL SEA AND FISHING ZONES ACT


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimall-Saanich) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-195, to amend the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, this bill is precisely the same as one I introduced last year and would extend exclusive Canadian fishing limits to the edge of the continental shelf and continental slope. The purpose is, first, the protection of the resources which at present are being greatly exploited by other nations and, second, to protect the livelihood of Canadian fishermen from the encroachments of foreign fleets.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Introduction of Bills:
November 16, 1970-Mr. Howard (Skeena)-Bill intituled "An Act respecting the Canadian Book Publishing Development Corporation".
Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Skeena has just filed with the Chair a copy of his proposed bill. I have not had an opportunity to look into it in detail, but the title is "An Act respecting the Canadian Book Publishing Development Corporation." The hon. member proposes the establishment of a corporation. Clause 6 states that the members are to be paid a remuneration and reasonable travelling and living expenses. This bill appears to me on first glance to have clear money provisions. I would not want to make a ruling at this point,

November 18, 1970
Questions
but I would like to have an opportunity to look at the bill further. If it is not in order it cannot be put to the House. Having had a first glance at it, I think I should have a second glance.


Mr. Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, you are to be congratulated on your perceptive eye, but the bill deals with Canadian authority and Canadian integrity in the book publishing industry, and because of the hypocrisy of the Liberal party in this matter-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that if there is to be a debate on the acceptability of the bill this should be done in due course, but at the present time I indicate to the hon. member that I would like to have a further look at the bill. He is on notice that there may be procedural difficulties about the bill, and when the matter comes up for discussion I would think he would be prepared at that time to make the arguments which he appears to want to submit for the consideration of the Chair and of hon. members at this time.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Rondeau: 1.	During the past five years, what has been, in chronological order, the name of the authorized agent who negotiated the transaction on behalf of Canada for each of the wheat sales to foreign countries?
2.	What was the approximate sale price for each of these sales of Canadian wheat abroad?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. & 2. The Canadian Wheat Board advises that it is not its policy to disclose information concerning the competitive position of accredited agents of the Board. The following firms are accredited export agents of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Accredited Export Agents of the Canadian Wheat Board
Eastern Agents: Agro Company of Canada Ltd.; Anglo Canadian Grain Company Ltd.; Bunge Corporation Limited; Cargill Grain Company Limited; Cargill Manitoba Company Limited; Continental Grain Co. (Canada) Ltd.; Federal Grain Limited; The Grain Growers Export Co. Limited; Louis Dreyfus Canada Limited; Maple Leaf Mills Limited (Maple Leaf Milling Division); Maple Leaf Mills Limited (Toronto Elevator Division); Mardorf, Peach & Co. (Canada) Ltd.; McCabe Grain Company Limited; Norris Grain Company Limited; Northern Sales (1963) Limited; Ogilvie Flour Mills Company Limited; Parrish & Heimbecker Limited; Range Grain Company Ltd.; Ranks Hovis McDougall (Canada) Ltd.; James Richardson & Sons, Limited; Robin Hood Multifoods Limited; Saskatchewan Wheat Pool; Scottish Co-operative
Wholesale Society Limited; Smith, Vincent & Co., Limited XCAN Grain Limited.
Western Agents: Agro Company of Canada Ltd.; Bunge Corporation Limited; Cargill Grain Company Limited; Cargill Manitoba Company Limited; Continental Grain Co. (Canada) Ltd.; East Asiatic Co. (Canada) Ltd.; Federal Grain Limited; Louis Dreyfus Canada Ltd.; McCabe Grain Co. Ltd.; Northern Sales (1963) Limited; Pacific Elevators Limited; Pacific Grain Corporation Ltd.; Powell-Lester Grain & Shipping Limited; James Richardson & Sons, Limited; Ranks Hovis McDougall (Canada) Ltd., Saskatchewan Wheat Pool; XCAN Grain Limited.


HALIFAX HARBOUR-DEVELOPMENT POLICY RELATING TO DARTMOUTH SIDE
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	With reference to the reply to Question Number 2,535 that specific steps to formulate a development policy with the Dartmouth side of the Halifax Harbour would depend on consultation with local interests, can the government state what steps have been initiated by it to further such consultation with local interests, can the government state what steps have been initiated by it to further such consultation with local interests and evolve the development policy?
2.	What specific proposals are being considered by the government under the DREE Program for the development of the Dartmouth side of the Halifax Harbour?
3.	What specific proposals are being considered under the DREE program for the development of the Halifax Harbour and the Bedford Basin?
4.	Is the government considering any expansion proposals of the port in its facilities which do not include the Dartmouth side?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: The Department of Regional
Economic Expansion and the National Harbours Board advise as follows: 1. The Department of Regional Economic Expansion develops plans in cooperation with the Province, which consults local interests in the process.
The National Harbours Board learned in the spring of 1970 that a Management Consultants firm, Stevenson & Kellog Ltd., had been commissioned to undertake on behalf of the Halifax-Dartmouth Port Commission a study of the future of Halifax harbour. While awaiting the receipt of this report, the Board has not initiated steps to further consultation with local interests.
2 and 3. A wide range of proposals, developed with such consultation, are presently under consideration and it is not possible at present to identify the specific projects that may be decided on.
4.	For any expansion proposals, the National Harbours Board considers the whole area within its jurisdiction as a single unit. No new major projects are contemplated at the present time.


DEHAVILAND 125, CF-CFL ACCIDENT
Mr. Forresiall: 1.	With reference to the News Release dated May 27, 1970, No. 26-70 of the Department of Transport, what steps have been taken to ensure that procedural errors will not reoccur?
2.	To what specific "system procedural error" is the News Release referring?

November 18, 1970


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. The method of handling amendments to Canada Air Pilot in area control centres has been changed to reduce the possibility of error. The methods used, by Unit Chiefs to ensure that these changes are brought to the immediate attention of the Unit Control Staff, have been revised and steps taken to provide a more positive check that all copies of cancelled procedures are promptly removed and destroyed.
2. The "system procedural error", was that the Moncton Centre's copy of Canada Air Pilot was amended by removing the cancelled WK beacon Approach Plate for Wabush Airport, in May 1969. However, there were additional copies of this Plate, contained in Sector binders located at the control boards and through an oversight, these copies were not removed with the result that controllers continued to issue clearances for the "WK" approach after it had been cancelled.


DARTMOUTH PUBLIC WHARF
Mr. Forreslall: When does the government Intend to do something for the people of Dartmouth with respect to the existing condemned Dartmouth Public Wharf?


Gérard Duquet: In so far as the National Harbours Board is concerned: A consulting firm has recently completed a report to determine what should be done with regard to the wharf at Dartmouth. Recommendations are expected shortly from the management of Halifax Harbour.


HALIFAX INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Mr. Forreslall: 1.	For what reasons was the Halifax International Airport not included in the list of airports at which technical stops by aircraft would incur greatly reduced charges?
2.	Is the decision open to review?
3.	Will the government review their decision to exclude the Halifax International Airport in light of real possibility for increased employment opportunities?


Gérard Duquet: 1. This program was introduced on a trial basis to ascertain whether reduced landing fees would attract trans-oceanic flights for technical stop purposes. The sites chosen were those with greater overflight traffic. On that basis Halifax was not included.
Questions
2.	The results of the program cannot be fully assessed until late 1971.
3.	Yes, if assessment of the program next year indicates it has been successful in increasing business at the airports now included in the scheme.


APPLICATIONS TO FLY INTO CANADA BY USA BASED AIR CHARTER COMPANIES
Mr. Reid: 1.	In the past 5 years, how many USA based air charter companies have made application to fly into Canada, and how many were granted?
2.	Into which of the following regions did they make application for, and how many of them were granted (a) British Columbia (b) Alberta (c) Saskatchewan (d) Manitoba (e) North-Western Ontario (f) Ontario (g) Quebec (h) New Brunswick (i) Nova Scotia?


Gérard Duquet: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. No. of application received 19661970, 463; granted, 383; outstanding (1970), 80.
(a) British Columbia	33	Outstanding 2(b) Alberta	24	0(c) Saskatchewan	14	2(d) Manitoba	33	11(e) North-Western Ontario	31	10(f) Ontario	98	19(g) Quebec	122	34(h) New Brunswick	14	1(i) Nova Scotia	14	1


NORTHERN RESOURCE ROADS PROGRAM
Mr. Harding: 1.	What was the total federal financial contribution for access roads under the Northern Resource Roads Program for the years 1964 to 1969 inclusive?
2.	How many companies or individuals received grants under this Program?
3.	What was (a) the name of each company or individual receiving a grant (b) the amount of the grant received (d) the type of mining operation in each case (e) the total cost of each project?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. $2,265,295.16.
2. 9.
(a)	(b)	(d)	(e)
		Type of	Estimated
Name of company	Grand paid	operation	expenditureCassiar Asbestos	$968,000.00	Mineral Exploration	$3,066,000.00New Imperial Mines Ltd.	52,141.16	Mineral Exploration	85,000.00Canada Tungsten	69,773.00	Mineral Exploration	150,000.00Canoe River Exploration	44,381.00	Oil Exploration	155,000.00Venus Mines Ltd.	115,000.00	Mineral Exploration	313,660.69J. Ray McDermott Canada Ltd.	50,000.00	Oil Exploration	125,256.66Mount Nansen Mines Ltd.	50,000.00	Mineral Exploration	313,991.32Arctic Gold & Silver Mines Ltd.	100,000.00	Mineral Exploration	250,000.00Anvil Mining Corporation Ltd.	816,000.00	Mineral Exploration	2,280,000.00
November 18, 1970
Questions


DVA STAFF AT CANADA HOUSE, LONDON, ENGLAND
Mr. MacRae: Is the government giving consideration to providing staff at Canada House in London, England to deal with the cases of Canadian veterans and their dependents residing in Great Britain?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Yes.


MILITIA SUMMER PROGRAM
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Will the federal government consider the importance of continuing the Militia Summer Program and extend it for all students?
2.	How many students took advantage of the Militia Summer training and what was the cost of the program?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Department of Manpower and Immigration and by the Department of National Defence as follows: 1. In any discussion the government might have concerning students, no doubt the Militia Summer Program would be carefully considered in all its aspects.
2. Various programs were undertaken in support of the Government's decision to assist students in finding employment during the summer of 1970. These included: (a) Casual labourers employed at bases and stations; (b) Additional personnel on militia training; (c) Additional personnel on cadet training; (d) Personnel on trades training (pilot project); (e) Labourers employed on range clearance (bush and logs).
The final report on these programs, including actual expenditures, has not been completed yet, but approximately 7,750 additional personnel took militia training. The funds budgeted for Militia training were $4,500,000.


ENGINEERING-ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY REPORT LAKE ERIE-INTERNATIONAL CROSSING
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 262
Mr. Thompson:: 1.	Is the Government of Canada aware of or has it been consulted with regard to the study entitled ''Engineering-Economic Feasibility Report Lake Erie-International Crossing" prepared by Howard, Needles, Tammen & Bergendoff, Consulting Engineers, 1805 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri, dated March, 1969 and, if so, what is the estimated cost of the project which would build a bridge across Lake Erie, providing a road link directly between southwest Ontario and the State of Ohio?
2.	Has consideration been given to the implications of the construction of this bridge as it might affect water currents in Lake Erie?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. No.
2. Not applicable.


UTILIZATION OF MEAFORD RANGE PROPERTY-ST. VINCENT TOWNSHIP, GREY COUNTY
Mr. Noble: Has any department indicated to the Department of National Defence its desire to utilize the property which was used as a tank range in St. Vincent Township, Grey County?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, in May 1970 the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development advised that they are interested in this property.


CLEARING OF UNDETONATED EXPLOSIVES-MEAFORD RANGE, GREY COUNTY
Mr. Noble: Is it the intention of the government to establish measures for the purpose of collecting any live ammunition that may be hazardous in the target areas of the Meaford Tank Range and, if so, when will this work be done?
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National
Defence): Service procedures require that the officer-incharge of live firing exercises destroy any live ammunition that does not detonate on contact with its target. There are, however, instances when such ammunition cannot be located and destroyed. As a general policy, National Defence can not dispose for other uses property that is unsafe. The Defence Research Board is examining feasible technical methods of economically clearing and rendering safe areas polluted with undetonated explosives. This study will include consideration of the particular problem at the Meaford Range. However, it is not known at the present time when this study will be completed, or whether it will be practicable to undertake the task.


DVA-MAN-HOURS SAVED AS RESULT OF USE OF COMPUTERS
Mr. Robinson: How many man-hours have been saved as a result of the utilization of computers by the Department of Veterans Affairs during each year since computers have been used?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: The use of computers has not contributed directly to a saving in man-hours. It has, however, contributed directly to the provision of additional and more useful information which would have required an increase in man-hours if a computer were not used.


DVA-LAY-OFFS AND HIRING DUE TO UTILIZATION OF COMPUTERS
Mr. Robinson: As a result of the use of computers by the Department of Veterans Affairs how many employees have been (a) laid off (b) hired?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: (a) None, (b) Nine. It is noted that additional and more useful information has been available since introducing the use of a computer.
November 18, 1970


HMCS BRAS D'OR
Mr. Rodrigue: 1.	Are construction and development works on HMCS Bras d'Or completed?
2.	What has been the capital investment for this ship to date?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. Construction was completed and the ship was formally delivered by the builder on 2 May, 1969. Formal acceptance marking completion of all calm water foilborne trials has not yet taken place. HMCS BRAS D'OR is a development model ship and as such will be the subject of continuing development work.
2. Funds committed to 31 October, 1970, amounted to $51,448,821 of which approximately $1,500,000 has not yet been spent. The authorized ceiling for the project is $52,200,000 which includes $2,200,000 for the replacement foil, other spares, as well as operating and maintenance costs until completion of the current trials.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Orlikow: Since January 1, 1969, what individuals in professional, administrative and financial occupations have left the Department of Manpower and Immigration and, in each case, what were then-respective positions and responsibilities?
Return tabled.


LANDINGS BY LONG-DISTANCE JETS AT CANADIAN AIRPORTS
Mr. McCleave: 1. How many long-distance jets, flying from Europe to Western United States airports, have made technical stops at Canadian airports to take on fuel and food and change flight crews, for each month since January, 1968, and by airport?
2 What are the landing charges both for technical landings and ordinary landings at each of the Canadian airports listed in Part 1?
3.	Have there been changes in the charges involving such technical landings since January, 1968 and, if so, where and by what amounts?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, motions Nos. 142 and 146 are acceptable to the government.
Motions for Papers



REPORTS ENTITLED &quot;SULPHATE AND SULPHURIC ACID LEVELS IN WINDSOR AIR&quot; AND &quot;THE CALCIUM TO SULPHATE RATIO IN WINDSOR AIR&quot;

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 142-Mr. Harding:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of two reports undertaken in the Department of National Health and Welfare entitled "Sulphate and Sulphuric Acid Levels in Windsor Air" and "The Calcium to Sulphate Ratio in Windsor Air".
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 146-Mr. Hales:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all nonclassified documents in possession of the National Research Council and/or the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, whether or not originated by these Departments, dealing with the pollutant emissions of leaded and non-leaded gasolines.
Motion agreed to.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, motions Nos. 93 and 144 are acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations relating to confidential documents and consent of governmental authorities concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that motions Nos. 93 and 144 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



POSSIBLE CLOSING OF CANADIAN FORCES BASE, PORTAGE LA PRAIRIE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 93-Mr. Rowland:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence dating from June 25, 1968, between the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and all persons, including Members of Parliament, writing with respect to the possible closure of the Canadian Forces Base, Portage la Prairie.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 144-Mr. Fortin:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all mail contracts awarded in the federal constituency of Lotbiniere with an indication of (a) the tenderers (b) the expiry date (c) the amount of each.
Motion agreed to.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call motions Nos. 30, 42, 49, 52, 57, 59, 74, 79, 92 and 100?

November 18, 1970
Motions for Papers



FOREIGN DEGREES AND DIPLOMAS-STUDY OF GUIDELINES FOR CANADIAN EQUIVALENCE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 30-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, Ottawa, undertaken for the Department of Manpower and Immigration regarding "Development of guidelines by which Canadian equivalence can be established for degrees and diplomas in foreign countries".
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration: Mr. Speaker, the study referred to in this motion was carried out under contract to the department. It is confidential in nature and would not therefore be in the public interest to reveal its contents. In view of this, I would ask the hon. member to please withdraw his motion.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, for the life of me I cannot see how this kind of information can be considered confidential and I certainly cannot agree to withdraw the motion.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Question.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



REPORT ON MILITARY EXERCISES IN CANADIAN NORTH

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 42-Mr. Thomson:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the reconnaissance report undertaken by General Gilles Turcot, Commander of the DND Mobile Command, regarding military exercises in the Canadian North.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have been in touch with the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley with regard to this motion. I gather as a result of that exchange that he would be agreeable to withdrawing the motion.


Mr. Thomson:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



REPORT BY THE INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE ON PESTICIDES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 49-Mr. Gleave:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the Report by the Interdepartmental Committee on Pesticides, dated February 5, 1970, mentioned by the Minister of Agriculture in Hansard of April 21, 1970, at page 6105.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I move this motion on behalf of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the
Minister of Agriculture I may advise the hon. member that this is a report from an interdepartmental committee to the minister and is considered to be a privileged document.
I would therefore respectfully ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



SURVEY OF RETAIL PRICES OF CERTAIN DRUGS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 52-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the survey on the retail prices of nineteen commonly prescribed drugs undertaken by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs as mentioned by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in his speech before the Federal-Provincial Conference, June 10-12, 1970.
Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the information requested in this motion has already been tabled under motion No. 519 on October 14, 1970, as found in Votes and Proceedings No. 4, page 21, and the contents are contained in sessional paper No. 283-3/519. In view of this, the hon. member may wish to withdraw his motion.


David Orlikow: Under the circumstances I will withdraw
the motion.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



REPORT ON UNITED STATES INTERNAL FOOD-AID PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 57-Mrs. Maclnnis:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report undertaken in the Department of Agriculture on the United States Internal Food-Aid Program and its application to Canada.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture I may advise the hon. member that no formal report has ever been made by the Department of Agriculture on the United States internal food aid program and its application to Canada. An analysis of the program referred to was for departmental use and is considered to be confidential. I would therefore respectfully ask the hon. member to withdraw her motion.


Mrs. Maclnnis:: I cannot see the reason for this, Mr. Speaker, and consequently I should like to transfer it for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



FUNCTIONS OF CONSUMER COUNCIL OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 59-Mrs. Maclnnis:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence between the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and members of the Consumer Council of Canada re-

November 18, 1970
[Stage Direction]
garding the functions of the Council, as mentioned by the Minister and reported in Hansard of December 3, 1969.
Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the correspondence requested in this motion was between myself and the individual members of the Consumer Council on a personal and confidential basis, and I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw the motion.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that a lot of it was published in the press I would like to get the rest, so I should like the question to be put.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?
Monteith
Moore
Muir
Nielsen
Noble
Orlikow
Paproski
Peddle
Peters
Ricard
Ritchie
Rodrigue
Rose
Rynard
Saltsman


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Division
Messrs:
Schumacher Scott Simpson Skoberg Southam Stanfield Thomas (Moncton) Thompson (Red Deer) Thomson (Battleford-Kindiersley) Woolliams Yewchuk-76.
++NAYS
Messrs:


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.



FEES PAID BY PRIVATE AIRCRAFT USING DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT FACILITIES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 74-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the review on user charges and fees paid by private aircraft using the facilities provided by the Department of Transport as mentioned by the Minister without Portfolio in Hansard of November 26, 1969 on page 1291.
Gérard Duquet: Mr. Speaker, the whole matter of user charges and fees is in the process of being revised. However it is not anticipated that the revision will be completed before the fall of 1971.
I would therefore ask the hon. member to kindly withdraw his motion.


Mr. Skoberg:: I agree, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion is withdrawn.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



CONSULTANT REPORT FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT IN AIR TRANSPORT COMMAND-1966

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 79-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by Simpson, Riddell, Stead and Partners on the financial management in Air Transport Command undertaken in 1966 for the Department of National Defence, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the 1st Session of this Parliament.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have been in touch with the hon. member in regard to his motion and I believe he is agreeable to withdrawing it.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, the minister has made two good touches today. I agree.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
1967-68 CONSULTANT REPORT, DESIGN OF MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM
Motion No. 82-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by Operations Research industries, a study and recommendation on the design of a management-information system supporting the departmental planning, programming and budgeting system, undertaken for the Department of Manpower and Immigration in the fiscal year 1967-68, as mentioned in answer to Question No. 1,323 of the 1st Session of this Parliament.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Parliamentary Secretary io Minister of Manpower and Immigration: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is requesting a copy of a report prepared by a private firm for the department. This report contains matters confidential to the department, and therefore I regret it cannot be tabled. Under the circum-

stances, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree to that. I ask that the motion be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



AGRICULTURE-REPORT ON EFFICIENCY OF BILL TO ESTABLISH NATIONAL MARKETING BOARDS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 100-Mr. Baldwin:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy or transcript of the report, received by the federal-provincial conference to consider matters of current concern and held in Ottawa on 16 September 1970, that Bill C-197, the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill, would enable national marketing boards to be established which could help to meet the marketing problems being encountered in the interprovincial marketing of certain agricultural products, and which report is incorporated by reference thereto in a paper, published and dated the 16th September 1970, titled and purporting to be a "Statement of Conclusions", at page 3, paragraph 13 thereof.
Mr. Barney Danson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minisier):: Mr. Speaker, the report requested by the hon. member was made orally to the conference, which by agreement of the participating parties was closed. I think the hon. member will agree that an oral statement is not worth the paper it is printed on anyway. Only the statement of conclusions was authorized for publication. For this reason I would ask the hon. member to withdraw this motion.


Mr. Baldwin:: This is agreeable, Mr. Speaker. We find that the oral statements we get from that side of the House are not worth the paper they should be written on.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is at a loss as to how to interpret the hon. member's reply. Is the motion withdrawn, transferred for debate, dropped, or do we vote?


Gerald William Baldwin: Withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion withdrawn.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance who I am glad to see back in the House looking alive and apparently well. We missed him while he was
November 18, 1970

away; we found it difficult to get information. May I ask the minister whether there have been and are consultations going on with the provinces in regard to methods of easing unemployment this winter?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should also like to welcome my hon. friend back to the House since he was not here on most of the days I was here last week.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: Gentle Ben.


Edgar John Benson: May I also indicate that I did not expect while in western Canada immediately to understand in a couple of days all of the problems in that part of Canada, as my hon. friend attempted to do in Toronto.


An hon. Member:: Remember Lisgar.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the minister that he should now get around to answering the question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edgar John Benson: In direct answer to the question, may I say we are continuously reviewing methods for improving the economic situation in Canada, and in doing this we are in constant consultation with the provinces.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Then I gather the answer is that no such consultations are going on. I wonder whether the government of Canada has made any proposals of a joint nature to the provinces for their consideration in order to stimulate employment this winter?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be quite improper for the government of Canada to make proposals to the provinces without first presenting them to the members of this House.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The air in the mountains must have been rather heady, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister whether it is his present intention to present a budget to the House before Christmas?


Edgar John Benson: No such decision has been made at the present time, Mr. Speaker.



INVESTIGATION OF PRICE INCREASES BY STEEL COMPANY OF CANADA

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the announcement by the Steel Company of Canada that it intends to increase its prices by 3.3 per cent up to 5.3 per cent, allegedly due to increased labour and material costs despite the fact that the labour contracts were negotiated over a year ago, may I ask the minister whether he is investigating this matter, and what action he and his department propose to take with respect to what appears on the surface to be an unnecessary increase?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the Prices and Incomes Commission launched an inquiry into these increases yesterday.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which I should like to address to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that investigations by the Prices and Incomes Commission have generally resulted in price increases and no action, would the Prime Minister be prepared to refer the whole question of labour and material costs, operation costs, profits and dividends of the steel industry over recent years either to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs or to a special inquiry set up by the government?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I will take that into consideration, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary question. While the Prime Minister is taking that into consideration, may I ask him whether he would be prepared to take the necessary action and ask the steel industry to hold prices where they are pending the Prime Minister's decision on this matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have attempted to do this over the past year with other sectors of the economy but I was not very successful.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Further to my question of yesterday to the right hon. gentleman concerning the recording of a statement by Michel Chartrand on magnetic tape, while in detention, and the smuggling out of the tape under the nose of policemen or guards, is the Prime Minister in a position to clarify the matter today?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Unfortunately I am not, Mr. Speaker. I have obtained no satisfactory information since yesterday. I understand that the Minister of Justice of the province of Quebec has called for an inquiry on this subject and that the police is-


Mr. Fairweather:: Do they allow television?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Excuse me. Does the hon. member have something to say?
Apparently the results of the inquiry are not yet known.

November 18, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE



PRIME INTEREST RATE-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO BRING ABOUT FURTHER REDUCTION BY BANKS

Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In order to stimulate the economy, is it the intention of the minister and the government to urge the chartered banks strongly to make a further reduction in the prime interest rate before the end of the year in view of recent further and substantial reductions made by the Bank of Canada, the United States Federal Reserve Board and United States chartered banks, which clearly indicate that a further reduction by the chartered banks in Canada is not only justifiable-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: -but very necessary in order to stimulate the economy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: May I have an answer, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that the question was so long it was difficult to determine whether it was a question or perhaps a little more than that. Would the hon. member state his question briefly.


George Harris Hees: May I state my question a little more briefly. In view of what I have said, is it the intention of the government strongly to urge the chartered banks to make a further reduction in the prime rate before the end of the year?


Edgar John Benson: If we decide to do this, Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend will know very quickly.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question since the minister has obviously not so decided. When does he intend to start acting like a financial leader instead of the Charlie McCarthy of the chartered banks?


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



SCIENCE


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board who apparently is now the spokesman for the government on the subject of space exploration. Do his remarks last night to the Canadian Aeronautics and Space Congress indicate that the government of Canada contemplates seeking associate membership in the planned European space organization, or what was the purpose of the prophecies he made during a most interesting speech?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister should be allowed to reply to the question, but I would think the question should be asked directly rather than by reference to what was said outside the House. Having said that, the minister may reply to the question.


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, rather than give a lengthy answer I would be glad to send the right hon. gentleman a copy of the speech to read in which he will see that the suggestions made were specifically and explicitly stated to be hypothetical and exploratory.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that is about the first time I have heard a minister of this government tell the truth.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Has the hon. member a supplementary?


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Yes, I have, Mr. Speaker. My supplementary question for the President of the Treasury Board is simply this: Does the government's space program merely involve the flying of a kite?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



MANPOWER


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Has the minister taken into account the reports from various parts of the country, from many organizations of graduate students in Toronto and elsewhere, which highlight the growing unemployment of postgraduate students numbering not hundreds but thousands who have graduated from Canada schools, and has he looked into the matter of applying reciprocity to Great Britain and the United States regarding the admissibility of post-graduate students to work in our institutions and industries?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I presume the reference to reciprocity indicates a desire to explore opportunities for these people abroad. The reports, of course, speak largely of a future situation. It would be our hope that we can maintain employment in Canada for as many of these people as possible. It has been only in recent history that it was a major objective of the Canadian community to attract and retain as many of these people as possible within Canada and I think this will remain the objective.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, has the minister had an opportunity to consult with his manpower centres to ascertain the number of these graduates who are unemployed and have no hope of obtaining work in Canada in the foreseeable future?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

November 18, 1970

lLater:l



APPOINTMENT OF CANADIAN GRADUATES TO UNIVERSITY TEACHING POSITIONS

David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the difficulties Canadian graduate students of Ph.D. level and lower are having in finding jobs teaching in universities, will his department be discussing with the organization of Canadian universities the whole program of filling teaching positions and whether there ought to be a greater drive to fill them with Canadian graduates?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think there have been quite a few discussions on this subject on every level with the universities. They are certainly very much aware of the supply situation, and I am hopeful they will do everything they can to place as many qualified Canadians as possible in the positions which are available.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the recent events in the province of Quebec and the fact that certain reports indicate that the federal government is prepared to provide certain funds to that province to alleviate the economic situation there, is the minister prepared at this time to enter into negotiations with the premiers or his counterparts in other provinces where the economic situation is equally bad because of the fact that there is no mobility in the work force and the provinces would like to be able to retain their people? Is he prepared to enter into negotiations with the premiers or his counterparts in these other provinces with a view to giving them the same kind of consideration he is prepared to give to the province of Quebec?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, we are in continuous contact with the provinces about the under-developed regions and the employment situation in said regions.



SPECIAL INCENTIVES TO INDUSTRIES TO LOCATE IN SASKATCHEWAN AND NEWFOUNDLAND

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Is the minister giving consideration to providing special incentives to industries to locate in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Newfoundland in view of the failure of the area incentives program, as evidenced by the statistics tabled in the House
Inquiries of the Ministry
on November 16, to attract industries to these two provinces?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have indicated my reservation about hon. members asking about each province and each region individually. I would think that if hon. members ask about programs and how they affect each region or province of the country it is doubtful that we would make very much progress. However, the hon. member having asked the question and the Chair having taken a few minutes to comment on it, perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply.


Jean Marchand: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think that
the program, as conceived, will necessarily lead to variations between the provinces, i.e. at a given time, some provinces will profit more from it than others, because of the nature of the industries or of the problems involved. In my opinion, a period of one month, or two or even six months is not long enough to judge this program.


James Aloysius McGrath: I have a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. This is a very important question because these are two provinces that have a very high rate of unemployment and this program is not helping these provinces. I repeat my question. Is the minister prepared, especially in light of the additional winter unemployment that is anticipated, to provide special incentives for industries to locate in these two provinces?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, in so far as Newfoundland is concerned, that is the province, I believe, that has the largest number of special areas and, as the federal government is spending large amounts there, this creates employment. As a matter of fact, those citizens of Newfoundland whom I have met tell me that the effects of this program are beginning to be felt.


Stanley James Korchinski: What about the northern area of Saskatchewan? Did you ever hear about that?


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Could he indicate in a statement on motions at a later date, in order to clarify che controversy over incentives to industry, what effect this program has had on the employment situation in Atlantic Canada, and also indicate the extent of unemployment in view of the prediction of 14 per cent in Atlantic Canada this winter and over 20 per cent in the province of Newfoundland?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, a debate on this subject will take place shortly, either today or tomorrow. I shall certainly take part in it and I shall then give all the information required.

November 18, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry IMMIGRATION



IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS IN REPORT ON APPLICANTS IN CANADA

Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Does the minister intend to implement the recommendations of the Sedgwick report on immigration problems?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is our intention to consider the report very carefully and to come forward in due course with a decision concerning implementation.
*



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to either the Solicitor General or the Minister of Justice. In view of the apparent conflict between the Quebec Provincial Police and the municipal police, has the minister received any information that the conflict has impeded the RCMP in the cooperative investigation, particularly in view of the fact that they have not even been notified of Rose's escape?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the conflict of which the hon. member speaks, but in any event I want to assure him that the RCMP have not been impeded in their work.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the minister tell us, in his usual factual way, whether either the municipal or provincial police actually informed the RCMP of the fact that Rose and his cohorts had escaped from the apartment in question?


George James McIlraith: I am not aware of any factual situation which indicated that Rose and his cohorts did escape. We know that persons escaped. Who they were is not yet established.


An hon. Member:: Did they not take their fingerprints?


George James McIlraith: Let me say in any event, to deal with the substantive part of the question of the hon. member, that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were not informed until Tuesday evening of that week.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am not going to quarrel over who was there, but in light of the Solicitor General's answer I wonder if he could advise the House why the RCMP were not notified. I heard the minister's answers previously, and I understood there was supposed to be a co-operative investigation by the RCMP, together with the other two police forces. Why were the RCMP not notified?


George James McIlraith: I regret I am unable to answer the question. I simply do not know.


John George Diefenbaker: I wonder if I could help out the minister with information which I received within the last few minutes. I do not know whether this has been brought to his attention. Quebec Provincial Police Director, Maurice St. Pierre, has stated that the RCMP was not notified about the escape until the following Tuesday, which is what the minister said, "because we had no official notification that the RCMP were on duty Friday night". I ask the minister, is the RCMP co-operating with the Quebec provincial police and the municipal police on selective duty on selected days, or what does this nonsense by Mr. St. Pierre mean?


An hon. Member:: Are they on the roster system?


George James McIlraith: The right hon. gentleman will have to take responsibility-


John George Diefenbaker: I do.


George James McIlraith: -for the truthfulness of the document he just read. I simply cannot accept the document as an accurate statement of what the director of the Quebec surete said.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Was this information not passed on to the minister? Was any information passed on to him? Mr. St. Pierre said that murder and kidnapping fall within his jurisdiction anyway. Is that the way in which the cooperation is taking place, that the Quebec Provincial Police are actually not securing the co-operation of the RCMP?


An hon. Member:: Or vice-versa.


George James McIlraith: The right hon. gentleman is trying to draw inferences from his questions that the facts do not warrant.


John George Diefenbaker: They were three days without notice.


George James McIlraith: The RCMP was advised of the arrest of Lortie early Saturday morning.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What about his friends?


George James McIlraith: Dealing with the other matters to which the right hon. gentleman referred, one did not occur until late Saturday and the other incident or discovery on Monday.


John George Diefenbaker: The RCMP did not receive any notice until Tuesday night. Is that co-operation on the part of the QPP?


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


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder if I could ask one question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Champlain.
November 18, 1970



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Could he tell the House why he was unable to attend the official funeral of General de Gaulle?



AGRICULTURE


Mr. H. W. Danforlh (Kent-Essex):: I would like to address my question to the Minister of Justice. Since there now appears to be a very real danger that the obstruction of the normal interprovincial trade in eggs and broilers brought about by recent provincial regulations may extend to other primary foods and to manufactured goods, will the government now consider referring this question to the Supreme Court of Canada?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Earlier questions from the hon. member for Peace River and other hon. members prompted from me the answer that I do not feel a reference to the Supreme Court is the best way of handling the situation. I subscribe entirely to the view of the Minister of Agriculture that the piece of legislation before the House is a more satisfactory way. Aside from that, there is no uniformity in the legislation of the various provinces, nor is there any pattern in the factual basis on which the regulations are being administered. Unless there is unanimity on fact, a reference to the Supreme Court would be of no avail.


Harold Warren Danforth: May I ask this supplementary question of the minister? If this restriction is placed against trade in manufactured goods, it appears it will in no way come under the regulations to be prescribed by the national marketing agency, so will the government give consideration to this new situation that is developing?


John Napier Turner: The government will consider all new factors.


Gerald William Baldwin: Will the minister not consult with the Attorneys General of the provinces to see whether it is not possible to get agreement on drawing up terms of reference which would deal with this very acute problem threatening the union of our country to see if it cannot be brought to the Supreme Court of Canada?


John Napier Turner: At the last meeting of the first ministers, most of the Attorneys General were present. The consensus of that meeting of first ministers was that the best solution was the type of legislation proposed by the Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. Horner:: That is no solution at all.
Inquiries of the Ministry CITIZENSHIP



RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM NATIVE CULTURAL AND COMMUNICATIONS SOCIETY OF ONTARIO

Frank Howard: I should like to direct a question to whoever is the Acting Minister without Portfolio dealing with citizenship matters. Why has there been no response to the letter written to the minister under the date of August 24 of this year by the Native Cultural and Communications Society of Ontario? Out of courtesy at least, could there not be a reply?


Hon. Gerard Pellelier (Secretary of Stale):: Mr. Speaker, I will take note of the question and communicate it to the minister.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Robert Lorne Stanfield: should like to ask the Solicitor General a question relating to the difference of opinion between the federal authority and the Quebec provincial authority concerning what information should be released by the police. Has any reason been given by a spokesman for the police in Quebec as to why no public statement was made about missing these men until some days afterwards? In view of the difference of opinion between the Quebec and federal authorities as to what information should be published, the police in Quebec are now simply passing information on to Mr. Choquette and having him decide what should be published. What is the difference of opinion between the Quebec and federal authorities as to what information should be published by the police?


George James McIlraith: I think 1 should point out to the Leader of the Opposition again that the responsibility for the administration of justice in criminal cases lies with the provincial Attorney General. I am not aware of any difference of opinion between the federal and provincial police authorities as to what should or should not be published. If the hon. gentleman has evidence of some difference of opinion on that point, I would be very grateful to him if he would pass it on to me. I would be glad to explore the matter further.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Yes, Mr. Speaker. May I be of assistance to the Solicitor General and refer him to the responsible police authorities in the province of Quebec. I suggest to the minister that he might make inquiries in that quarter to find out what the difficulties are.


George James McIlraith: I want to deal with that question. I do not think it is good enough, in a matter of this seriousness, just to take every item in every speculative story in the press and rely on what is asserted there as fact.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

November 18, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I ask the Solicitor General whether this is not the proper place to give the responsible minister an opportunity to assert the facts?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is, if a proper question is asked.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Solicitor General, who has gone so far as to state that the RCMP is under his jurisdiction and responsibility. If he has not got the information today would he seek it out and let us have a full statement so far as this mess is concerned, instead of giving all these answers which are mere verbiage?



INCLUSION OF PARAMEDICAL SERVICES UNDER MEDICARE

Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. How many provinces must agree to the inclusion of paramedical services under medicare before these services will be accepted by the federal government as a cost-shared item?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the policy of the government in the past has been that we would desire a consensus to develop before there is any extension of coverage. Of course, this question was never seriously considered until every province had entered medicare, and that is just about the case now.


Randolph Harding: Is the government considering cost-sharing of paramedical services with any province which will include these services under its medical care program?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. member could be a little more specific. Paramedical services cover a very wide area.


Winona Grace MacInnis: As a supplementary question, if the optometrists of any one province were to ask him to make an agreement with them under medicare, has the minister the power to make it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is not acceptable. The hon. member is asking the minister to express an opinion. 1 would not think that in those terms the question is in order.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Then, may I ask it in a different way. Has the minister met with the optometrists in any one province to consider making an agreement with them, and is he prepared to do so?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I met with the optometrists- I do not believe they were from any one particular province but rather representatives of their national association-many months ago to hear their representations to be included in medicare. But as they are well aware, that has to be done through the provinces. If they
are to be covered there would have to be agreement between the provinces and the federal government.



PENSIONS


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe Norih):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It concerns a specific case about which I received a lot of letters, that of an old age pensioner who was poor enough to qualify for supplementary benefits. After his death it was found that he had been overpaid by the sum of $6, and a formal claim was filed against his wife, who was in poor circumstances. Would the minister investigate this pernicious practice of making claims for small overpayments of supplementary benefits against the estates of old age pensioners who have been overpaid through the error of the government?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question is in the form of a submission. He will have to take it that his suggestion will be considered by the minister.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Perhaps the minister would like to take this question as notice, because obviously the details have to come from the Minister of Justice of Quebec. How many people who were arrested, detained and released without having been charged under the War Measures Act regulations have lost their jobs?


John Napier Turner: I will take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, 1 address my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the tragedy in the Bay of Bengal and Pakistan and continuing reports of the spreading of disease, with loss of life running into the hundreds of thousands, can the minister say whether any relief program, in addition to the original gift to the Red Cross, is being planned by the Canadian government?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I said in the House the other

November 18, 1970

day, we have made a gift of $50,000 to the International Red Cross, and we have asked the Pakistani authorities to give us a list of the goods that would be useful in this emergency. As soon as we receive it, we will give it sympathetic consideration.


Robert Norman Thompson: Has the minister considered the establishment of an office which would be geared to meet such tragedies, and which would be able to cut through the red tape and bureaucracy that often hinders such emergency programs?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that in the case of Canada there has been any red tape to be cut through. As I say, we are waiting for a list. As soon as we receive it from the Pakistani authorities we will give it sympathetic consideration and act quickly.




Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Solicitor General. Has the minister seen fit to have an investigation made to determine whether any of the people arrested and charged under the War Measures Act spent any period of time in Cuba, Algeria or Jordan during the last two years?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, there has been no special investigation ordered on that matter. I do not know that I should give details of the background of particular persons who have been charged, as that may have a bearing on their trial. There is some difficulty in this regard, but there is knowledge on that subject concerning a good many of them.



GOVERNMENT OFFICES


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchesler North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. Is the government giving consideration to the use of the public tender system in the securing of leased space for government offices and in securing architectural services?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Carman Coates: As a supplementary question, has a study been under way within the department, and when will the public be made aware of what action the government intends to take in this regard?


Arthur Laing: We have invited tenders for space in the cities of Ottawa and Hull. We now have a variety of offers, but no decision has been made yet in respect of those that will be taken up.
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



CANADA-UNITED STATES MINISTERIAL MEETING-ITEMS ON AGENDA

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance similar to a question I addressed to the Prime Minister the other day. Can he tell us what items will be on the agenda of the Canada-U.S. ministerial conference which is to be held in Ottawa next week, and which ministers will be representing the Canadian government on that occasion?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I will defer to the Secretary of State for External Affairs for an answer to this question.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the agenda has not yet been agreed with our U.S. counterparts so that I cannot give a definitive list of the items that will be discussed. However, I expect that all the principal questions affecting Canadian-American relations in the economic and financial fields will be discussed. I have seen a tentative list of an agenda that we would put before our American friends but, as I say, I cannot reveal that since it has not been agreed.
The ministers who ordinarily attend are the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry depending upon the matters to be considered. In addition, the Governor of the Bank of Canada and the Canadian Ambassador to Washington are usually included on the Canadian side. In addition to that, on this occasion if there are other ministers who have responsibilities that are touched upon in these discussions they will be invited to attend at that time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that the Deputy Minister of External Affairs, the Deputy Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Chairman of the National Energy Board have been in Washington this week holding discussions with the U.S. authorities, is the whole question of energy resources going to be discussed at this conference in Ottawa next week?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member would be very surprised if it were not to be. It will be one of the matters to be discussed between the ministers and the secretaries of the United States. I think it is very useful that we should have an exchange of views. As the hon. member knows, no decisions are made at such meetings. They are purely a matter of exploring one another's points of view to prepare the ground for any agreements that may subsequently be made.

November 18, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR RELATIONS



INQUIRY AS TO LEGISLATION DEALING WITH DISPUTES

Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: I have a question for the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister intend to present legislation in this session which will provide better methods for dealing with labour-management disputes in Canada and, if so, when will it be introduced?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as indicated in the Speech from the Throne, amendments to the existing legislation will be brought forward in this session of Parliament. In the interval, I can only suggest to management and labour that they show the usual degree of responsibility in arriving at collective agreements.



WHEAT-DELIVERY TO RUSSIA OF REMAINING QUANTITY UNDER SALE CONTRACT

Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Can the minister indicate if the government has a firm commitment that Russia will take the balance of the 135 million bushels of wheat still outstanding on the previously negotiated three-year sales contract? If so, can he say when the board expects to deliver this grain?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, no specific bookings have been entered into for this grain. The Canadian Wheat Board and Exportkhleb referred to this particular amount of grain in the course of their last discussions and it was agreed that it would be taken as soon as it is conveniently possible and desirable for the U.S.S.R. to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have only two or three minutes left before the end of the question period, so perhaps we might allow two or three more questions.
[DOT] [DOT] [DOT]



NATIONAL CAPITAL


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, he being the minister responsible for the NCC area. I would ask if the symbol that has been painted on the National War Memorial was put there with government approval and, if not, what action is the government taking to prevent the defacing of national monuments?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have to inform the hon. gentleman that I am no longer responsible for the National Capital Commission.


An hon. Member:: Hurrah!


John Angus MacLean: Then, could I address the question to the proper minister?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Wherever he is.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of National Defence.
Two weeks ago I asked the right hon. Prime Minister who would have to pay for the armed forces services in Quebec. The answer was that the expenses had to be borne by that Province. Two days later, it was said in reply to a question of the Ralliement Creditiste leader (Mr. Caouette) that negotiations were going on on that matter between Quebec and the federal government. I ask the Minister of National Defence if a decision has been reached in that regard and if the armed forces services in the province of Quebec will be paid by Ottawa or Quebec, or on a joint basis.
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National
Defence): Mr. Speaker, the matter is still being discussed.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question- [Later:]


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Joliette on a supplementary, I believe.


Roch La Salle: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
As Quebec could be responsible for the total cost, which might prove embarrassing for the Quebec government, can the minister tell us the daily cost for the services of the army in Quebec?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the exact figure with me at this time.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Has the government reached a decision on the appointment of a new chief commissioner for the Canadian Wheat Board and, if so, when will this be announced? Also, can the minister assure the House that whoever is appointed will not be from the private grain trade?


Otto Emil Lang: No decision has been reached on this matter, Mr. Speaker. Hon. members are aware of the fact that the Wheat Board has appointed a very important committee to examine its operations. It has been my thought that before reaching any firm conclusion, the Wheat Board should be in possession of this report and in a position to comment on it to us. The report is expected before too long.
November 18, 1970



PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the referendum on November 25 in the city of Edmonton, and in view of the thawing of the austerity deep freeze, will the minister consider making a substantial federal grant to the Edmonton omniplex, the first all-weather stadium in Canada, in order that it can be available for the 1972 Arctic Bowl or Grey Cup?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I promise the hon. member that I will look into the measure of responsibility, if any, which we have. I also assure him that I will first find out what an omniplex is.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That this House condemns the government for increasing the economic inequalities between different regions of Canada by its opposition to full employment policy and its refusal to use short term and long term programs in a timely and effective manner to prevent the resulting recession-level poverty and social injustice now widespread in Canada.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the House would agree to the same form of time limit that we have had and which has proved successful in previous debates, namely half an hour for the Leader of the Opposition introducing the motion, half an hour for the spokesman for the government, 20 minutes for other party leaders and 15 minutes thereafter. This has been very acceptable and has certainly improved the quality of the speeches.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed, Mr. Speaker.


René Matte: We agree, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There seems to be agreement on the suggestion made by the hon. member for Peace River and it will be so ordered.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, during the question period there were several questions which I think arose from a reported statement by Dr. Frank Kelly, a science adviser to the Science Council of Canada to the effect that it is anticipated that about half the Ph.Ds' who will be graduating within the next few months will not be able to
Employment Programs
find work. No doubt this is partly due to inappropriate training in some cases, but surely it also indicates in a very dramatic way the extent of the slowdown in economic development in this country. It also indicates in a very dramatic way the effect this is having even upon highly educated young Canadians.
There can be no question now but that the government has bungled very badly in its economic policies during the past year. Some of us have the impression that the ministers have been so busy admiring themselves they have not really noticed what has been going on in the country. The complacency which has been manifested, particularly in the Speech from the Throne, is in such striking contrast to actual conditions in the country that it is very difficult, when reading the Speech from the Throne now, to believe that it referred to the country in which we have been living these past few months.
The difficulty does not merely arise from the outbreak of terrorism, kidnapping and murder in the province of Quebec; it also arises out of the mounting unemployment that exists in this country. It is true that during this past year or so the government has been busy fighting inflation. This is fine. This is important and it is good, provided it is done with good judgment. But I have the impression sometimes that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) felt he was going to take this country by the neck if necessary and shake inflation right out of it, even if he choked the country in the process.
Because we have been waiting for some relief for the veterans and we have been waiting for some further assistance to older people, we have refused to believe that this country is in such a desperate position that the veterans and older people must pay such a heavy price for the fight against inflation. We wonder what happened to the war against poverty which was declared a couple of years ago. We have wondered why the government has not made some response to the call from the Economic Council of Canada for the Government of Canada to meet headlong the challenge of poverty in this country. What the government chose to do instead was to slow down our economy, the result being the heavy increase in unemployment and an anticipated very heavy increase this winter.
All this, the projected increase in our employment this winter and the projected deplorable conditions that will exist then, has not been taken seriously by this government. One could consider the budget of last spring and the warnings given by all sides of what would happen. May I remind the House that early in August I asked the government to reconvene Parliament promptly for two reasons. One of those was to enable the government to present to Parliament, so that Parliament could discuss them, plans for actively combatting anticipated heavy unemployment this winter. That was last August, but no program has been presented yet.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: All this has been brushed aside. The Prime Minister and others have chosen from time to time

N ovember 18, 1970
Employment Programs
to ridicule programs such as winter works. They content themselves with reciting day after day and week after week the few measures that have been taken by the government during recent months, measures which have always proved to be totally inadequate. We had a debate last week, I think it was, on this and related subjects; yet all we obtained from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) was another recital of the things that the government had done. Apparently, there was no recognition at all of the inadequacy of the measures that the government had taken. Now, we have had the Minister of Finance, who has been out west this past week, expressing warnings. The warnings were about the dangers of protection in the United States. We were warned about the danger to Canada arising from certain philosophies held in the United States. I wonder, sir, whether he would not be better off paying a little more attention to the benighted policies of his own government.
I have heard rumours and reports to the effect that officials serving this government are hard at work trying to develop programs at this stage, at this time of year, to fight unemployment this winter. It is reported that this plan will be unveiled soon. I hope so. It is late in the day and the outlook at present is that as a result of the folly of this government the people of this country are going to pay a very heavy price indeed. I hope, sir, that at least one thing will come out of this; I hope that this government will be shaken out of the nineteenth century.
All across Canada unemployment is mounting. We have the unemployment statistics published by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics; we have the information that unemployment insurance benefit payments have increased. We had information disclosed in the supplementary estimates considered recently that payments to the provinces for welfare have had to be increased. As a consequence, the supplementary estimates of this government in this area increased by $51 million. This, in part, is the result of increased unemployment. Of course, an incidental effect of it will be that very heavy burdens will be laid upon the municipalities and provincial governments involved. It is bad across the whole country, sir, and it is particularly bad in slow growth areas. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand, Langelier) is not present. But I say to the minister, through you, sir, that the economic slowdown in this country and the pronounced effect that will have on our slow growth areas is such as to virtually make a mockery of the efforts of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion in his attempt to encourage development in those areas.
The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) pointed out in the question period how little had been done for his province, at any rate, by that department. Yet even where the effort of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion has been substantial, even where the effort of his department has been substantial, that effort could accomplish nothing in view of the slowdown and the demoralizing effect resulting from general economic policies prevalent in this country as well as the discouragement that results from the slowdown in the national rate of growth.
All this, sir, is particularly hard on such areas as Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, but the effect is not confined to them. Actually, differing rates of unemployment in various areas are themselves one of the best indicators of how serious this problem has become. British Columbia, the Atlantic provinces and Quebec are all going to suffer a great deal this winter. Of that there can be no doubt. The amount of aid available through the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is not going to help very much, and the extra money that the government has promised is pretty ridiculous when contrasted with the need. This is another example of this government's lack of concern, and of its lack of effective policies, in doing anything of importance to smooth out these dangerous discrepancies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not want to be altogether unfair about this. In its own way, the government has done something along this line. It is true that the areas of high unemployment are still there, and that the unemployment is getting higher. But there has been one development in that the areas of relatively low unemployment are becoming scarcer and scarcer, and they may even soon vanish altogether. The Prairies are expecting a rate double that of last year and Ontario appears to be heading for its greatest number of jobless in a good many years. That, sir, is equalization according to the style of the present government. If you cannot cure poverty, spread it around. I wonder what it is going to do for an encore.
What does unemployment mean in concrete terms, sir? Even to the person and community still relatively untouched by unemployment, it has a real, though subtle, significance. It means lost opportunities for the businessmen; it means a lower standard of living for the family and for the community; it means at the very least a certain sense of insecurity. Actually, it means everything that comes from living in an economy that is working at far under its own potential, in an economy that is therefore insecure. This is the effect of mass unemployment, even on those who do not seem immediately to be affected, or directly affected. It is different for those who perhaps are not yet personally affected and who live in a city or town where unemployment is rife. The feeling of insecurity is much more pronounced; social morale is down; business and commerce of all sorts are much more directly hit. The community itself is poor; it cannot afford to spend money even for social essentials. It tends to become run-down.
It should not be necessary to talk about the people, the wage earners and the families who are directly involved. But with this government, it seems to be necessary time after time to remind it what this means in terms of loss of human dignity, of vanishing hopes and of a bitterness towards society. This loss of human potential and of human resources may well be more than temporary, because a man can be out of work for so long that he loses a great deal of his drive, and even his sense of personal dignity. A prolonged period of joblessness for a

November 18, 1970

proud man can be a terrible thing. It can destroy his willingness and even his ability to work. That is one of the dangers of the prolonged and massive type of unemployment that this country has been experiencing. And it will go on experiencing this more intensively according to the forecasts. No government should need to be reminded of this, but it seems that this government must be reminded.
I will not take time this afternoon to speak about social unrest. Certainly, I am not going to suggest that political terrorism and support for political terrorism are a direct result of mass unemployment. That would be far too simple an explanation and it would not be right in any event. Yet, surely it is obvious even to this government that unemployment of this type creates a social climate where whole groups of men are embittered to the point where they begin to think about violent attempts at solutions, even if they are not yet accepted.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Along with human poverty, loss of individual dignity and social unrest, there are of course the economic effects of unemployment. I should not have to remind a government that has put so much stress on economic statistics that mass unemployment means a lowered input into that system, combined with a higher level of unproductive demand on that same system. As the Economic Council of Canada points out in its latest report, when an economy is working below its potential, there is no way of it ever recovering the losses that it sustains during such a period. That is an absolutely irrecoverable loss.
And yet this government does not seem to be unduly concerned. The Minister of Finance is quoted as having said yesterday that everything is looking up-that prosperity is just around the corner, so to speak. Well, I hope it is pretty sharp corner because, if it is not, the promise does not mean very much. In fact, on the face of it, it looks simply like a new expression of the complacency we have come to expect from this government. It tells more about the government than it does about the economy of this country.
It seems a long time ago, in terms of the events that have taken place, but it was just a little more than a month ago that the government produced what still has to be considered as the utmost example of complacency, the Speech from the Throne. We were described as a country somehow calmer and better than the others, despite our tiny little problems that the government was going to solve for us. We were even on the verge of greatness. I would say rather than the government was on the verge of lateness. The government's tardiness in all fields, from security to economic management, has been amply demonstrated ever since. I say that with no joy. All hon. members in this House are Canadians and have no desire to see this country in trouble. But neither can we deny the existence of the signs that we are in some trouble. That is why I am sorry I have to remind the government about the effects of its policies. We must keep insisting until we get action. It should not be necessary, as I said before but, unfortunately, in view of the
Employment Programs
apparent lack of concern that this government has demonstrated, we in the opposition must do so.
This government, and let us make no mistake about it, has responsibilities that it cannot simply slough off. It is very easy to blame business, it is very easy to blame labour unions, farmers, or any other groups you might care to mention, for the economic problems we are facing. The government has not been shy about blaming other people. And when it runs short of people it will even blame humanity in general. It is greed that is to blame, as the Prime Minister said last September when he was discussing unemployment in a speech in Quebec.
If the Prime Minister wants to blame human frailties, I suggest he choose a few others. How about incompetence on the part of the government? How about a lack of concern on the part of that same government as to what is happening to the workers and to the economy of this country? What about complacency? There is the real ally of the devil. And it is a quality that this government has in abundance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: One of these days we will have to discuss trade policy because that is another area of complacency. We are talking about matters of more immediate concern. I hope that this government does not repeat the steps it has taken because the steps that have been taken have been inadequate. I hope no one will do what the Prime Minister did some time ago with regard to housing, rise and say that there is no crisis. The housing situation is serious, as is the unemployment situation. It is late in the day to attack the problems of this winter, but we must try.
I have made these suggestions before. First, the government should have an immediate conference with the piovinces, move forward on projects and discuss other methods of stimulating employment this winter. All the municipalities and provinces have projects on which they can move forward, if they can solve some of their budgetary problems. This conference should examine the position of some of the municipalities and provinces with regard to their capacity to meet the responsibilities they will have to discharge this winter in terms of welfare.
Second, the government should review the position announced by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) about a week ago that no interim changes were planned with regard to the amount and duration of the unemployment insurance benefits or the qualifications required to earn these benefits. This would be useful and should be studied.
Third, the Minister of Finance should present an immediate budget which, among other things, should indicate a clear direction to the economy, not a continuation of the ambiguous statements being made by the minister such as "We will encourage the economy to expand as rapidly and as soon as we think it is efficient for it to expand". What does that mean? In what way does that indicate to the business community or the country the concrete way in which the government
1294

N ovember 18, 1970
Employment Programs
would like the economy to expand? To what extent does this indicate in a tangible way the economic goals of the government for the immediate future? To what extent does it give guidance to the business community or the community as a whole as to the basis of its plans.
The government should concentrate on tax reductions.
It should remove the sales tax on building materials used in the construction of housing. This would provide an immediate stimulus throughout the country in terms of employment as well as providing additional homes for Canadians. A reduction in income tax should be more than an elimination of the surcharge that was added to fight inflation. This would not be inflationary. It would be interesting to see whether such a move would reduce the inflationary pressures resulting from rising wages. It would not necessarily affect government revenues because the expanding economy would produce additional revenues. Perhaps just as important as far as the private sector is concerned, the government should remove as quickly as possible the uncertainty with regard to the unpegged dollar and our exchange rates, as well as the main outlines and positions on tax reform which are causing the uncertainty. The government should immediately indicate its position with regard to the modifications in the white paper proposals as suggested by the House of Commons and Senate Committees.
There are other suggestions that can be considered. I say to the government, through Your Honour, let us get going. During the past two years inequalities have increased in this country. That is unfortunate, but it is true. Inequalities have increased as between regions and among individuals with regard to opportunity. There has been increased poverty among the aged and the unemployed. I say people are paying a heavy price for the complacency of this government and I sincerely request that the government give us today not merely a recital of what has been inadequately done in recent months, but what it proposes to do. Unless the government comes forward today or tomorrow with some concrete proposals reassuring us of its energy, its concern and its effectiveness, I certainly call upon this House to support this motion.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Otto Emil Lang: I was pleased to note that during some part of his speech today the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) addressed himself to the words of the motion. I must say I thought he was probably in a mood to repeat once again a speech which he has made before in the hope that its impact would grow with retelling. Unfortunately, it does not seem to be having that effect, although I must say that when he refers to the difficult situation of individuals who are unemployed, of individuals who find themselves in difficult circumstances, his speech is improving, probably because he has been using the eloquent words spoken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) on this aspect of the subject.

The Leader of the Opposition seems to find difficulty in appreciating what is involved in solving the inflation problem while at the same time producing an atmosphere in which the economy, and employment opportunities, can expand. It is true the Leader of the Opposition did note that there was inflation to be fought, and that this was an important task, but he did not seem to realize the natural economic impact of attempts to get the economy under control. It appears to me that members opposite fail to appreciate the tremendous importance to this country of the private sector and of decisions made in that sector of the economy; the government's monetary and fiscal measures can, it is true, have an important effect-but only an effect-on those decisions.
The economy of this country is basically sound and is capable of moving forward along a path which now seems to lie clearly ahead. It was vital, though, that inflation be brought under control-vital for the sake of those on relatively fixed incomes, vital for the sake of every region of this country. We have begun to succeed in this task. When we began, we made it clear that in our view the controlling of inflation, so fundamental to long term growth, could have a serious impact upon immediate employment levels unless marked restraint were exercised by all sectors of the economy in their claims as to the amount they would like to take out of the economy in return for their services. We urged restraint upon business, upon labour and upon all groups in this country to the end that more people might be employed in the production of goods at lower cost. This is simple economic truth which I should apologize for repeating were it not so clear that members opposite do not understand it.
Our dilemma at this time arises from the need to maintain a firm hand on inflation within the economy. The Leader of the Opposition talked about additional expenditures and tax reductions without showing any concern for their effect in terms of inflation. I should not say he showed no concern; his words were "It would be interesting to see the effect-." Well, it is not hard to foretell the effect of removing all constraints on economic policy. Surely, the road to an expanding economy, to growing employment, is to build and maintain confidence within the whole of the economy and particularly within the private sector, in its readiness and ability to grow and move forward. It is inflation itself which has been, in its way, a deadly throttler of growth in the private sector. It is confidence in the economy which will, in itself, bring about more investment. What are needed at this point are firm decisions on the part of the private sector in the economy to move forward.
The Leader of the Opposition asked for a signal. Surely, that signal has already been given in terms of announcements which demonstrate the determination of the government to deal with inflation and create a climate in which jobs can be provided through investment and growth. There remains a serious issue in relation to the amounts sought to be taken out of the economy by those who are strong and, at the same time, unwilling to moderate their claims. I know from what they are saying that members of the Tory party would not like to see restraints applied to the business community. And I know
November 18, 1970

we shall hear from our friends in the New Democratic Party how wrong it would be if the restraints of good sense were applied to certain other sectors of the economy. It is important they be applied to all.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What is stopping you?


Otto Emil Lang: It is important both to maintain the economic policies designed to control inflation and to encourage the forward movement of the private sector which is now, as recent figures indicate, beginning to show. The government has taken significant steps in the direction of improving the atmosphere for growth and development. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has, during the last few weeks, given details on several occasions of monetary and fiscal measures which should create greater opportunity for the private sector to move forward.


Mr. McIntosh:: Should, but don't.


Otto Emil Lang: The pessimists on the other side say "should, but don't." What we need basically is faith in the strength of the economy.


An hon. Member:: We need Oral Roberts.


Otto Emil Lang: I might draw attention, among other things, to the improvement of the financial position of provincial governments through the advancement of payments to the provinces, which in turn have enabled them to help municipalities go forward with their own projects.
The motion referred to regional disparities. Surely, no words could be more displaced than words which suggest a lack of concern by this government about regional inequality in this country.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


John (Jack) McIntosh: What about selling some more wheat?


Otto Emil Lang: The hon. member says, what about wheat? I suggest that is one other factor, and its impact is beginning to be felt, which will lead to a burgeoning growth of the economy in the west and from that will follow, as the hon. member must know, an impact which will be felt across the whole of this country, and before long at that.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Tell us about barley now.


Otto Emil Lang: The government has been increasing in dramatic fashion the amount of money made available to regions of this country that have fallen behind economically.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Through barley sales?


Otto Emil Lang: Through regional economic expansion.
Expenditures have been made to develop these regions industrially and to place jobs there. Within the sector for which I have some special responsibility, manpower, this year the government will be spending $291.3 million on a manpower training program alone. I should like to outline to hon. members the way in which this program not only deals with the specific problem of helping to train
Employment Programs
and upgrade an individual, but also the great impact it has in regions that need the most help.


John (Jack) McIntosh: What are you going to do now?


Otto Emil Lang: Through this program the department directs its attention primarily to those areas in which are to be found the largest number of people in need of retraining and upgrading. This has a direct impact in offsetting those factors in our economy which might tend to leave these regions behind.
I made reference to the sum of $291.3 million. Hon. members opposite frequently refer to the old winter works program which, with all its difficulties and disadvantages, in its final year received only $27 million. Here is a program involving the sum of $291.3 million that is directed toward the training and upgrading of people all across the country, but particularly those who can best use retraining and upgrading in the course of seeking employment, thus strengthening the economy as a whole.
I think it is obvious to hon. members of this House that the government is seriously concerned about an unemployment problem that is visible to all. Speaking in a debate on a similar topic only a week ago, the Minister of Finance expressed his and the government's concern when he emphasized, as I have done, the need to go ahead in terms of a solid economy while at the same time doing everything that can be done to encourage that growth for which we are all looking.
To suggest that any lack of attention is being paid to regions of the country which have the highest unemployment is, of course, to fly completely in the face of the policies and actions of this government. This government has been concerned not only about those regions having special economic difficulties but also about those groups of people who have special problems. In addition, it has been concerned about the fact that as long as inflation is allowed to continue it will be these people who will suffer the most. It is our determination, as it is our responsibility, to see that the economy is put into such sound shape that inflation is under control; that an atmosphere is created for additional employment opportunities, particularly in the private sector of the economy; that the private sector is able to move forward and, together with the public sector, take steps to create the employment that is required.
We on this side of the House have faith and confidence in the economy. We do not think that the suggestions of the Leader of the Opposition with regard to a further conference and further discussions, which seemed to be the meat of his proposals, would be any substitute for the action that is being taken to encourage, to the extent that is responsible, growth in the economy, particularly in the private sector.
The Leader of the Opposition has commented on government expenditure, and I note only that he would be interested to see the effect of his suggestions. He does not feel any sense of responsibility in regard to those actions that he proposes. It is our responsibility to deal with both sides of this difficult question. We must inspire confidence

N ovember 18, 1970
Employment Programs
in the economy, must ensure that fundamentally it is sound, and that the private sector will see the economy move forward with rapidity in the days ahead.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the motion presented by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) criticizes the government because its opposition to full employment has increased economic inequalities in this country. It also criticizes the government because its refusal to introduce short-term and long-term programs has resulted in recession-level poverty and social injustice in this country. It seems to me that the facts that are apparent in Canada today fully bear out these grounds for condemnation.
The government's decision to precipitate an economic recession in order to combat inflation has caused injury to the entire society of Canada. However, it has fallen with undue severity upon the depressed areas and segments of our society. When the government decided to curb inflation by precipitating an economic recession, it took no steps whatever to safeguard those areas of Canada which were already adversely affected by economic conditions.
The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) has stated that the government is valiantly trying to combat inflation but that it cannot put any programs to work without reviving that inflation. He went on to say that the members of the New Democratic Party were opposed to any limitation being placed on the incomes of those in certain sectors of the economy. The minister is either not paying any attention to what is going on in the House or he is playing fast and loose with the facts. The members of this party have repeatedly said, and moved motions to the effect, that we believe the government should long ago have imposed a prices and incomes policy.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The only two stipulations we made were that an incomes policy should cover all forms of income, not just wages and salaries but also prices, profits, interest rates and rents, and secondly that it should not freeze those who are on very low incomes but should allow them to be raised to a reasonable level. That is the position we have taken. When the Minister of Manpower and Immigration says they want to curb inflation and stop it, then I ask why on earth do they not get on with the job. No one is stopping them imposing a mandatory prices and incomes policy. If they asked the provinces they would receive the co-operation of most of them. They, of course, have been victims of inflation.
There is no doubt that the government's policy has not only affected employment all over Canada generally but has caused more unemployment in those areas which already had less employment, particularly the province of Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. Now the Prairie provinces, which generally do not have unemployment, have seen a very sharp rise in unemployment.
Not only are regions affected by the government's policy but also segments of society itself, those least able to protect their own interests such as farmers, fishermen, small businessmen and those in the service industries. These have suffered because when the government started its policy of fiscal and monetary restraint it did nothing to make sure the areas already adversely affected were not subjected to still further depression. This government has forsaken the basic goals set by the federal government and the governments of all the provinces at the end of the Second World War. When the war was over, we started out to build a new Canada and all governments agreed there were two goals toward which we should move. The first was full employment with a high level of income. The second was the right of every Canadian no matter where he or she may live to enjoy a high standard of health, education and welfare services. I point out, although it is unnecessary to do so, that the government certainly has failed in respect of this first objective. The government has not managed to obtain full employment. This is shown by the latest figures issued by the government.
The unemployment figure for October is shown as 419,000. That does not include those persons receiving training, farm labourers, or the women and a number of other people who drop out of the labour market through sheer frustration. The total would probably represent half a million people. But the figure of 419,000 is 105,000 higher than the total for the previous year. The most unfortunate part of the statistics is that 188,000 of the unemployed are young people 24 years of age and under. This afternoon the minister boasted about the large sums of money the government is paying for training. We in this party support these expenditures for training. For years we advocated the setting up of a manpower training department. Certainly, we will continue to support such a vote and give the minister all the co-operation we can. But that is only part of the program. If you train people you must have jobs when their training is completed. At the rate we are spending money on training without any programs to provide jobs, we will have the most highly trained unemployed force in the world and we will develop a race of perpetual students and perpetual trainees.
The fact is that we now have pockets of poverty all across Canada. The situation is worse in some provinces than in others. The Economic Council of Canada says that between 4 million and 5 million people live on or below the poverty line and that more than 3 million people live in a state of deprivation. In other words, 7 million or 8 million Canadians are unable to enjoy the full employment and high level of income we started out to establish 25 years ago. The tragedy, however, is that this poverty is concentrated mainly in certain areas of Canada and particularly in the poorer provinces. The government in the course of this debate probably will tell us that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is solving this problem. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that the effectiveness of the government's program to reduce regional disparity is not measured by the amount

November 18, 1970

of grants given to large corporations. It is measured by the results.
On November 16 this year, in an answer to a question asked by my colleague the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton), we find that by the use of the Regional Development Incentives Act some $95.5 million has provided 17,284 jobs. That I believe is an average of some $5,500 of capital investment per job. But let us look at the unemployment picture issued by the Economic Council of Canada. In Table 3 of their report we find that in 1970 the increase in the number of persons employed is
77.000.	That is the lowest increase since 1958 when we actually had a deficit. The tragic thing is that of those
77.000	persons employed, about two-thirds were in the province of Ontario. In the Atlantic provinces, the increase is only 1,000. In the Prairies there is an increase of 1,000. In the province of Quebec there is an increase of
3.000	and in the province of Ontario an increase of
49.000.	Measured by those statistics, the government's program for removing regional disparity is a colossal failure.
This afternoon when speaking on behalf of the government the minister commented on the concern which has been expressed by both the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance. No one is complaining about the lack of expressions of concern. But what we are complaining about is the lack of action and the lack of concrete programs and specific policies that will help get the economy going, put the unemployed to work and remove the pockets of poverty that obtain all across this country. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration said it is up to the private sector to make the decisions about investment. Now, we have another scapegoat. Some time ago it was labour because it would not agree to freezing wages and salaries while interest rates and profits went sky high. Now, the scapegoat is to be the private sector which is not prepared to make the necessary investment decisions.
Let us look at the Department of Regional and Economic Expansion. We find that the large part of the expenditures which they have made, about two thirds of them, consist of grants which were paid to United States corporations. In the period to the end of 1969 they have paid to foreign corporations $46,176,000, and to Canadian firms only $20,877,000. Some of these companies received these grants from the government by closing a plant, for instance, in Oshawa and opening another one in Hawkesbury as did Duplate of Canada, which is hardly likely to help reduce regional disparity.
[DOT] (4:20p.m.)
If we are going to deal with the problem of regional disparity, it seems to me we have to do something more than make grants to manufacturing firms. We have to deal with community involvement. We have to deal with industries that are indigenous to the community. We have to be prepared not to wait, as the minister says the government is doing, for the private sector to make investment decisions. We should be prepared to work through Crown corporations federally and provincially.
Employment Programs
We should be prepared to help support co-operatives, farmers and fishermen's co-operatives, for the processing of their own products. We should be prepared to support community feeder lots, sawmill operations, tourism, food processing, and not rely entirely on persuading large corporations to come into a community where, in many cases, their sole purpose is to pay low wages and have very little relationship with the community itself.
I think the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has failed to state clearly what its objectives are and what its criteria are. I have in my hand the third report and review of the Canadian Council on Rural Development which was submitted to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) in July of this year. I do not have the time to quote from it extensively, but I am sure that every member who has read it will realize that it is a very trenchant criticism of the way that department is being operated. Page 63 of the report reads:
In the first place, a development programme of any kind needs to identify with reasonable precision its goals and objectives. Secondly, programmes must be instituted consistent with these goals and objectives. These programs must be continuously evaluated both in terms of their effectiveness and in terms of priorities.
The next page reads:
There is no evidence that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has, thus far, established this kind of objective basis for its programmes. There is a possibility that the department may come to measure its own success in terms of how many grants it has provided to industries, how many factories have located in designated areas, how many jobs have been created, and so forth. This can lead to maintaining programmes that should not be continued, or only in revised form, but also to termination of reduction of programmes without adequate rationale. The undoubted uncertainty and confusion about the value and effectiveness of the ARDA programme over its years of existence can be traced in very significant degree to this lack of precise definition of targets and objectives in the context of a plan.
It seems quite apparent that if the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is to be effective, it must be increasingly concerned about the infrastructure of the communities in order that the whole milieu of the depressed area can be assisted by the department and by an infusion of public funds. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration said today that the government is waiting for the private sector to make investment decisions. But when it makes those investment decisions, there is no guarantee that those decisions will benefit the depressed areas of this country. I wonder if the government has given any thought to the program which the Swedish government introduced many years ago, called the capital investment reserves program. It seems to me that this is something at which the government ought to look. Under that program in Sweden any company can take up to 45 per cent of its undistributed profits and deposit them with the bank of Sweden, draw interest on that money, withdraw the money any time it likes, but must pay income corporation tax on it. But if a company is prepared to draw that money at a time when the economy is slack and to invest it in areas where the government requires development, then it can withdraw
November 18, 1970

Employment Programs
those capital investment reserves without paying the tax on the money which it has deposited. During the time that I, along with a group of economists, spent a month studying this and other policies in Sweden, I was tremendously impressed with the fact that they have been able to move industries into more depressed areas and to control the location of industries. The result has been that they have been able to maintain a very high degree of employment and of economic activity.
I want to go on to another question but since I see that my time is almost up may I read the amendment that I propose to move? If the House will let me spend just a few minutes on it, I would like to do so.
I move:
That the motion be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma, and by adding immediately thereafter the following words:
"and this House condemns the government for aggravating these conditions by its policy of opting out of its responsibility to be involved in the maintenance of national standards in health, welfare and education.
I began by saying that 25 years ago the governments federally and provincially had set two goals: full employment and a high level of income and national standards of health, welfare and education. I am contending in this amendment that the goverment has aggravated the situation by continuously opting out of many of the programs which were designed to maintain national standards.


Mr. Caccia:: Come on.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I
remind the hon. member who said "come on" that the government opted out of the winter works program, of construction grants for hospitals and of capital grants for technical educational training. It stopped giving the $500 for the construction of new homes which helped to get homes built in many of the depressed areas, and post secondary education grants have been discontinued.


Otto Emil Lang: We are spending more than ever.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, but it is costing more than ever. This is exactly what the government is doing to the poor provinces of Canada. They are saying "we are discontinuing these shared programs. But we are making tax transfers by giving to the provinces some additional points of the income and corporation tax".


Otto Emil Lang: That is equalization.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The fact is that the poorer provinces do not get the same benefit from an additional number of points on income and corporation tax, and they are the very provinces that need more than other provinces because they are so far behind. The government has now accepted that it is proper to have a variety of standards across this country with respect to health, welfare and educational services.

The government keeps talking about unity. There is nothing that will destroy national unity so quickly as for Canadians in one part of the country to know that their children will have fewer and less adequate educational, health and welfare standards than children have in some other part of Canada. If Canadians are to feel they are part of this country they must know that, no matter in what part of Canada they reside, they are going to be entitled to certain national standards, particularly with respect to health, welfare and education.
Every move made by the government has been to make it more difficult for the poorer provinces and easier for the wealthy provinces. The Minister of Finance told the House about the extra money he was giving to the provinces, yet I noticed in the speech made in the Manitoba Legislature last June by the Provincial Treasurer of that province, he said that:
-Manitoba will not receive any more money now on the basis of this adjustment. In fact we may receive less from the equalization factor than we had estimated on the basis of earlier federal data.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but he has had his full time under the special order made earlier this day by the House, and indeed a few minutes extra because the Chair felt this would have been agreed to by other hon. members in view of the amendment that the hon. member was moving. If it is now agreeable, before I see the next speaker, I should put the amendment moved by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), as follows:
That the motion be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma, and by adding immediately thereafter the following words:
"and this House condemns the Government for aggravating these conditions by its policy of opting out of its responsibility to be involved in the maintenance of national standards in health, welfare and education."


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that this motion makes it possible for us to clearly assess the situation, to analyze the government action and to bring in constructive suggestions. It is not because special circumstances seem to give the government a comforting cover that we should forget the situation which exists now in our country.
The gross disparities alluded to in the motion under consideration are so obvious that we wonder whether we live in such a large and rich country where life is so enjoyable. In fact, the disparities between the privileged classes of society and the various categories of workers, of pensioners, in short the disparities between French Canadians and English Canadians, are inconceivable.
Mr. Speaker, a quick analysis of this situation, shows us that there is no concentration of effort to reach an agreement between the propertied classes and the workers to make everyone feel really good and ready to contribute to the best of this ability, to the progress and the development of our people.
November 18, 1970

How can such flagrant income disparities be explained? Some citizens receive an annual income of $6,000, $7,000, $8,000, $10,000 or even $20,000 while others live on salaries of $1,200 and $1,500. How can such a situation exist? The figures are here to prove that it does and they are bewildering. Union activities have succeeded in obtaining reasonable wages in most trades. However, there is still a great number of workers who would rather forfeit their starvation wages and go to the nearest social welfare office to pick up the slim allowance cheque. When one has lost taste for work and effort, we can only fear the unforseeable and disastrous consequences of such decadence.
It is therefore in order to wonder, with regard to the present situation, what the government has done to check such decadence. We can clearly see that the government has not done anything and that the situation still prevails.
The inequality between the large and the small family is, in my view, the most flagrant injustice. We have reached the point where we accept the fact that "large family" means poverty and "small family" means affluence and wealth. And yet, the worthiest, the noblest and the most important contribution of Canadians to their nation is the one they make through their blood: their children.
When considering the millions of dollars we pour into immigration, one wonders where the logic is. Family allowances are still at a ridiculously low level although several opposition members, particularly from the Rallie-ment creditiste, have repeatedly asked that something be done about it.
Such disparity, such inequity which affects the very core of a nation, namely the family, seems to me most revolting.
Publicity is used to lure immigrants to this country. I have nothing against immigrants, but I wish we would start exercising sound and well-ordained charity to provide our citizens who do not have to adjust to our country, because they were born here with at least the possibility of bringing up their children properly and turning them into assets for the common good.
Inequality is found also in welfare measures, including unemployment insurance. A white paper on unemployment insurance was tabled and we hope that the problem can be solved once for all.
Somewhat foolish rules result in officials telling the unemployed: Unfortunately, you have no more stamps; it is over, go back home, you can receive no more payments. And yet that person must continue to live and to provide for his dependents, if any. What has been done in this connection? A white paper has been issued. We shall wait for the concrete results of this policy.
As for inequality between Canadians, depending on their ethnic origin, it is useless to insist on this subject. An inquiry on bilingualism and biculturalism has given fantastic statistics on this subject which could explain several embarrassing situations which now plague Canada.
Employment Programs
It is inadmissible that salaries should vary depending on the ethnic origin of the employee and yet this situation which exists in Quebec, in the Montreal area, is defended by a number of Liberal members who seem unaware of what is going on before their eyes and who are always ready to criticize those really willing to contribute to the economic growth, to the welfare and to the emancipation of all Canadians whatever their ethnic origin.
In connection with this situation, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the government are boasting about the extraordinary fight they have been waging against inflation.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
We still do not know exactly what this fight consisted of, even though we heard about it many many times. This quixotic fight which they claimed to have won, brought no concrete changes in the life of the Canadian people. Why wage a fight which gives no results? And only the arrogance of the government and of the Prime Minister seem satisfied. For the people the same situation prevails, when it is not a defeat.
The action of the government boils down to pious wishes which, in theory, seem to be attainable ideals. The just society, we await it, we have awaited it, and we will continue to await it. We are ready to co-operate closely in order to achieve it, but until now, it has simply seemed to be very pious wishes and nebulous theories, and we do not know exactly where this is going to lead us.
The action of the government has also consisted in answering by a definite no to the provinces which were trying to solve, through tax reforms or others, the special problems of each region. And, as a matter of fact, the motion blames the government for not doing that.
The action of the government only went as far as to tell the provinces, "Go back home, and if you need more money, collect more taxes. We do what we have to do; you do the same". In theory, this looked like a solution to the problem, but we know that when it comes to putting into practice the principles of federalism, wich they would like to be well alive and quite co-operative, and which they adorn with all kinds of adjectives, they give flat noes as answers to the provinces.
There is also the systematic and intentional increase in unemployment. This is the worst scheme, the most disastrous action, and they are beginning to boast about it. They boast that they are solving the problem of inflation by intentionally increasing the number of unemployed. That beats all, Mr. Speaker, and nevertheless the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has every chance, every opportunity to take more popular measures which would solve the real problems.
Some action was taken by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion which, admittedly, was rather effective in certain cases. There is still, however, something mysterious in the designation of special zones, and one wonders why they bother to say that a community or
1300

November 18, 1970
Employment Programs
area is designated as a special zone, when problems are known to affect all regions and all areas. This may be only window-dressing at times, but it seems that a certain effort has been made in this connection.
We now come to our suggestions, because it is not enough to criticize and to establish facts; we must act. As usual, our suggestions are clear, precise, concrete, even though we are accused of bringing forward vague solutions. They keep saying that without ever taking the trouble to specify what is vague about those solutions.
Making available to citizens money and real credit, corresponding to the real guarantees the country possesses, there lies the open secret, something very simple, and we come back to the suggestions implicit in the principle that it is money that should serve the citizen and not the citizen who should serve money.
Mr. Speaker, let us take as a starting point what the Prime Minister himself advocated in 1954, and not the statements emanating from the leader of the NDP. As the leader of the Ralliement creditiste (Mr. Caouette) said this week, let us take as a starting point a statement made in 1954 by the Prime Minister, as follows: "Happily, there is a remedy that can be applied instantly, at the first sign of weakness in the national economy: it is to stimulate purchases by putting more money into the hands of the consumers."
It may seem unbelievable, but our present Prime Minister said that in 1954.
Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to fully agree with that statement which had already been made by another one of his predecessors, Mackenzie King. All we want is that this be done. Let there be a declaration of war on inflation, but let the choice of weapons be the right one.
To go moose hunting, one does not use a slingshot or a peashooter. Therefore, in order to really fight inflation, the best weapon should be to increase the purchasing power to increase consumption and, consequently, give an invigorating shot-in-the-arm to all producing businesses. That is still what we suggest.
It is possible to ease the burden of provinces and municipalities by giving them access to the Bank of Canada.
Will they finally answer that question? Why do the premiers of Quebec and of other provinces have to go and ask permission of New York bankers to build a dam, a bridge or a school? On account of what principle do we cringe to that extent? Is it because we have no guarantee? Have we not enough resources in our country to guarantee the actual credit that we want and advocate? We should put an end to that stupid procedure under which we have to ask foreigners permission to do something here.
It is not because they have never been implemented that our suggestions are wrong! That is the kind of argument we always hear: Money does not grow on trees; if that solution were adequate, it would have been applied elsewhere. We must apply it for the first time. Before the caveman saw a wheel for the first time he had
to imagine one and build it. It is not because other people did not think of that solution that one should not apply it.
When a policy to abolish inequalities will be considered, when a concrete policy will be suggested to provide everyone with the strict minimum, when we become convinced that our country has everything to provide everyone with this strict minimum, we will have found the solution.
To conclude, we urge the government to implement some if not all of the basic principles which we have been advocating for many years. I said it before in this House, we have no exclusive rights on the monetary reform we advocate. The government is quite free to draw inspiration from it. We will support it in its task. We must stop thinking about the advisability of doing one thing or another and listen to those who advocate it.
The pretense that our party represents only a few constituencies does not justify saying that what we are advocating is not good. We must stop living in the clouds and identifying the whole government with one man who pretends to be in the limelight and finds nothing better to do than to cover his head with feathers and play drums to draw the attention of the people of this country. It is time to end such childishness and to tackle the basic problems. We have to mix with people, know their opinions, their problems, their aspirations. We must listen to the people and muster everything in order to give to all Canadian citizens the possibility of looking forward to better days.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, in this country we are faced today with a very formidable taks, that of providing 500,000 additional jobs by this winter and in the future to keep unemployment at an acceptable level of around 3 per cent of the work force. Today my leader, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), very ably outlined the steps which the government must take to stimulate the economy and make it possible for additional industrial activity to provide additional jobs for our people. Mr. Speaker, I intend to deal, in the few minutes which are available to me this afternoon, with one particular aspect of the problem facing us, and that is the difficult task of providing the jobs which we need in the underdeveloped areas of this country where unemployment is considerably higher than in the other parts of the country.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the best way to increase employment in such areas is to work out a means by which we can attract more manufacturing industry, which is, of course, by far the greatest employer of labour, to those areas. That, of course, raises the question, can this be done? The answer is yes. The other question, "Well then, how can that be brought about", I intend to deal with now.
It has been obvious for many years that we have been shipping overseas a far too large proportion of the raw materials which we produce, for people in other countries

November 18, 1970

to process into finished products, which mean for them the great benefits of employment and profits which accrue from manufacturing. This loses for us, in Canada, those benefits which I believe can and should be ours.
We all know, Mr. Speaker, that we in this country possess all the ingredients which are necessary to make this country into one of the really great industrial nations of the world. We have the raw materials, the cheap power, the transportation, and the skilled manpower. We have a certain amount of capital of our own, and we have proved that we can attract additional capital from the outside world without too much difficulty. What we need is far more manufacturing industry in this country to transform a far greater proportion of the raw materials which we produce into finished products.
How can we bring this about? I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it can be done by means of an industrial development incentives plan which would offer such generous incentives to companies which have proved their ability to manufacture successfully, both in Canada and in other parts of the world, that they will decide it is to their financial advantage to establish plants in areas which the federal government would designate, areas which need industry to balance their economies and make them less dependant on their production of primary products.
Despite the introduction of the government's regional development program, persistent unemployment of around 10 per cent in the Atlantic provinces, in Quebec and in British Columbia shows very clearly that, with the exception of the larger cities in those areas, there has been far too little development of manufacturing industry which, as I said, is by far the greatest producer of employment. It is obvious that the incentive which the government has offered has not appeared to be sufficiently rewarding to attract the number of new industries which we need to keep employment at a satisfactory level in those areas, and that an additional incentive is required. I have no quarrel with the government's plan. It simply is not enough, and that has been proven by the unemployment figures prevalent in our country today. The plan I am going to suggest would act in addition to the government's plan, and would not interfere with it in any way.
In working out such an additional incentive, we must remember that unless what we offer is sufficiently attractive to persuade companies that it is well worth their while to establish plants in those areas where we need them, they will simply decide not to establish plants in such areas. The taxes and the employment which would have been available to those localities will simply not materialize.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I believe that the kind of incentive which industries need to persuade them to operate in areas not normally considered to be economically attractive must convince those industries that two things will happen. First, they will be able to make a satisfactory profit. Second, they will be able to obtain the additional capital they need at a cost which they can afford to pay. I will deal with each in turn.
Employment Programs
The kind of incentive which I believe will convince industry that the first condition will be met, is freedom from paying taxes, federal, provincial and municipal, for the first ten years of operation, and a graduated scale of taxation for the next 15 years. After 25 years of operation, they will pay full taxes. As a large proportion of taxes are provincial and municipal, concurrence of the province and, through them the municipalities, will be necessary to make the policy work. However, these taxes are not now being paid, because the industries in question do not exist and will not exist unless they are persuaded that it is worth while for them to establish in these slow growth areas. I am sure that the prospective construction, employment and future taxes will persuade the provinces and municipalities that the plan makes possible such attractive prospects for the future they will agree to participate in it. Any province or municipality which does not wish to enter the plan would, of course, be free to stay out.
To enable municipal governments to finance the cost of services which would have to be installed to enable these new plants to operate, the federal government should make available loans at no more than 5 per cent interest and payable in 25 years. Although this would impose a cost of 5 per cent on the municipalities, I am convinced that the construction; additional sales by merchants in the district; the employment which would provide taxes to the municipalities instead of having to pay welfare; additional house-building, and a great many other benefits which would accrue to the locality, would more than compensate the locality concerned for the payment of the 5 per cent interest on the cost of producing the necessary services.
The second requirement, that of being able to obtain the capital that industry needs at a rale that it can afford to pay, would be met by investment in the enterprise by the Canada Development Corporation when it comes into existence, which I hope will be soon. I believe that participation by the CDC as a minority shareholder in any of these enterprises which need additional capital would be an excellent kind of investment for the Corporation to make. I stress minority position because it is essential that the government should not get into the business of running industries, and should rely on the management skills of already proven enterprises to successfully direct the new plants which would come into existence through the introduction of the development incentive.
I am convinced that the plan I have outlined will be sufficiently attractive to persuade many successful producers, both in Canada and in other parts of the world, that it will be worth while for them to establish additional plants in this country, close to sources of raw materials. I have discussed this plan with a great many industrialists that I know and with whom I have had dealings in the past, both as a minister of the government and in private business. They have told me that they believe a plan of this kind would be extremely attractive and practical, and that it would persuade many industries in Canada and outside the country to establish in areas which would be designated by the government.
23568-12}

November 18, 1970
Employment Programs
Because taxes from which the new developing companies will be freed for the first 25 years are not being paid now, nor will they be paid unless the companies concerned find the government's offer sufficiently attractive to persuade them to establish additional operations in these slow growth areas, the plan will not impose any cost on the governments concerned, nor on the taxpayers of Canada.
I believe that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) should now call a federal-provincial conference, which should include representatives of the provincial mayors and reeves associations, to discuss the details of a development incentive which will be sufficiently attractive to persuade the manufacturing industry to establish plants in areas which badly need industry to balance their basically primary product economics, and overcome seriously rising unemployment. When the policy has been agreed upon, it should be put into practice at the earliest possible moment.


John Gilbert: Will the hon. member permit a question?


George Harris Hees: I will be glad to.


John Gilbert: I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member on his proposed plan to aid industry in certain areas. Will the hon. member give consideration to imposing restrictions with regard to foreign companies, because experience in Ontario has shown that moneys from the Ontario government have primarily gone to American firms rather than Canadian firms. If the intent of many American firms is just to serve the domestic market rather than to develop an export trade, it may have harmful effects. Has the hon. member given consideration to a plan whereby if moneys are given, priority should be given to Canadian companies and restrictions imposed on American companies?


George Harris Hees: I am glad the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) has asked that question. In the plan I have outlined I have made it very clear that this would not cost the federal government or any government concerned one penny. At the present time, the additional industries do not exist in these areas of slow growth. They will not exist unless a plan is offered to them that is so attractive they will decide to establish in these areas. I am hoping that when companies, particularly those outside of this country, start to operate, the only cost will be that of providing services for the operation concerned. I
I have said that would be paid for by a loan from the government at 5 per cent interest, which the government can well afford. I believe the municipalities can well afford the 5 per cent interest because of the additional benefits which will accrue through additional construction and employment. People will be earning wages instead of living on welfare provided by the municipalities. Additional people will move to the municipalities, housebuilding will increase, and there will be other benefits.
This plan is good because it does not require any money to be given to companies which will establish in these areas. The companies are simply told if they will do something which is needed and is not being done now, namely manufacturing, we will not charge taxes anywhere near the level the company would normally pay, for a certain number of years. This is a tremendous incentive. Industrialists have told me that this is very attractive to them. It is not giving anything away. If we do not do this, the taxes will not be available because the industries will not establish themselves in these areas.


Mr. Peters:: Could I ask the hon. member-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may ask a question. I am sure the hon. member is anxious to reply to the question. I suggest to the hon. member that he might address his reply to the Chair.


George Harris Hees: My apologies, Mr. Speaker. I got carried away.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not want to complicate matters, but the hon. member's time has expired. If hon. members wish to continue with questions to the hon. member, it requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (5:10p.m.)


William Arnold Peters: I was very interested in the program which the hon. member has outlined, and the novel approach he has suggested. I was wondering whether he contemplated some special concession to industries which locate in depressed areas rather than in areas which support most of the major industry in this country.


George Harris Hees: Yes, I mentioned that, Mr. Speaker. I said this plan would be available only in areas which the federal government would designate as under-developed areas, and that it would be available only to companies which would locate in such areas.


Mr. Speaker:: Before calling upon the hon. member for Provencher may I welcome to the table the new and very distinguished Third Clerk Assistant, Mr. Antonio Plouffe.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Mark Smerchanski (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I feel the present government has been generous in its legislation providing incentives for industry. But we have to realize that no government can solve all the problems of the under-developed rural sections of Canada. This task must be undertaken in co-operation with the business community and with the assistance of labour.
There seems to be a feeling on the part of some of our labour unions that they are not permitted to undertake and develop new enterprises. I would urge not only the
[Mr. Hees.l
November 18, 1970

13Q3
business world but the labour unions to join the rest of Canada and the various governments at federal and provincial levels in helping to develop the rural parts of this country. This is not a task which should be left to any particular government or to any particular segment of society; the co-operation of all segments is needed. I believe that if some of the money which union organizations presently remit to the United States were retained in Canada and used here as a starter for equity capital to establish new industries, a great deal of employment could be created.
The Department of Regional Economic Expansion has been providing a large proportion of the dollars spent on setting up the services required before new industry can establish itself in under-developed areas. The department has spent a great deal of money on hydroelectric power installations, roads, water supplies, sewage installations and other services required by a normal, operating community. There is no basis whatever for opposition statements that nothing has been done in this connection. I question very much whether more industry would be attracted, even if more generous grants were made. If the government becomes more generous, the tendency is to say: this is government money and it need not be spent with any degree of efficiency. I could give some examples to the House by way of illustration. An outstanding example is the heavy water plant in Nova Scotia. Here is a plant which cost several hundred millions of dollars, for which funds were made available. The design and engineering were inadequate as the basis for a properly operating plant, and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion was eventually called upon to advance further financial help. A large additional amount was then spent on redesigning and reconstructing the project. The plant is now successful, but the cost per job turned out to be in the order of $8,000 or $9,000, far above the average amount required to provide employment in the rural parts of Canada.
Opposition speakers have suggested that new industries locating in under-developed areas should not be required to pay taxes of any kind for a period of ten years. But who will be called upon to pay the additional cost of the auxiliary services such as roads, water, sewers, power lines, schools and so on which go to make up a viable economic and social unit? These are the services normally provided by municipal governments, and they are extremely costly. To say that the money will be advanced by the federal government at 5 per cent means that somebody in our social structure will be called upon to pay higher taxes. I, for one, feel that taxes today are already far too high.
There is a tendency on the part of certain members of our society to speak too glibly and too freely of welfare. It is encumbent on every Canadian to encourage his fellow men to be independent, to find their own way and to resort to welfare only when it is really needed. I know that many hon. members have personal experience of instances when welfare funds have been abused; out of every dollar spent, less than 50 cents finds its way into the hands of those who really need help. In my view, Mr. Employment Programs
Speaker, the initiative shown by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has led to one of the finest and best types of incentive program we have ever seen in Canada. If the opposition feel they can improve on it, fine and dandy.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
This afternoon I listened very attentively to the argument supporting the contention that we should be more generous with our incentives. I am not convinced. I am not convinced because I, too, am associated with others in my constituency who have shown some initiative in creating new industry. These are people who have had to pioneer new industry in the same way as our forefathers built this country. This is the type of person we need to develop the business world in Canada and to create new industry.
We have the people and we have the motivation. I think it is now a question of a little more education. At the present time our incentive program is conducive to establishing new industry. For example, where else could any member of this House today set up a new industry and be given a 50 per cent grant? Suppose I was prepared to invest $1 in a certain industry, having worked out my rate of return spread over 7, 10 or 12 years, the federal government through its Department of Regional Economic Expansion would be prepared to give me a grant of up to 50 per cent of my cost, with no strings attached except that I must stay in business for three years. If I have no intention of staying in business for more than three years, then I should not start any kind of business.
The financial incentives presently offered by the government are good ones. However, I think there is one thing we have lacked. I should like to ask every member of this House, to how many of his constituents has he explained the incentive program in a proper and precise way. I wonder how many members have even seen the application form issued by the department. A high percentage of applicants in my area have been successful in getting grants, thus creating a substantial number of new jobs. Every new job creates revenue in the form of deductions for personal income tax, sales tax, municipal tax and insurance costs. In addition to that there is added cash flow in the community. All of these factors build a broader base for the economy and contribute more tax dollars to the coffers of the provincial and federal governments.
During the last day or so there has come across the desks of all hon. members a booklet entitled "Financing Canadian Industries," prepared by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. May I again congratulate the department for taking the time to analyse in crystal clear fashion just what is involved in the financing of Canadian industries. The booklet explains what is equity, what is risk capital, what is loan capital. It also outlines some of the provincial agencies, all of which are anxious and willing to support anybody who is prepared to start an industry but able to put up only 50 cents on the

November 18, 1970
Employment Programs
dollar. Indeed, in the case of large industries, I dare say you need to put up only 10 to 15 cents on the dollar.
In the foreword to this booklet, which I think is absolutely terrific, is this passage:
These are but a few of the questions to which the businessman may have to find answers. This booklet, in providing information and suggestions, may be of some assistance.
There is nothing in Canada to prevent any member of this House, or any member of the industrial or business community, from setting up new industry and thus providing employment for our people. Nevertheless, there seems to be a tendency on the part of some of our academics to criticize, to nip at the heels as a dog nips at the heels of a cow, and to find fault with a program that is one of the best. It has been said that for some Ph.D.'s there will be no assurance that they will be able to find employment. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition whether these academics are not trained to lead the people of Canada. Are they not trained to be leaders in the community? Can they not create new industry and provide new employment? Can they not create new sources of tax for the government? Why should anyone find a job for them? Why do they not create jobs for themselves as well as for others? Is that not the proper and responsible way of living?
I think my time has expired, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the House for its indulgence.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part in this debate during which will be discussed most particularly the possibility of checking poverty and of removing by the same token a social injustice now widespread in Canada. It was quite normal to discuss this matter in the present context, in view of the difficulties we are facing now.
It is clear that every responsible government has the duty to create a climate of confidence. Certainly, it is difficult to create such a climate when we know that about 30 per cent of the Canadian people now live in poverty. In the last few years, insecurity has become prevalent here in Canada as well as the deterioration of the social environment.
As far as young people are concerned, they refuse to identify themselves with society. How could they agree to it blindly? In fact they have lost confidence not only in Parliament but also in its individual members.
The difficulties we are facing now may be due to the rapid evolution we have undergone in the past few years. It seems that youth craves liberty very much. To my mind, it is not only by dictatorial legislation that we will succeed in establishing a new atmosphere of confidence. The mere passage of legislation will not endow our society with a better way of life than the one we are enjoying at the present time.
I believe that it is the responsibility of the government to adopt the measures likely to fulfil the aspirations of Quebecers and all other Canadians.

It might be advisable to convene, as soon as possible, a summit meeting made up of representatives of the federal and provincial governments and of labour and management associations. Such a meeting would enable responsible members to discuss our present problems. In my view, such a meeting is necessary because it would represent not only the interests of governments but also those of the Canadian community. In fact, it would be beneficial to everyone.
Has the government really tried to give, for instance, to the young people, that freedom they are craving for, and which is the product of an evolution experienced throughout the world and not only in Quebec or in other regions of Canada? Has the government done its utmost to enable them to find summer employment?
I know that we spend millions, and I would even say that this is wasted money in some cases, to allow a certain number of young people to find summer jobs. Some people have suggested the establishment of compulsory military service, thought I do not feel that through such a dictatorial law we could solve this problem or satisfy youth.
I have always considered that the majority of our young people are full of good faith and prepared to build a better Canada. I have thought that a disciplinary training service, with pay, would perhaps be required, or at least valuable. We could in this set up mix business with pleasure, as people often say, allow all young Canadians, over the summer period, to join voluntarily this training service which would give them a certain discipline and would train men for peaceful purposes instead of training soldiers to wage war.
But who would be responsible for that disciplinary service? Would it be the federal government or the provinces? I would be inclined to think that the federal government should make some funds available to the provinces anxious to make use of such a service, ensuring to those young people an income which would enable them to continue their studies while giving them the opportunity of attaining manliness, as we all wish.
Such a service should be voluntary, because we have to take into account businessmen and farmers who need their children during the summer to work at home. But a responsible government could, through such an initiative, enable each province to take advantage of such a service and would allow thousands of young people to earn an income sufficient to improve their education and also practice the elementary discipline to which we must all submit in this world.
Since this would be a voluntary service, it would allow young people to reach university level with an excellent record. Application of this program would not involve a much greater cost to the taxpayer, since the young people, having earned an adequate income during the summer, would not need to apply to provincial governments for scholarships.
This program would give us an opportunity really to assess our young people and to know exactly how many of them want, not merely training, but work, and the experience of earning a dollar and investing it in themselves and the community as a whole.
November 18, 1970

This formula could help to improve the difficult situation we are now witnessing. Unemployment and poverty co-exist and there is talk of checking poverty.
In the name of inflation, thousands of unemployed have unfortunately been created, unemployed who still cost the government, directly or indirectly, about $100 a week. I have always thought that a citizen who works regularly is of far greater advantage to the government.
I find it hard to understand exactly to what extent, in the name of inflation, our economy can be stabilized again while the expense is being allowed of up to $100 a week per unemployed who could otherwise still work and be worth something to Canada.
Yet, the winter works programs were allowed to go by the board without hesitation. I had thought that, under the circumstances, supplementary credits would be granted hurriedly to provinces and municipalities in order to allow them to carry out priority projects and this at special rates. It is unthinkable that we continue to tolerate borrowing at exaggerated rates. I venture to believe that the government is as aware of these possibilities as we are. Indeed, the purpose of this debate is not necessarily to criticize the government, but to allow each member to contribute in finding a solution-however small-liable to reestablish the stability of society.
All members are aware of the reduced credits allocated to various departments and Agriculture was not spared. It was sad to let some producers fall into unemployment by cutting subsidies for agricultural production, which did not leave them any other recourse than social welfare. Suggestions were made by opposition members. I had the pleasure of saying a few words on the question, Mr. Speaker, but we did not win.
I hope that knowing what conditions prevailed last spring, the government will do something. As lately as yesterday, I did not agree to a reduction of some subsidies. On the contrary, producers forced to abandon agriculture for serious motives should be given an alternative. I think the responsible government was under the obligation of creating jobs, giving retraining programs and offering advance pensions. Finally, this has often been mentioned before a subsidy reduction was considered.
We hope the government will change its mind and favour that position, particularly with regard to the working class.
As I am dealing with social injustice, in the next few minutes, I would like to talk about amendments to the constitution. The subject may not seem related to the matter now at issue, but it has a connection with the social climate we have to create.
Our constitution must be changed because it is outdated, no doubt about that. In fact, a number of Canadians, both in and outside Quebec, cannot accept the idea that federalism in its present form can provide well-being in Canada. I
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that young people in particular will no longer be satisfied, as they have been up
Employment Programs
to now, with unacceptable compromises. More than ever, I think that the members of this House will have to be very honest with our youth.
As a consequence of the government's hesitation in introducing certain changes, we are now facing the problems of poverty and social injustice. And these problems make the members of this House vulnerable in the eyes of both the young and the rest of the Canadian people.
We have the responsibility to create an atmosphere of confidence for all. It is surely a great challenge to take up, but it is needed. By being more administrators than politicians, we will succeed together in creating this climate of confidence. We will succeed if we apply ourselves to the protection of our industries by adopting certain measures which would give them some necessary incentives.
No doubt the measures applied by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion are necessary and beneficial, but I think that we have forgotten our industries too long. We have also forgotten to consider the new importance of short-term pump priming in the building trade. Once again, I urge the government to consider seriously removing the 12 per cent tax on building materials and the possibility of paying back some interests to those who have a low or an average income.
My time is running out fast, Mr. Speaker, and I would still have many things to say. I dare hope that these few comments will help the government to eradicate this poverty and social injustice which afflict not only the people of Quebec, but of all Canada.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


William Arnold Peters: I am very pleased that a vote will be taken on the motion introduced by the opposition so that the wish of the House can be expressed on this important matter. We have been very concerned in the last few weeks, particularly those of us who are not as emotionally involved as are others in what has been happening, that some of the problems facing Canada arise not from differences but from the same problems that occur in a number of regional areas in Canada. The fact that for a number of years now regional programs have been in effect to assist in the improvement of parts of Canada on a regional basis, programs which have not achieved their goals, has tempted some hon. members I am sure to take a look at some of the solutions offered by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) in his very interesting speech this afternoon.
Some of the proposals of the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings have been tried out in many countries. Recently, I saw an advertisement for the Bahamas which announced a ten year tax free period for industry locating in that area. The fact is that in many of these countries this tax free period has benefited the development of industry with the result that the area has been faced with the same problems which we had recently in Jamaica. Canadian investment was encouraged in that

November 18, 1970
Employment Programs
country, and then questions were asked as to whether or not the industry was used to the advantage of the depressed area or solely to the advantage of those who benefited from it in the first place.
Before that type of incentive is applied to the depressed areas in Canada, we should consider some of the major problems that are affecting us, one of them being our Canadian sovereignty in terms of industrial development. I come from an area where incentives have been applied for the last five or six years. Hon. members may remember having listened to me on a number of occasions referring to the fact that our area was not designated for special assistance. We looked with a jaundiced eye on some of the areas that were so designated, and after much twisting of arms, the area was designated for a short term under the old program. Now, it is designated under the new program.
Northeastern Ontario continues to lose its population. We are not like other parts of Canada which have been doubling their population. Twenty years from now we may be only a recreation area, and people will be going there to hunt and fish in the clear waters because there will be nobody there to dirty them. I think this is really the purpose of the people of that area. We have improved our education, which is a necessity for the development of industry. Someone may ask: "Why would you want computer technicians in northern Ontario?" I am sure I do not know because we do not have any computers, but we are turning out, through a very beautiful college in Kirkland Lake, computer operators who obviously have to go to Toronto to get a job. The same is true of dozens of courses that are being provided for our young people. We are providing the machinery and the facilities that are necessary. We have many advantages but there are many that we still lack.
The previous speaker mentioned our inability in Canada to solve the constitutional problem. Our federal government is so concerned with giving autonomy to the provinces that any program we design federally is watered down by whatever initiative the provincial government takes in this regard. I remember recently a project approved by the federal development agency which had to be withdrawn because the Ontario government had not put in their share. It would seem to me that if we are going to have a program, surely the two governments should get together to make it possible for some type of equal development of the project to take place. But that is not what happens.
Another problem with which we are faced is lack of co-operation with regard to education. The other day I had a visit from some young students from northern Ontario who attend a technical college there. Their complaint was that they could not obtain a student loan, although the federal government provides that kind of money. Why could they not receive this type of grant? Apparently the answer is that they reside in the province of Quebec. They indicated to me that is only one English school in Quebec where they could have obtained this kind of technical education, so they came to Ontario. Until this year, Ontario has provided them with a grant
as if they were residents of Ontario. This year they are about to complete their courses, but now it is said that because these people live in Quebec that province must make the grant. Mr. Speaker, it is the federal govern-1 ment which provides the money. But Ontario says that because they are now going to a designated school in Ontario, even though there is not one in Quebec, they will not be provided with a grant. As a result, they may have to quit at Christmas. They live 50 or 60 miles from this school. The only other similar school is Dawson College in Montreal, about 400 miles away. It is already full and could not accommodate them.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
One of the methods of solving regional disparity must be the provision of better education. The complaint has been made that new industry must be established in the centre of a large educational pool from which it can draw the technical people it needs. Yet in some areas where the educational facilities have been provided, people have received no other advantage than that of being able to send their children to school in that area. Then, they have had to export the finished product, so to speak, to the industrial markets.
Our record is not good. We have had some new industries established in Northern Ontario. I refer in particular to two announced recently by the Department of Regional Expansion in its "Report on the Operation of the Regional Development Incentives Act for the Period September 1 to September 30, 1970" published on October 14. The first is Ecstall Mining Limited, of Toronto, Ontario. Mr. Speaker, in effect, this is Texas Gulf, one of the largest mining companies on the continent. They have located their new plant at Hoyle, just outside Timmins. The type of industry is an electrolytic zinc plant. The bulletin describes the project as a new facility.
Why is it a new facility? It is because the province of Ontario finally made up its mind that if this company was not going to process the product before exporting it, then the government would not allow them to export it. The estimated capital cost is given as $45,700,000, and estimated employment as 360. What did we offer them? We offered them 11 per cent of the approved capital costs and $2,000 per job. The same company is putting up another plant in the same place, Hoyle Township. The type of industry is described in the bulletin as "roasting and sulphuric acid." It is a new facility, and the estimated capital cost is $17,200,000. Estimated employment will be 90 people. We have offered 11 per cent of the approved capital costs and $2,000 per job. If there was ever a company in this country that did not need such assistance it is that company. Mr. Speaker, that company is well able to look after itself.
We gave that company a tax holiday. We gave it other advantages. All the minerals it is going to mine have belonged to Canada. This is an extensive operation, and in return that company will supply us with 360 jobs in one plant, maybe 400 jobs in the mines, and possibly 90 jobs in the sulphuric acid plant. That's a great big deal, Mr. Speaker! That company could not possibly place

November 18, 1970

these facilities anywhere else. Ontario provincial law made it place them there.
I have looked over the projects listed for Quebec, which is fortunate in having the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) as one of its representatives. Exactly the same picture applies there. There are food processing plants. Obviously, you process the food where you produce it. Then, there are saw mills. Obviously, you cut the logs into lumber where you produce them. I am not objecting to Quebec having these plants. If we have the money to supply them, then all well and good. But, Mr. Speaker, one of these days we will have to take a real look at what we want in the way of regional development.
We will have to assess the cost of putting industries in our major cities, new industries which will involve new subways, new highways, new recreational facilities, and more expensive pollution and environmental control. We will have to weigh all these things, and then decide whether there is an advantage in putting new industry in major cities. Every time I travel beyond a major city I go for at least ten miles before reaching the outskirts of it, and that ten miles is taken up with industrial plants. This is true of Quebec City, Hamilton, Toronto, Montreal, Windsor, Vancouver or any other major city you care to name. Yet in my area a number of mines have been closed down, and some 4,000 to 5,000 people are living in communities that could support small factories employing about 100 people.
It is on this point that the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings is right. If a factory is placed in a small community, and we do not charge the company any taxes for a period of ten years, it will at least keep the 100 people it employs off the welfare rolls. In the mining communities we have the highest welfare rate in the province of Ontario, running somewhere from 4 per cent to 6 per cent. Welfare is our biggest industry. If we did
Employment Programs
not have that kind of welfare the communities would be bankrupt.
If we put a factory in such a community we would have 100 people working. They would pay municipal taxes. They would want new sewers, and new water supply. They might require more buildings, and in that way would generate more employment. For every person employed in the factory, probably two or three others would be employed in service industries. Why can't the municipalities do that now? It is because in Ontario there is a law which says that municipalities are not allowed to write off taxes against new industries. That is a mistake and should be corrected.
Until we really decide we want to maintain growth centres in Canada and put new industries in them, until we decide we are really interested in providing reasonable economic expansion, reasonable educational and health facilities, and all the other things that are included in the benefits of industrial development, we will only be giving handouts to companies that are going to settle in certain areas any way. We will make it easier for those companies, but the taxpayers will derive no benefit from the money spent. The net result will be that the dividend collectors will be really well off.
We in Northern Ontario are getting more advantage from the $10 million that is spent on emergency gold mining assistance than we will get out of most of the projects that are connected with regional expansion. That is a wrong way to proceed, Mr. Speaker. It is a disgrace when a subsidy provides employment which cannot be obtained through other methods.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being six o'clock this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, November 19, 1970